Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, these bills are the same ones I talked about yesterday; the same ones I have talked about today. Every Member of this House of Representatives should support the goal of these important legislative initiatives. My amendment would allow each of them to be considered immediately. The first bill will implement the long-overdue recommendations of the highly respected bipartisan 9/11 Commission. My friends on the other side like to talk about their great record on national security, yet the 9/11 Commission has given them D's and F's for the implementation of their recommendations to better protect our homeland. This would allow that bill to come up immediately. The second bill would allow us to bring the minimum wage up to $7.25 per hour. It has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for 9 years. You have given yourselves pay raise after pay raise after pay raise. How about giving the American worker a pay raise? The third bill would let the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiate for lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and people with disabilities. Why not? What is wrong with free enterprise? What is wrong with doing what the Veterans Administration has done so effectively? Let us get those prices down lower and keep them low. The fourth bill would repeal the massive cuts in college tuition assistance opposed by the Congress, and it will expand the size and availability of Pell Grants. People can't afford to go to college any more, and you have made it more difficult. We say we want a 21st century workforce, that we need to make sure our young people get the education they need, and that means they have to be able to afford to go to college. And, lastly, the fifth bill will roll back the tax breaks for big oil and invest those savings in alternative fuels to achieve energy independence. We are tired of tax break after tax break after tax break and subsidy after subsidy after subsidy for big oil. It is time to be on the side of working families. Mr. Speaker, each of these bills has enormous potential to help the quality of life for tens of millions of deserving hard-working Americans and their families. We have one more day before we adjourn for more than a month. Let's use this opportunity not for suspension bills but for something that will really make a difference in people's lives, to provide people these opportunities by passing this important legislation that will truly help so many. So vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up these measures. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend this rule and allow for the immediate consideration of the five bills that we on this side of the aisle believe will really make a difference to our Nation's working families. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I once again want to express my deep disappointment in the lack of accomplishment of this Congress. I mean, this really is a do-nothing Congress, and there are issues that one would have thought we could have come together in a bipartisan way on, for example, allowing the Federal Government to negotiate cheaper drug prices for our senior citizens that the majority in this House chose not to want to reach out and work with us. There are issues of energy independence that we could have worked together on that they did not want to work with us on. In fact, as I said in the very beginning, every time we have an idea, every time we want to express a different opinion or want to present a different alternative, we go to the Rules Committee and we are told, no, you are not welcome; no, you are not allowed; no, we are going to shut you out. That has been the hallmark of this Congress. This is probably the most closed Congress in the history of the country. I don't remember a time when we have had more closed rules, more restrictive rules than we have in this Congress. I am going to tell you, that is something maybe my friend from Oklahoma wants to take some pride in, but I find that shameful. My expectation is that if the Democrats have the privilege of taking over this Congress, Leader Pelosi has already indicated we will have a whole different tone here, and all ideas, not just Democrat ideas but Republican ideas, will be welcome as well. That is what the American people expect. Every one of us represents the same amount of people in our congressional districts, yet you would never know that when you go to the Rules Committee and people routinely get shut out. We debated a bill on torture, we debated a bill on wiretaps dealing with people's civil liberties, dealing with the values of this country, and people had some strong opinions, not just Democrats but Republicans, and they were told no, no, no, no, no, you have no right to come to the floor and offer your opinion. That is not a democracy. That is not the way this place is supposed to run. This is supposed to be a deliberative body, and we are routinely shut out. I think people are sick of that. People don't want politics as usual. People want a change. They want a new direction. And a new direction is not just in terms of policies but also in terms of tone. My friends on the other side of the aisle run everything. They run the White House, they run the House of Representatives, and they run the Senate. Yet they cannot get things done. They can't even work with their own Members in the other body. So I think it is time for a change to get people put in places of power who are going to actually be not only advocates for working families in this country but who will deliver and who are going to reach out a hand and try to work in a bipartisan way. That doesn't exist here. There is no bipartisanship here at all. There is none. So this talk about we want to work together in the future on this issue or that issue, it has not happened in the past, so why should it happen in the future? Mr. Speaker, before I talk about the previous question, I want to urge Members of this House to vote against this martial law rule. This rule allows the Republican leadership to bring up virtually any piece of legislation with only a few minutes notice to this House. That is just plain wrong. We have no idea what may be coming our way. I mean, they could bring anything up with a few minutes notice. I do not think that is the right way to do business here. I do not think that is the way we should conduct ourselves in the House. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my previous question speech, my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) just came to the floor, and I want to yield him 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my friend. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire from the gentleman from Oklahoma how many more speakers he has on his side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to associate myself with the comments of the gentlewoman from Florida who just spoke. Again, the leadership in this Congress, the majority in this Congress, gave themselves a pay raise, but they cannot bring themselves to giving hardworking American families a pay raise, those who earn the minimum wage. There is something wrong with that equation. The bottom line is we work for the people of this country, and the Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 for 9 years. It is disgraceful; and for 9 years this leadership, this majority has proudly stood to fight against increasing the minimum wage. They should be ashamed of themselves. We give ourselves a pay raise, but we cannot give hardworking American families a pay raise. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just again remind those who may be listening that the Republicans control the White House, they control the House of Representatives, and they control the United States Senate. So if they really wanted to increase the minimum wage, they would be able to do it, but they do not; and if anybody believes that it is in their heart to try to increase the minimum wage somehow after the elections are all over with, I think you are in for a rude awakening. For 9 years, Republicans in Congress proudly refused to raise the minimum wage for hardworking Americans, even as their own pay increased by $31,600. This year the Republicans are playing politics with a pay raise for millions of Americans, killing a minimum wage by attaching it to tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. This is how they chose to kill it this year, and they have been killing it every year for 9 years. I mean, that is their legacy and we need to change that, and hopefully come November that will change. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), a champion for increasing the minimum wage.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend saying he looks forward to working with us. I look forward to the day that the majority decides to work with those of us in the minority in this Congress. You know, one of the frustrations that we have, and, again, we have not been given an answer to this question, is why on some of the most important pieces of legislation that have come before this Congress, issues involving wire tapping, issues involving torture, would these bills be brought to the floor under a closed process when there were Democrats and Republicans both coming before the Rules Committee who wanted to have input, who wanted to make their amendments in order, who had some good ideas. You may not agree with everything. You do not have a monopoly on good ideas. But the fact of the matter is, to shut people down, to just shut everybody out, that not only diminishes this institution, it diminishes this democracy. It is why we believe that there is a culture of corruption that exists in this Congress. You have corrupted this process. You know, my friend likes to say he is very proud of the record of the Republican Congress. Well, the fact of the matter is, he and a handful of others may be the only people who think that this Congress has done a good job. There is a reason why only 25 percent of the American people approve of the job that this Congress is doing. They are disgusted with the lack of accomplishment on issues that make a difference in their lives. I do not know about my colleague from Oklahoma, but when I go home, you know, I have a lot of seniors telling me that they have hit that doughnut hole in the prescription drug bill. They do not know what to do about it. I have a lot of my senior citizens say to me, why in the world will you not give the Federal Government the ability to negotiate lower drug prices for our senior citizens? What is so radical about that? I mean, that is one of those best-business type practices. Why cannot you allow our Government to negotiate lower drug prices for our senior citizens? The reason why is because the people who have funded the Republican National Committee and the campaigns, the pharmaceutical industries, do not want that. There are people asking me all of the time, you know, why has this Congress not implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations to make our country safer? You know, a nonpartisan commission that has set forth an agenda that I think almost everybody agrees with, and yet we cannot implement those recommendations. On the minimum wage, you play politics with the minimum wage. If you cared about the workers of this country who are earning a minimum wage, then you would bring up a minimum wage that would pass. But, no, in order to help low-income workers, you have got to help the richest people in this country. You want to play politics with that issue. The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for 9 years. You do not have the time to give these workers an increase, but yet we can all give ourselves a pay increase. No wonder why the American people are so fed up with this Congress. On student aid, students returning to college continue to confront skyrocketing tuition costs; and yet the Republican Congress made it harder to pay for college by cutting $12 billion in student aid. Congress needs to pass and approve the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that restores the massive cuts in college tuition and expands the size and availability of Pell Grants. You know, why cannot we focus on that? Pass an energy plan that decreases our dependence on foreign oil. Your energy law, you know, written in secret by the Cheney task force and Big Oil and energy lobbyists, gives billions of special interest giveaways to oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits. I mean, yeah, you passed some things but things that really do not make a difference to the average working person out there. So you can be proud of your record in this Congress. But I want to tell you, there is a reason why only 25 percent of the American people approve of the way that this Congress has handled its job. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law rule. It is not unusual for a rush of bills, especially conference reports, to come to the House floor in the final hours before a recess or a final adjournment no matter who holds the majority. We are used to seeing that. But the manner in which this House has conducted business over the past week should be a matter of grave concern to all Members no matter what side of the aisle they sit on. Closed rules have become a norm in this Chamber. Bills that have not gone through committee hearings, markup, or open debate or with a chance for Members to offer and debate thoughtful amendments, bills that magically appear out of thin air with the Republican leadership asking Members to vote ``yes'' on far-reaching legislation that nobody has actually read. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to operate the United States House of Representatives in such a fashion. It demeans our democracy. It is bad enough that this House is passing bills that will be signed into law that undermine our system of justice and due process both here at home and internationally. But the very way in which this House has carried out legislative business this week is an affront to the Democratic process. I know that we all want to return home to our districts to meet with our constituents and prepare for the upcoming elections, but I genuinely worry about how we are living up to our oaths of office when I look at how the Republican leadership has shut down debate on some of the most significant issues facing our country. Mr. Speaker, there are only a few hours left before Congress adjourns to go home. After the most do-nothing Congress in the history of the country, Republican leadership continues to ignore critical issues that are absolutely important to the American people in a rush to get out of Washington. Some of us, Mr. Speaker, have spoken in the past about the culture of corruption that exists in this institution; and it is more than just about the antics of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Abramoff. This culture of corruption that we talk about is also about a corruption of the process that allows for this Congress to become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. It is a process where rank and file Members of both parties, not just Democrats but Republicans, routinely get locked out of the ability to offer amendments and to be heard on the floor of the people's House. Now, Mr. Speaker, when gas prices went sky high, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress gave tax breaks to the oil companies. They did not give us an opportunity to debate and to vote on a real energy bill that would provide funding for alternative sources of renewable energy. But that is how they responded to that crisis. When our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan needed body armor, we got ``mission accomplished''. Mr. Speaker, the headlines of the last week alone should show not only how messed up things are in Iraq but how this administration has deceived the American people and deceived this Congress. And what has been the response of Congress over these many months? Has it been to hold the administration accountable? Has it been to conduct proper oversight? No. It has been a rubber stamp. Just let things go on as they are. Stay the course, which has become code for stay forever. With American workers crying out for an increase in the minimum wage, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress forced through an estate tax cut benefiting only the wealthiest people in this country. Mr. Speaker, the Federal minimum wage is at $5.15 an hour. $5.15 an hour. It has been frozen that way for 9 years. Now, during those same 9 years, this Congress has given itself pay increases of $31,600. I mean, we have the time. We have the time to give ourselves a pay raise in this body, but we do not have the time to give the American workers a pay raise? $5.15 an hour is what the current Federal minimum wage is. And would you not think that there would be a sense of urgency in this House of Representatives to not adjourn until we have a clean up or down vote on the minimum wage? No, that is not part of why we are having a martial law rule here today. They are not doing this so they can bring up the Federal minimum wage, an increase in the Federal minimum wage. That is not what this is about. Mr. Speaker, with the cost of college tuition skyrocketing and student aid not meeting the need, President Bush and the Republican- controlled Congress instead give us a bill congratulating Little League teams. We have done nothing in this Congress to address the real concern and the real need out there by so many American families to help pay for the cost of a college education. And as thousands of our senior citizens fall into the doughnut hole of the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress answered their pleas for help by naming more post offices. We were not given the opportunity to fix the doughnut hole in that prescription drug bill. We have not been given the opportunity to do what Democrats have been demanding for a long time, and that is to give the Federal Government the ability to negotiate lower drug prices for our senior citizens. That is how the Veterans Administration does it. The VA negotiates on behalf of all of our veterans, thereby getting a better price so that our veterans do not have to pay as much for prescription drugs. Why cannot we do the same thing for Medicare beneficiaries? We are not doing it because the prescription drug industry and the pharmaceuticals do not want it, and they have contributed mightily to the majority party's campaign for reelection. Mr. Speaker, it is time for a new direction; and I hope that my colleagues will indicate their frustration with the way this House has been run and demonstrate their dismay at the lack of accomplishment of this Congress by voting ``no'' on this martial law rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will not take up any more time speaking about why I oppose this bill. I spoke at length during the House debate, and nothing has changed over the past 48 hours to make me believe that undermining our history, values and constitutional commitment to human rights, civil rights, the rule of law, due process and judicial review is the right thing to do. Instead, I would like to submit for the Record the views of others in the face of this monumental mistake this Congress is making in submitting to the demands of an imperial White House. I ask unanimous consent to submit into the Record the following materials: 1. Resolution Condemning Torture by the Conference of Major Superiors of Men; 2. A September 22, 2006 letter from human rights organizations to the U.S. Senate regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006; 3. September 28, 2006 New York Times editorial, ``Rushing Off a Cliff;'' and 4. ``Questions for the Interrogators,'' Commentary by Fareed Zakaria, September 25, 2006, Newsweek Resolution Condemning Torture CMSM condemns torture in all its forms regardless of putative justification, and encourages support and help for victims of torture throughout the world, but especially in areas under the control of the United States Government. Rationale: Jesus' death and resurrection revealed the infinite value of each human being in God's eyes. [Cf. Mt 5:44-48; 10:29-31] Torture is a denial of that value. The Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns torture as ``contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity,'' and Gaudium et Spes of the Second Vatican Council [#27] characterizes as criminal ``all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures,'' including them in a list that also contains ``all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide.'' Resolution: Given the universal condemnation of torture in both International Law and religious documents, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men resolves: To condemn unequivocally any use of torture by agents of any government for any reason; To encourage its constituencies to use their resources of education, preaching and advocacy to eliminate use of torture as contrary to both natural law and human dignity, and in fundamental opposition to God's salvific love for humanity: To join with others to work in advocacy for the abolition of torture, and to offer help and support to victims of torture. The Justice and Peace office will be responsible for implementation. Additional Facts/Related Circumstances: Background: ``The torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind.'' So proclaimed the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1980 [Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Jun 30, 1980)]. In his 1958 Chicago address to the Radio and Television News Directors Association, Edward R. Murrow said, ``Not every story has two sides.'' The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [1984] defines torture as follows: For the purposes of this Convention, the term ``torture'' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. [A listing of other international documents that condemn torture is available at www.apt.ch/un/Torture%20Definition.doc.] Recent actions brought to light about the involvement of the U.S. military and other branches of the government in the application of torture to prisoners demand a faith-based response. The USCCB has spoken as follows on the issue: The United States has a long history of leadership and strong support for human rights around the world. Ratifications of the Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture embody our nation's commitment to establishing standards of conduct and prohibiting torture and other acts of inhumane treatment of persons in U.S. custody. Tragically, our nation's record has been marred by reported instances of abusive treatment of enemy combatants held in military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [The complete document is available at www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/ senateletterretorture100405.pdf.] The CMSM Executive Committee issued a statement in May of 2004 that included the following: The Executive Committee of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men is greatly disturbed by the revelations of torture and abuse by U.S. military personnel. We have consistently called for U.S. troops to abide by international standards and laws that govern the treatment of detainees and have questioned the lack of access that international monitoring organizations such as the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, Amnesty International have had at detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. Reports by independent organizations and military personnel, combined with the photographs and the admission by Administration officials of the abuses indicate that the U.S. military personnel and others contracted by the U.S. to work in the detention centers must be monitored to protect the rights and dignity of detainees. As people of faith and as leaders of the Catholic congregations of the nearly 23,000 brothers and priests in the United States we believe that we must address this issue. Each human being is created with God-given dignity and each life is precious. This dignity must always be upheld and protected but especially so when an individual is being detained and his or her rights are already limited. They deserved to be treated with dignity and protected from violence and humiliation. As Christians we are deeply troubled that much of the humiliation and abuse violates the beliefs and practices of Islam. As U.S. citizens we are ashamed that those who represent our nation are perpetrating these abuses. We believe that as a nation we stand for the protection of human rights and uphold the dignity of all peoples regardless of their ethnic or religious background and we hold our national and military leaders responsible for the conditions that made these abuses not only possible, but who refused to acknowledge them even after they knew of the abuses. George Hunsinger of the National Religious Campaign against Torture adapted these words from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered at Riverside Church in New York in 1967: A time comes when silence is betrayal. [People] do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness so close around us. We are called upon to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls ``enemy,'' for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers and sisters. Resources: A powerful article by Gary Haugen titled ``Silence on Suffering: Where are the voices from the Christian community on cruel and degrading treatment of detainees?'' appeared in Christianity Today in October of 2005. Other useful links: The National Religious Campaign against Torture; Torture Abolition and Survivors Network International; Amnesty International; and Center for the Victims of Torture. Origin of Proposal: CMSM Justice and Peace Committee. Budget: none. Contact Person: T. Michael McNulty, SJ, Justice and Peace Director.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to introduce legislation today paying tribute to the Reverend Waitstill and Martha Sharp, the couple who fought genocide. On September 14, 2006, a ceremony was held at the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. honoring the Reverend Waitstill Sharp and his wife, Martha, as they became the second and third Americans to be added to the honor roll of 21,000 ``righteous'' gentiles, or non-Jews, whose efforts saved countless lives during the Holocaust. Also, on September 14, the Washington Post wrote an article about the Sharps, calling them ``The Couple Who Fought Genocide,'' and I would like to share with my colleagues excerpts from that article: As the Nazis marched across Europe in 1939 and 1940, a Unitarian minister from Massachusetts and his wife rushed into the coming Holocaust to save Jews and other refugees, including scores of children. When they set out for Europe in January 1939, Germany had seized the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia and refugees were flowing across the continent. The American Unitarian Association asked numerous ministers to go to Europe before Waitstill, 37, and his social worker wife, Martha, 33, agreed. Prague, Czechoslovakia was home to one of the world's largest Unitarian congregations, which was helping refugees of all stripes--Jews, trade unionists, political dissenters, and others. The Sharps arrived to lend a hand in February 1939, and one month later, the city was occupied by the Nazis. On March 15, 1939, the day the Germans took Prague, Martha Sharp guided an anti-Nazi leader to asylum at the British Embassy. A few days later, the Reverence Waitstill Sharp arranged for a member of the Czech parliament to be smuggled out of a hospital morgue in a body bag. The Nazis soon closed the Sharps' office and threw their furniture into the street. But the couple stayed another five months and got out just ahead of the Gestapo. On their second foray to Europe, in mid-1940, they worked in Marseilles, France and helped smuggle people across the Pyrenees into neutral Portugal. One of their close collaborators was Varian Fry, a 32-year-old New York editor who devoted himself to saving European intellectuals and was the first U.S. citizen placed by Yad Vashem on its ``Righteous Among the Nations'' honor roll, which includes Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg. Since the Sharps burned most of their records to keep them out of Nazi hands, no one knows how many lives they saved. Their grandson, Artemis Joukowsky III of Boston, estimates they helped 3,500 refugees in Prague, though it is unclear how many survived. In Marseilles, they pioneered routes that hundreds used to escape. Marianne Sheckler-Feder of Laguna Hills, California, has a fuzzy but enduring memory of Martha Sharp, reinforced by a fading black-and-white photograph taken on a sun-dappled street in the French port of Marseilles. ``I remember a figure, she was a very, very elegant lady. Kind of serious and very concerned. You looked up to her, she demanded respect,'' said Sheckler-Feder, now 79. Thousands of refugees from across Europe had flocked to Marseilles in hopes of gaining passage abroad, only to be interned in work camps when France surrendered to Germany in 1940 and the Nazis set up a collaborationist government in Vichy. Sheckler-Feder was 12. She was one of three Jewish sisters, nearly identical triplets who had fled with their parents from Vienna, a bare step ahead of the Nazis. Marseilles was the end of the road, the end of hope--until they met Martha Sharp. She pestered Vichy officials to issue exit visas for 29 children, including nine Jews. With almost as much difficulty, she persuaded the State Department, which was rife with anti-Semitism, to let the children and 10 adults into the United States. Sheckler-Feder and her sisters traveled by train to Lisbon and sailed in December 1940 aboard the Excambion, a ship stripped of all furnishings except sleeping bags, blankets and pillows to accommodate as many passengers as possible. Their parents eventually followed. Sheckler-Feder has no doubt that were it not for Martha Sharp, her family would have perished: ``What she did is outstanding, it will never be forgotten.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill is the House companion to S. Res. 562, which was introduced in the Senate by Senators Chafee, Reed, Kennedy and Kerry. I am very proud to introduce this bill with the esteemed ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Tom Lantos, and the other House members of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, Representatives Cannon (UT), Cantor (VA), LaTourette (OH) and Waxman (CA), along with the Members of the House congressional delegations representing Rhode Island and Massachusetts. I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this resolution paying tribute to this courageous husband and wife team and to pass this legislation in the coming weeks before the 109th Congress permanently adjourns.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (MO) and I, along with 23 of our House colleagues, introduced legislation to reauthorize the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole). This unique and flexible program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), helps promote education, child development, and food security for the world's poorest children. Sadly, an estimated 300 million children go hungry every day around the world. Of these children, an estimated 120 million do not attend school, in part because of hunger or malnourishment. Because of cultural traditions, prejudice, or simple economic need, many of these children are girls or children engaged in labor to increase their families' basic income. Providing meals in schools has proven to be the single most effective incentive for convincing parents to send their children to school, including their daughters. The McGovern-Dole Program has used American-grown commodities and financial and technical assistance to decrease the incidence of child hunger and increase educational opportunity for millions of these vulnerable children. Nutritious meals, take home rations, or both are provided as means to increase food security for children, and increase school enrollment and attendance. Official evaluations by USDA document how McGovern-Dole has been especially successful at increasing access to education for girls and in strengthening parental and community commitment and engagement in education, nutrition and agriculture. McGovern-Dole has also become a catalyst for other community-based projects such as clean water, sanitation, children's health, and HIV/ AIDS education, treatment and prevention programs. These outcomes have resulted in broad bipartisan support for the program and especially for increased annual funding. The McGovern-Dole Program has also garnered the support of farm, commodity and agricultural groups, as well as U.S. and international humanitarian, development, education, anti-hunger and food security organizations. In several projects, the McGovern-Dole Program also supports maternal and child health projects when those projects complement school feeding, including early learning and early childhood development programs that address critical nutritional and developmental needs of children under five years of age. Named in honor of former Senators George McGovern and Robert Dole, who worked closely during their tenures in the U.S. Senate to address the problems of hunger and malnutrition in the United States and around the world, the McGovern-Dole program was initiated in 2000 by President Bill Clinton as a $300 million pilot program, the Global Food for Education Initiative (GFEI). From 2001-2003, the GFEI fed nearly 7 million children through 48 projects in 38 countries. Enrollment increased by up to 10 percent in participating schools, and other donors provided almost $1 billion of funding to complement the GFEI program. In 2003, as part of the Farm Bill Reauthorization, the GFEI was established as a permanent program, and renamed the McGovern-Dole Program. During 2003-2004, the McGovern-Dole Program used $100 million of Commodity Credit Corporation funds and $50 million in appropriated funds to support over 4 million children in 26 countries. School enrollment overall rose by 14 percent in participating schools, with girls enrollment increasing by 17 percent on average. McGovern-Dole helped considerably in Afghanistan when the country's leadership changed and girls were once again allowed to be educated. The program helped to build or renovate schools, provided meals and other incentives for children to come to school, and contributed to a 123 percent increase in overall enrollment in the country. The McGovern- Dole school feeding programs also received support from other donors, private businesses, and local governments and communities. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of visiting some McGovern-Dole and school feeding programs in Colombia. They were in some of the poorest neighborhoods surrounding the capital of Bogota, where thousands of people displaced by violence and conflict were trying to survive. I remember, in particular, a mother and grandmother who came up to me and thanked me and the United States for supporting the school and providing these daily meals. They told me how members of the right- wing paramilitaries and the FARC guerrillas would prowl around the edges of their neighborhood, trying to recruit young children as soldiers with the promise of a meal. But their children would not be lured into becoming child soldiers because they were being fed and educated at the school. Mr. Speaker, you can't imagine how proud and grateful those words made me feel. I could see the powerful good will this modest project had created for America among these poor families. I was reminded of the words of these families when I read the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and more recently, when reviewing the declassified judgments of the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIB). Both of these reports noted that the lack of sustained social and economic reform and development feed the anger, humiliation, powerlessness and sense of hopelessness that are the feeding grounds of terrorists and extremists. When mothers and fathers have hope for a better future for their children, they turn away from extremists. When children have the chance to go to school and stay in school, and when hunger no longer impedes their ability to learn, then they are on the path that leads to greater economic opportunity. Hope and opportunity are among our most powerful weapons in the fight against terrorism, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it is programs like McGovern-Dole that will ultimately help us win the war against extremism. Mr. Speaker, the bill we just introduced would reauthorize the McGovern-Dole Program for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. It provides stable funding with annual increases to expand the reach of current programs and initiate new project in more countries, bringing hope and opportunity to more children and their families. Such secure funding will allow McGovern-Dole programs to work with local communities and national governments to make these critical educational, nutritional and development programs self-sustaining. The increase in funding over time will also support greater project development in early learning and early childhood development programs so that more children enter school healthy and ready to learn. And by demonstrating a firm, long- term commitment to this program, I believe this reauthorization will serve as a catalyst to increase support from other donors for global school feeding programs. In the true spirit of George McGovern and Bob Dole, Congresswoman Emerson and I are also very proud that this bill reflects the strong bipartisan support that the McGovern-Dole Program has received since first initiated. In a time of intense partisanship, this bill demonstrates that men and women of good will not only can come together, but want to come together, on issues and programs that genuinely make a difference in children's lives and help make our world a better place. I would like to thank Representatives Lantos, Hyde, Skelton, Wolf, Pomeroy, Smith (NJ), DeLauro, Leach, Herseth, Osborne, Kaptur, Walsh, Boswell, Boustany, McCotter, Payne, Shimkus, Moore (KS), English, Snyder, Moran (KS), McCollum (MN), and Solis for joining us as original cosponsors of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I ask to submit for the Record a copy of a letter Senators George McGovern and Robert Dole sent to representatives urging Members of Congress to cosponsor the McGovern-Dole Reauthorization Act. Washington, DC, July 21, 2006. Dear Representative: We are writing in support of the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program and to request that you cosponsor legislation reauthorizing this important program. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program has made a critical difference in the lives of millions of children and provides a clear statement throughout the world about America's compassion and values. The McGovern-Dole Program provides American-grown food to hungry children in schools in the world's poorest countries. It helps ensure that children suffering from hunger receive at least one nutritious meal during the day. In addition, where school feeding programs are offered, enrollment and attendance rates increase significantly--especially for girls. Increasing girls' education has important implications for social and economic progress in the world's poorest communities. It is a model food aid program that is tailor made for the 21st Century and we strongly support its reauthorization. Representative Jim McGovern and Representative Jo Ann Emerson are introducing legislation to reauthorize the McGovern-Dole Program. We respectfully urge you to contact either Jim or Jo Ann and add your name as a cosponsor of this important legislation as soon as possible. Sincerely, George McGovern. Robert Dole.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, former Senator George McGovern and William R. Polk, founder and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Chicago, have co-authored a new book, Out of Iraq, that is being released in October 2006 by Simon & Schuster. I would like to share with my colleagues an excerpt published in the October edition of Harper's Magazine. The Way Out of War (By George S. McGovern and William R. Polk) a blueprint for leaving iraq now Staying in Iraq not an option. Many Americans who were among the most eager to invade Iraq now urge that we find a way out. These Americans include not only civilian ``strategists'' and other ``hawks'' but also senior military commanders and, perhaps most fervently, combat soldiers. Even some of those Iraqis regarded by our senior officials as the most pro-American are determined now to see American military personnel leave their country. Polls show that as few as 2 percent of Iraqis consider Americans to be liberators. This is the reality of the situation in Iraq. We must acknowledge the Iraqis' right to ask us to leave, and we should set a firm date by which to do so. We suggest that phased withdrawal should begin on or before December 31, 2006, with the promise to make every effort to complete it by June 30, 2007. Withdrawal is not only a political imperative but a strategic requirement. As many retired American military officers now admit, Iraq has become, since the invasion, the primary recruiting and training ground for terrorists. The longer American troops remain in Iraq, the more recruits will flood the ranks of those who oppose America not only in Iraq but elsewhere. Withdrawal will not be without financial costs, which are unavoidable and will have to be paid sooner or later. But the decision to withdraw at least does not call for additional expenditures. On the contrary, it will effect massive savings. Current U.S. expenditures run at approximately $246 million each day, or more than $10 million an hour, with costs rising steadily each year. Although its figures do not include all expenditures, the Congressional Research Service listed direct costs at $77.3 billion in 2004, $87.3 billion in 2005, and $100.4 billion in fiscal year 2006. Even if troop withdrawals begin this year, total costs (including those in Afghanistan) are thought likely to rise by $371 billion during the withdrawal period. Economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a former assistant secretary of commerce, have estimated that staying in Iraq another four years will cost us at least $1 trillion. Let us be clear: there will be some damage. This is inevitable no matter what we do. At the end of every insurgency we have studied, there was a certain amount of chaos as the participants sought to establish a new civic order. This predictable turmoil has given rise to the argument, still being put forward by die-hard hawks, that Americans must, in President Bush's phrase, ``stay the course.'' The argument is false. When a driver is on the wrong road and headed for an abyss, it is a bad idea to ``stay the course.'' A nation afflicted with a failing and costly policy is not well served by those calling for more of the same, and it is a poor idea to think that we can accomplish in the future what we are failing to accomplish in the present. We are as powerless to prevent the turmoil that will ensue when we withdraw as we have been to stop the insurgency. But we will have removed a major cause of the insurgency once we have withdrawn. Moreover, there are ways in which we can be helpful to the Iraqis--and protect our own interests--by ameliorating the underlying conditions and smoothing the edges of conflict. The first of these would be a ``bridging'' effort between the occupation and complete independence. To this end, we think that the Iraqi government would be wise to request the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal. Such a force should itself have a firm date fixed for its removal. Our estimate is that Iraq would need this force for no more than two years after the American withdrawal is complete. During this period, the force could be slowly but steadily cut back in both personnel and deployment. Its purpose would be limited to activities aimed at enhancing public security. Consequently, the armament of this police force should be restricted. It would have no need for tanks or artillery or offensive aircraft but only light equipment. It would not attempt, as have American troops, to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American troops, as well as British regular troops and mercenary forces, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would almost immediately begin to lose public support. Insurgent gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws. We imagine that the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi people, would find the composition of such a force most acceptable if it were drawn from Arab or Muslim countries. Specifically, it should be possible under the aegis of the United Nations to obtain, say, five contingents of 3,000 men each from Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt. Jordan and Syria might also be asked to contribute personnel. If additional troops were required, or if any of these governments were deemed unacceptable to Iraq or unwilling to serve, application could be made to such Muslim countries as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. Other countries might be included if the Iraqi government so wished. It would benefit both Iraq and the United States if we were to pay for this force. Assuming that a ballpark figure would be $500 per man per day, and that 15,000 men would be required for two years, the overall cost would be $5.5 billion. That is approximately 3 percent of what it would cost to continue the war, with American troops, for the next two years. Not only would this represent a great monetary saving to us but it would spare countless American lives and would give Iraq the breathing space it needs to recover from the trauma of the occupation in a way that does not violate national and religious sensibilities. The American subvention should be paid directly to the Iraqi government, which would then ``hire'' the police services it requires from other governments. The vast amount of equipment that the American military now has in Iraq, particularly transport and communications and light arms, should be turned over to this new multinational force rather than shipped home or destroyed. As the insurgency loses its national justification, other dangers will confront Iraq. One of these is ``warlordism,'' as we have seen in Afghanistan, and other forms of large- scale crime. Some of this will almost certainly continue. But the breakdown of public order will never be remedied by American forces; it can only be addressed by a national police force willing to work with neighborhood, village, and tribal home guards. Ethnic and regional political divisions in Iraq have been exacerbated by the occupation, and they are unlikely to disappear once the occupation is over. They are now so bitter as to preclude a unified organization, at least for the time being. It is therefore paramount that the national police force involve local leaders, so as to ensure that the home guards operate only within their own territory and with appropriate action. In part, this is why Iraq needs a ``cooling off'' period, with multinational security assistance, after the American withdrawal. While the temporary international police force completes its work, the creation of a permanent national police force is, and must be, an Iraqi task. American interference would be, and has been, counterproductive. And it will take time. The creation and solidification of an Iraqi national police force will probably require, at a rough estimate, four to five years to become fully effective. We suggest that the American withdrawal package should include provision of $1 billion to help the Iraqi government create, train, and equip such a force, which is roughly the cost of four days of the present American occupation. Neighborhood, village, and tribal home guards, which are found throughout Iraq, of course constitute a double-edged sword. Inevitably, they mirror the ethnic, religious, and political communities from which they are drawn. Insofar as they are restricted each to its own community, and are carefully monitored by a relatively open and benign government, they will enhance security; allowed to move outside their home areas, they will menace public order. Only a central government police and respected community leaders can possibly hope to control these militias. America has no useful role to play in these affairs, as experience has made perfectly clear. It is not in the interests of Iraq to encourage the growth and heavy armament of a reconstituted Iraqi army. The civilian government of Iraq should be, and hopefully is, aware that previous Iraqi armies have frequently acted against Iraqi civic institutions. That is, Iraqi armies have not been a source of defense but of disruption. We cannot prevent the reconstitution of an Iraqi army, but we should not, as we are currently doing, actually encourage this at a cost of billions to the American taxpayer. If at all possible, we should encourage Iraq to transfer what soldiers it has already recruited for its army into a national reconstruction corps modeled on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The United States could assist in the creation and training of just such a reconstruction corps, which would undertake the rebuilding of infrastructure damaged by the war, with an allocation of, say, $500 million, or roughly the cost of two days of the current occupation. Withdrawal of American forces must include immediate cessation of work on U.S. military bases. Nearly half of the more than 100 bases have already been closed down and turned over, at least formally, to the Iraqi government, but as many as fourteen ``enduring'' bases for American troops in Iraq are under construction. The largest five are already massive, amounting to virtual cities. The Balad Air Base, forty miles north of Baghdad, has a miniature golf course, 2 PXs, a Pizza Hut, a Burger King, and a jail. Another, under construction at al-Asad, covers more than thirteen square miles. Although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated on December 23, 2005, that ``at the moment there are no plans for permanent bases. . . . It is a subject that has not even been discussed with the Iraqi government,'' his remarks are belied by action on the ground, where bases are growing in size and being given aspects of permanency. The most critical of these are remote military bases. They should be stood down rapidly. Closing these bases is doubly important: for America, they are expensive and already redundant; for Iraqis, they both symbolize and personify a hated occupation. With them in place, no Iraqi government will ever feel truly independent. It is virtually certain that absent a deactivation of U.S. military bases, the insurgency will continue. The enormous American base at Baghdad International Airport, ironically named ``Camp Victory,'' should be the last of the military bases to be closed, as it will be useful in the process of disengagement. We should of course withdraw from the Green Zone, our vast, sprawling complex in the center of Baghdad. The United States has already spent or is currently spending $1.8 billion on its headquarters there, which contains, or will contain, some 600 housing units, a Marine barracks, and more than a dozen other buildings, as well as its own electrical, water, and sewage systems. The Green Zone should be turned over to the Iraqi government no later than December 31, 2007. By this time, the U.S. should have bought, or rented, or built a ``normal'' embassy for a considerably reduced complement of personnel. Symbolically, it would be beneficial for the new building not to be in the Green Zone. Assuming that a reasonable part of the Green Zone's cost can be saved, there should be no additional cost to create a new American embassy for an appropriate number of not more than 500 American officials, as opposed to the 1,000 or so Americans who today staff the Green Zone. Insofar as is practical, the new building should not be designed as though it were a beleaguered fortress in enemy territory. Withdrawal from these bases, and an end to further construction, should save American taxpayers billions of dollars over the coming two years. This is quite apart from the cost of the troops they would house. America should immediately release all prisoners of war and close its detention centers. Mercenaries, euphemistically known as ``Personal Security Detail,'' are now provided by an industry of more than thirty ``security'' firms, comprising at least 25,000 armed men. These constitute a force larger than the British troop contingent in the ``Coalition of the Willing'' and operate outside the direct control--and with little interference from the military justice systems--of the British and American armies. They are, literally, the ``loose cannons'' of the Iraq war. They should be withdrawn rapidly and completely, as the Iraqis regard them as the very symbol of the occupation. Since the U.S. pays for them either directly or indirectly, all we need to do is stop payment. Much work will be necessary to dig up and destroy land mines and other unexploded ordinance and, where possible, to clean up the depleted uranium used in artillery shells. These are dangerous tasks that require professional training, but they should be turned over wherever possible to Iraqi contractors. These contractors would employ Iraqi labor, which would help jump-start a troubled economy and be of immediate benefit to the millions of Iraqis who are now out of work. The United Nations has gained considerable knowledge about de-mining--from the Balkans, Afghanistan, and elsewhere--that might be shared with the Iraqis. Although cleanup will be costly, we cannot afford to leave this dangerous waste behind. One day's wartime expenditure, roughly $250 million, would pay for surveys of the damage and the development of a plan to deal with it. Once the extent of the problem is determined, a fund should be established to eradicate the danger completely. These elements of the ``withdrawal package'' may be regarded as basic. Without them, Iraqi society will have little chance of recovering economically or governing itself with any effectiveness. Without them, American interests in the Middle East, and indeed throughout the world, will be severely jeopardized. These measures are, we repeat, inexpensive and represent an enormous savings over the cost of the current war effort. Building on them are further actions that would also help Iraq become a safe and habitable environment. To these ``second tier'' policies we now turn. Property damage incurred during the invasion and occupation has been extreme. The World Bank has estimated that at least $25 billion will be required to repair the Iraqi infrastructure alone--this is quite apart from the damage done to private property. The reconstruction can be, and should be, done by Iraqis, as this would greatly benefit the Iraqi economy, but the United States will need to make a generous contribution to the effort if it is to be a success. Some of this aid should be in the form of grants; the remainder can be in the form of loans. Funds should be paid directly to the Iraqi government, as it would be sound policy to increase the power and public acceptance of that government once American troops withdraw. The Iraqis will probably regard such grants or loans as reparations; some of the money will probably be misspent or siphoned off by cliques within the government. It would therefore benefit the Iraqi people if some form of oversight could be exercised over the funds, but this would tend to undercut the legitimacy and authority of their government, which itself will probably be reconstituted during or shortly after the American occupation ends. Proper use of aid funds has been a problem everywhere: America's own record during the occupation has been reprehensible, with massive waste, incompetence, and outright dishonesty now being investigated for criminal prosecution. No fledgling Iraqi government is likely to do better, but if reconstruction funds are portioned out to village, town, and city councils, the enhancement of such groups will go far toward the avowed American aim of strengthening democracy, given that Iraqis at the ``grass roots'' level would be taking charge of their own affairs. We suggest that the United States allocate for the planning and organization of the reconstruction the sum of $1 billion, or roughly four days of current wartime expenditure; After a planning survey is completed, the American government will need to determine, in consultation with the Iraqi government (and presumably with the British government, our only true ``partner'' in the occupation), what it is willing to pay for reconstruction. We urge that the compensation be generous, as generosity will go a long way toward repairing the damage to the American reputation caused by this war. Nearly as important as the rebuilding of damaged buildings and other infrastructure is the demolition of the ugly monuments of warfare. Work should be undertaken as soon as is feasible to dismantle and dispose of the miles of concrete blast walls and wire barriers erected around present American installations. Although the Iraqi people can probably be counted on to raze certain relics of the occupation on their own, we should nonetheless, in good faith, assist in this process. A mere two days' worth of the current war effort, $500 million, would employ a good many Iraqi demolition workers. Another residue of war and occupation has been the intrusion of military facilities on Iraqi cultural sites. Some American facilities have done enormous and irreparable damage. Astonishingly, one American camp was built on top of the Babylon archaeological site, where American troops flattened and compressed ancient ruins in order to create a helicopter pad and fueling stations. Soldiers filled sandbags with archaeological fragments and dug trenches through unexcavated areas while tanks crushed 2,600-year-old pavements. Babylon was not the only casualty. The 5,000-year- old site at Kish was also horribly damaged. We need to understand that Iraq, being a seedbed of Western civilization, is a virtual museum. It is hard to put a spade into the earth there without disturbing a part of our shared cultural heritage. We suggest that America set up a fund of, say, $750 million, or three days' cost of the war, to be administered by an ad-hoc committee drawn from the Iraqi National Museum of Antiquities or the State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, the British Museum, the World Monuments Fund, the Smithsonian Institution, and what is perhaps America's most prestigious archaeological organization, the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, to assist in the restoration of sites American troops have damaged. We should not wish to go down in history as yet another barbarian invader of the land long referred to as the cradle of civilization. Independent accounting of Iraqi funds is urgently required. The United Nations handed over to the American-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) billions of dollars generated by the sale of Iraq petroleum with the understanding that these monies would be used to the benefit of the Iraqi people and would be accounted for by an independent auditor. The CPA delayed this audit month after month, and it was still not completed by the time the CPA ceased to exist. Any funds misused or misappropriated by U.S. officials should be repaid to the proper Iraqi authority. What that amount is we cannot predict at this time. Although the funds turned over to the CPA by the U.N. constitute the largest amount in dispute, that is by no means the only case of possible misappropriation. Among several others reported, perhaps the most damaging to Iraq has been a project allocated to Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root as part of a $2.4 billion no-bid contract awarded in 2003. The $75.7 million project was meant to repair the junction of some fifteen pipelines linking the oil fields with terminals. Engineering studies indicated that as conceived the project was likely to fail, but KBR forged ahead and, allegedly, withheld news of the failure from the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum until it had either spent or received all the money. Despite this, KBR was actually awarded a bonus by the Army Corps of Engineers, even though Defense Department auditors had found more than $200 million of KBR's charges to be questionable. There would seem to be more greed than prudence in the repeated awards to Halliburton in the run-up to the war, during the war itself, and in contracts to repair the war damages. Especially given that Vice President Dick Cheney was formerly CEO of Halliburton, the U.S. should make every effort to investigate this wrongdoing, prosecute and correct it, and depart from Iraq with clean hands. The United States should not object to the Iraqi government voiding all contracts entered into for the exploration, development, and marketing of oil during the American occupation. These contracts clearly should be renegotiated or thrown open to competitive international bids. The Iraqi government and public believe that because Iraqi oil has been sold at a discount to American companies, and because long- term ``production-sharing agreements'' are highly favorable to the concessionaires, an unfair advantage has been taken. Indeed, the form of concession set up at the urging of the CPA's consultants has been estimated to deprive Iraq of as much as $194 billion in revenues. To most Iraqis, and indeed to many foreigners, the move to turn over Iraq's oil reserves to American and British companies surely confirms that the real purpose of the invasion was to secure, for American use and profit, Iraq's lightweight and inexpensively produced oil. It is to the long-term advantage of both Iraq and the United States, therefore, that all future dealings in oil, which, after all, is the single most important Iraqi national asset, be transparent and fair. Only then can the industry be reconstituted and allowed to run smoothly; only then will Iraq be able to contribute to its own well-being and to the world's energy needs. Once the attempt to create American- controlled monopolies is abandoned, we believe it should be possible for investment, even American investment, to take place in a rapid and orderly manner. We do not, then, anticipate a net cost connected with this reform. Providing reparations to Iraqi civilians for lives and property lost is a necessity. The British have already begun to do so in the zone they occupy. According to Martin Hemming of the Ministry of Defence, British policy ``has, from the outset of operations in Iraq, been to recognize the duty to provide compensation to Iraqis where this is required by the law. . . . [B]etween June 2003 and 31 July 2006, 2,327 claims have been registered . . .'' Although there is no precise legal precedent from past wars that would require America to act accordingly, American forces in Iraq have now provided one: individual military units are authorized to make ``condolence payments'' of up to $2,500. The United States could, and should, do even more to compensate Iraqi victims or their heirs. Such an action might be compared to the Marshall Plan, which so powerfully redounded to America's benefit throughout the world after the end of the Second World War. As we go forward, the following points should be considered. The number of civilians killed or wounded during the invasion and occupation, particularly in the sieges of Fallujah, Tal Afar, and Najaf, is unknown. Estimates run from 30,000 to well over 100,000 killed, with many more wounded or incapacitated. Assuming the number of unjustified deaths to be 50,000, and the compensation per person to be $10,000, our outlay would run to only $500 million, or two days' cost of the war. The number seriously wounded or incapacitated might easily be 100,000. Taking the same figure as for death benefits, the total cost would be $1 billion, or four days' cost of the war. The dominant voice in this process should be that of Iraq itself, but in supplying the funds the United States could reasonably insist on the creation of a quasi- independent body, composed of both Iraqis and respected foreigners, perhaps operating under the umbrella of an internationally recognized organization such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies or the World Health Organization, to assess and distribute compensation. In the meantime, a respected international body should be appointed to process the claims of, and pay compensation to, those Iraqis who have been tortured (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) or who have suffered long-term imprisonment. The Department of Defense admits that approximately 3,200 people have been held for longer than a year, and more than 700 for longer than two years, most of them without charge, a clear violation of the treasured American right of habeas corpus. The number actually subjected to torture remains unknown, but it is presumed to include a significant portion of those incarcerated. Unfortunately, there exists no consensus, legal or otherwise, on how victims of state-sponsored torture should be compensated, and so it is not currently possible to estimate the cost of such a program. Given that this is uncharted legal territory, we should probably explore it morally and politically to find a measure of justifiable compensation. The very act of assessing damages--perhaps somewhat along the lines of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission--would, in and of itself, be a part of the healing process. America should also offer--not directly but through suitable international or nongovernmental organizations--a number of further financial inducements to Iraq's recovery. These might include fellowships for the training of lawyers, judges, journalists, social workers, and other civil-affairs workers. Two days' cost of the current war, or $500 million, would ably fund such an effort. In addition, assistance to ``grass roots'' organizations and professional societies could help encourage the return to Iraq of the thousands of skilled men and women who left in the years following the first Gulf war. Relocation allowance and supplementary pay might be administered by the Iraqi engineers' union. Medical practitioners might receive grants through the medical association. Teachers might be courted by the teachers' union or the Ministry of Education. Assuming that some 10,000 skilled workers could be enticed to return for, say, an average of $50,000, this would represent a cost to the American taxpayer of $500 million. Roughly two days' cost of the war would be a very small price to pay to restore the health and vigor of Iraqi society and to improve America's reputation throughout the world. We should also encourage the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and similarly established and proven nongovernmental organizations to help with the rebirth of an Iraqi public- health system by rebuilding hospitals and clinics. One reason for turning to respected international organizations to supervise this program is that when the CPA undertook the task, funds were squandered. At last count, some seventeen years ago Iraq possessed an impressive health-care infrastructure: 1,055 health centers, 58 health centers with beds, 135 general hospitals, and 52 specialized hospitals. Many of these facilities were badly damaged by a decade of sanctions and by the recent warfare and looting. If we assume that fully half of Iraq's hospitals and health centers need to be rebuilt, the overall outlay can be estimated at $250 million, one day's cost of the current war. Equipment might cost a further $170 million. These figures, based on a study prepared for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals project, throw into sharp relief the disappointing results of the American ``effort'': one American firm, Parsons Corporation, has been investigated for having taken a generous ``cost plus'' contract to rebuild 142 clinics at a cost of $200 million; although the company put in for and collected all the money, only twenty clinics were built. Estimating the cost of staffing these facilities is more complicated. Theoretically, Iraq has a highly professional, well-trained, reasonably large corps of health workers at all levels. Yet many of these people left the country in the years following the 1991 war. The Iraqi Health Ministry has estimated that about 3,000 registered doctors left Iraq during the first two years of the American occupation. Hopefully these workers will return to Iraq once the occupation and the insurgency have ended, but even if they do so, younger replacements for them need to be trained. The UNMDG study suggests that the training period for specialists is about eight years; for general practitioners, five years; and for various technicians and support personnel, three years. We suggest that a training program for a select number, say 200 general practitioners and 100 advanced specialists, be carried out under the auspices of the World Health Organization or Medecins Sans Frontieres, especially given that some of this training will have to be done in Europe or America. Even if the estimated cost of building and equipping hospitals turned out to be five times too low, even if the American government had to cover the bulk of salaries and operating costs for the next four years, and even if additional hospitals had to be built to care for Iraqis wounded or made ill by the invasion and occupation, the total cost would still be under $5 billion. It is sobering to think that the maximum cost of rebuilding Iraq's public-health system would amount to less than what we spend on the occupation every twenty days. The monetary cost of the basic set of programs outline roughly $7.25 billion. The cost of the ``second tier'' programs cannot be as accurately forecast, but the planning and implementation of these is likely to cost somewhere in the vicinity of $10 billion. Seventeen and a quarter billion dollars is a lot of money, but assuming that these programs cut short the American occupation by only two years, they would save us at least $200 billion. Much more valuable, though, are the savings to be measured in what otherwise are likely to be large numbers of shattered bodies and lost lives. Even if our estimates are unduly optimistic, and the actual costs turn out to be far higher, the course of action we recommend would be perhaps the best investment ever made by our country. Finally, we as a nation should not forget the young Americans who fought this war, often for meager pay and with inadequate equipment. As of this writing, more than 2,600 of our soldiers have been killed, and a far greater number wounded or crippled. It is only proper that we be generous to those who return, and to the families of those who will not. That said, we should find a way to express our condolences for the large number of Iraqis incarcerated, tortured, incapacitated, or killed in recent years. This may seem a difficult gesture to many Americans. It may strike them as weak, or as a slur on our patriotism. Americans do not like to admit that they have done wrong. We take comfort in the notion that whatever the mistakes of the war and occupation, we have done Iraq a great service by ridding it of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. Perhaps we have, but in the process many people's lives have been disrupted, damaged, or senselessly ended. A simple gesture of conciliation would go a long way toward shifting our relationship with Iraq from one of occupation to one of friendship. It would be a gesture without cost but of immense and everlasting value--and would do more to assuage the sense of hurt in the world than all of the actions above.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Less than a second. The deal was done early on in the day. I mean, the Members who came up and testified and presented their thoughtful amendments wasted their time because the leadership had decided to close this thing down earlier in the day, and that is unforgivable. This issue is too important.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we dealt with the issues of torture and military tribunals under a closed rule. No amendments allowed. Today we deal with the issue of domestic spying, also under a closed rule. Never mind that there are profound constitutional issues at stake. This Republican leadership has decided it is more important to debate suspension bills than matters that could likely undermine the most sacred rights of our people. This bill authorizes more warrantless surveillance of American citizens than Congress has ever authorized in American history. And if this rule passes, it will be debated on the House floor for an hour and a half. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. Today, the Republican leadership found time on the floor to rename post offices and to congratulate Little League teams, but it cannot find the time to thoughtfully debate this far-reaching bill. This Congress has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. After hours of testimony in the Rules Committee this afternoon listening to both Republicans and Democrats, offering thoughtful amendments and substitutes, the Republican majority on the Rules Committee said ``no'' to every single one of them. During the Rules Committee meeting, I asked the Republican authors of this bill whether or not they would be open to considering thoughtful amendments and substitutes. They said it was up to the Rules Committee, that they did not really have an opinion. No opinion, Mr. Speaker? No opinion on whether Members who believe there should be judicial oversight on domestic spying should have the right to offer an amendment? No opinion on whether or not a bipartisan substitute should be made in order? No opinion? Give me a break. Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the House floor, as the distinguished gentleman from Florida pointed out, the Chairman of the Rules Committee defended his decision to not allow Democrats to offer thoughtful amendments to the torture bill. He said that we should have offered a substitute instead. So, today, Democrats and Republicans attempted to offer a full bipartisan substitute to this domestic spying bill, but the Rules Committee refused to make that in order, too. How do you defend that, Mr. Speaker? How do you look Members of your own party in the eye and say your ideas do not matter? If the Republican leadership does not agree with the bipartisan substitute, then they should defeat it on the House floor after a full and open debate. Instead, they cower behind procedural tricks, parliamentary sleight of hand and closed rules. No wonder the American people are disgusted with Congress. Let me speak for a moment to my friends on the other side of the aisle. No matter what our policy differences, I would like to think that we all think democracy is a good thing. I would like to think that we all want good legislation to come out of this House. I am sad to say that I am having a hard time thinking that anymore. If my Republican friends want this trend of closed rules, of no amendments, of no democracy in the House to continue, then by all means vote for this rule. Just go along to get along. But if you believe, as I do, that the monopoly on good ideas is not held by a few members of the leadership in a closed room, then vote ``no.'' Have the guts to vote ``no.'' Thoughtful Republican amendments are routinely shut out by the Rules Committee, including here on this bill. The only way to bring this trend to an end is to start defeating closed rules and to demand more openness in this House of Representatives. If you continue to reward bad behavior, then bad behavior is what you will continue to get. Let us put a stop to this nonsense. Let us stop diminishing this House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday, Congressman Phil English and I introduced H.R. 6178, the Victim-Activated Landmine Abolition Act. Our Nation is the global leader in funding for landmine clearance, mine risk education, and mine survivors. The U.S. was the first nation to call for a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel landmines in 1994, and we have not exported them since 1992, produced them since 1997, or use them since 1991. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, victim-activated landmines have killed and maimed U.S. and coalition troops. They indiscriminately threaten lives in more than 80 countries, and they do not distinguish between an enemy combatant and a U.S. soldier, child, farmer, or refugee. Today, the U.S. has acquired reliable technology that enables all such weapons to be equipped with man-in-the-loop targeting and triggering capabilities. We no longer need to procure or design landmines that are victim- activated. Let the U.S. set the example for other countries in banning the procurement of victim-activated landmines and weapons. I encourage my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 6178.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first let me thank the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me time. Let me associate myself with her comments. Normally a rule that would allow us to consider suspension bills today would not be controversial. Suspension bills, after all, are usually bills that if they do not pass unanimously, they pass pretty much close to unanimously. They are naming of post offices, there are things that quite frankly are nice but they are not crucial for this Nation. And, you know, I come to the floor today, along with others, to object to this because this Congress is about to recess and it has not done the people's business. This Republican Congress has failed to make college education more affordable. This Republican Congress has failed on retirement security. This Republican Congress has failed on energy. It has failed on health care. It has failed on jobs and wages. And it has failed on Iraq and national security. I mean, we are about to recess, and this Congress has not increased the Federal minimum wage. It is stuck at $5.15 an hour. I mean, Congress has not raised the minimum wage in 9 years. During that same period of time, Congress voted themselves a $31,600 pay raise. We do not have the time to increase the Federal minimum wage, but we have time to increase our salaries by $31,600? Please, give me a break. Where are our priorities? We have the time right now to raise the Federal minimum wage. I think that is more important than naming a post office before we recess before the elections. On the issue of energy, I mean where is our energy policy? Where is our commitment to renewable and safe and clean alternative sources of energy? I mean, there is nothing. We have seen gas prices go way up. And, guess what? They are mysteriously coming down before the election. But I am going to make a bet with you that right after the election they will go back up again. You know, these oil executives, they are smart. They know where their bread is buttered. They do not want accountability. They do not want a Congress that is going to hold their feet to the fire when it comes to price gouging the American people. On the issue of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate tells us that this war in Iraq has created more terrorists rather than decreased the number of terrorists. And yet what do we have going on here in this Congress? Nothing. There is no accountability with regard to this administration's policy. President Bush tells us to stay the course, which is code for stay forever. This war began in 2003. And whether you supported it or opposed it, I think everybody can agree it has not unfolded as advertised. I mean, we are now a referee in a civil war. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars not on schools, not on senior citizens and retirement security, not on economic development, not on infrastructure, not even on reducing our enormous debt, we have spent it in a mistaken war in Iraq that gets worse and worse every day, and yet this Congress, this Congress refuses to hold the administration accountable, refuses to do the oversight necessary to try to take this failed policy and bring it to an end. I mean, we have lots and lots to do before we recess. We have important matters that every single person in this country cares about, whether they are a Democrat or a Republican. Instead, we are told, no, we do not have the time, we are going to come here and we are going to spend more of our time doing suspension bills. I mean, there is a reason why this Congress only has a 25 percent approval rating by the American people. People get it. People know that this is a do-nothing Congress. People are frustrated that this Congress has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. People understand that there is something wrong when Congress cannot find the time to increase the Federal minimum wage and when they try to do it they play politics with it by attaching it to a tax cut to wealthy people. There is something wrong when Congress cannot increase the national minimum wage, but we have time to vote ourselves a pay raise. There is a disconnect. I think the people are way ahead of us here in Washington. People understand that this Congress has failed them time and time and time again. It is time for a new direction. It is time for a change, and it is time to get this Congress to behave in a mature, responsible fashion. And that means dealing with issues like the affordability of a college education. It means dealing with issues that people care about. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to believe, but it's been 25 years since the first AIDS case was reported in the United States. Growing from a cluster of cases in Los Angeles in 1981, this disease spread throughout every segment of our society--no one was left untouched, and we were all forced to watch helplessly as AIDS transformed into a world-wide pandemic. In all, there have been 1.6 million cases of HIV infection in the United States including over 26,000 in Massachusetts. Thanks to research and medical advancements, we began to make great strides in HIV treatment. By 1987, the first antiviral drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and 3 years later, in 1990, Congress passed the Ryan White CARE Act, which helped to improve the quality and availability of care for persons with HIV/AIDS. Gradually, with adequate care and treatment, those infected with HIV began to live longer, healthier lives. Today, there are over 1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, the highest number in the history of this disease. But, with these improvements has come a greater need for the health care services and drug treatment provided by the CARE Act. Each year, 40,000 people are infected with HIV in the United States. But rather than increasing funding for these programs, Congress has flat funded the CARE Act for a number of years. And unfortunately, the bill that this House is considering today, H.R. 6143, which reauthorizes the Ryan White CARE Act, once again fails to provide the necessary funds to meet the needs of this growing population. Instead, it shifts funds around--robbing Peter to pay Paul--while placing an even greater strain on the program's limited resources. As a result, vital medical and supportive services stand to be severely underfunded without any consideration for the human lives at risk. A number of amendments were offered in Committee to increase funding for Title I, the Emergency Relief Grant Program, and Title II, the Care Grant Program. But, unfortunately, they were defeated by a largely party-line vote. And, today, rather than allowing these and other amendments to be brought before the full House for consideration, this Republican- controlled Congress has closed off the process, providing us with only a mere up or down vote on this bill. For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 6143, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to recess the House at the end of this week, but we should not leave town when there is serious business that the Republican leadership has failed to complete. Why won't the Republican leadership let this House vote on the Labor- HHS-Education appropriations bill? This bill was reported out of committee on June 20. Here we are, 3 months later, still waiting for the Republicans to bring this critical bill to the House floor. Does the Republican leadership, the Republican majority in this House, believe that funding for our public schools, our students, financial aid, health care systems, senior citizens, workers, and our youngest children simply does not matter, isn't important, that it is somehow okay to let this bill just sit around? This Republican majority is out of touch and, come November 7, hopefully will be out of power. Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to stay in town another day or two to finish this bill to help our kids, to help our senior citizens, to help our workers. And in light of the Republican leadership's failure to move an agenda to help the American people, I ask unanimous consent to bring H.R. 5647 to the House floor for immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. We are rushing through a bill under a closed rule without the right to debate amendments. This is a bill which will have tremendous ramifications for our Nation, our judiciary, and our military, and we are given a closed rule. This process is an absolute outrage. It demeans our democracy. I regret that we must even consider such legislation, but we must because the Bush administration has broken and abused the honor, integrity, and standing of the United States. For the past 5 years, the Bush administration has repeatedly acted in ways that betray America's commitment to the rule of law. Prisoners have been held in secret prisons without any due process or even access by the Red Cross. Others have been held at Guantanamo to avoid judicial oversight and the application of U.S. treaty obligations toward detainees. The executive branch has operated under a bizarre set of legal theories that have been rejected by dozens of our highest-ranking former military officers and representatives of the Judge Advocates General Corps, all of whom have warned of the dangers such opinions pose to our own uniformed men and women in the field, now and in the future. Interrogation practices were approved at the highest levels of the Pentagon, which General Counsel of the Navy Alberto Mora described as ``clearly abusive and clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values.'' According to press reports, the CIA has used a variety of methods that the United States has previously prosecuted as war crimes and routinely denounced as torture when they were used by other governments. Mr. Speaker, we would not need to be here if the Bush administration had simply adhered to the letter and spirit of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. We would not be here if the Bush administration had called upon our best and most experienced military interrogators, those who undergo rigorous training at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, because violations of U.S. and international law would not have occurred, and we likely would have obtained intelligence of higher quality and value. We would not be here if the Bush administration had directed all interrogators across all agencies to adhere to the letter of the Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions. Now, I wish I could say President Bush and his advisers have come to grips with how they have undermined and tarnished America's reputation as a nation that stands foursquare in support of the rule of law, justice, and human rights. But this legislation proves that precious little has been learned. Instead, this bill will prevent any accountability for violations of the law carried out in the past. It will immunize from prosecution anyone who might have committed abuses or crimes. And when we immunize those who carried out abuses, we extend that blessing to those who issued such orders and provided such guidance. Mr. Speaker, scores of military officers in the field rejected the orders and guidance to use so-called ``alternative methods'' during interrogation, namely, torture. They knew those orders violated the law. But we are not rewarding those fine officers for sticking with the law. They are not being honored for their professionalism or for the quality of the intelligence they provided. But those who broke the law will be rewarded along with those who ordered them to break the law. If this bill passes, we will even strip individuals who are detained of their rights and ability to challenge the factual and legal basis of their detention. Why? Because the White House does not believe in the checks and balances of democracy. They are angry that twice the Supreme Court has pointed out the failures of our detainee policies, practices and procedures. Mr. Speaker, how can we do this? If some other country were holding American citizens in detention and rewriting their laws in just this way to deal with our people, would we be encouraging such an effort? Mr. Speaker, let me say quite simply why I oppose this bill. I oppose this bill because I am a proud American, and this bill runs contrary to the very values on which our country was founded and for which we stand like a beacon to the rest of the world: The rule of law, due process and respect for human rights. Mr. Speaker, I fear for the soul of this Nation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).