Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on our side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say simply in closing that we will not be having an open debate on Iraq policy today. No one from either side of this aisle will be allowed to present policy alternatives that will be debated and voted upon. No one will be able to offer amendments to increase accountability over the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that have been poured into this war. Just like the last 3 years, there will be no debate that might actually affect the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, Democrats and Republicans have come to the Rules Committee with amendments to the various defense bills that would have required greater accountability and modified our policies in Iraq. The Republican majority in this House has routinely denied these amendments the right of debate. They have routinely kept them from being offered on the floor of this House for votes. So when the Republican leadership says they have offered us a debate on Iraq, it is simply not true. This is not what we asked for. We do not need therapy. We do not need time to get things off our chests. We need real debate and meaningful votes on U.S. policy in Iraq. At best, the Republicans have structured a glorified 10-hour Special Order on Iraq. But let us not dignify it by calling it a debate when no Member will have the opportunity to vote on competing policy proposals. Mr. Speaker, to our troops who are in harm's way, to their families and friends and to the American people, I offer my sincere regrets that once again the Republican-led Congress is failing to address the war in Iraq in the serious manner it deserves and has instead chosen to create this sham of a debate. Mr. Speaker, the great British conservative Edmund Burke once said, ``A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish the majority of this House would heed those words. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we will not be having a real debate on Iraq today. It will be a pretend debate, one that will have absolutely no effect on U.S. policy. No amendments, no substitutes, no chance for Members of Congress to actually do their jobs by making thoughtful changes to the resolution. The distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee testified before the Rules Committee that the resolution before us will at least give Members the opportunity to ``get things off our chest.'' Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in therapy. I am interested in changing this failed policy. This process is disrespectful to the men and women of our Armed Forces, disrespectful to the people we represent, and disrespectful to the traditions of this House. The Bush administration is trying to encourage, cajole, and sometimes even strong arm the Iraqi Government into being more inclusive, to respect the rights and privileges of the minority, to embrace the democratic process. Well, I hope the government of Iraq is not watching today, because the Republican majority certainly has no intention of teaching by example. We are all committed to a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq. The important question remains, to achieve this goal, is the United States committed to keeping 150,000 or 100,000 or 50,000 American military men and women in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time, perhaps even decades into the future? Under the current policy, the mission in Iraq is neverending. The resolution before us asks us not just to stay the course, but to stay forever. The reason why so many of us, Democrats and Republicans, want to have a meaningful debate and meaningful votes on the war in Iraq is because the Bush administration has lost our confidence and our trust. For too long this Congress has given the administration blank checks and unchecked authority. We have abdicated our responsibilities. We have not done our job, which is to legislate, to conduct oversight, and to shape the policy of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, the reality of our policy in Iraq is one characterized by corruption, mismanagement, incompetence and self-delusion. 2,493 American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have died since the beginning of the war, 94 percent of them since the President declared, ``Mission Accomplished.'' And despite unanimous congressional agreements against permanent military base funding, the Republican majority stripped these provisions from the emergency supplemental conference report presented to the House on Tuesday. In the period leading up to the war, the President said, ``Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground.'' Unfortunately, we do not have to imagine that anymore. The State Department now reports that Iraq is indeed a terror haven. The very thing we wanted to prevent by going to war was actually created by the war. Certainly the death of terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi is welcome news. We did not create Zarqawi, but it was the war in Iraq that offered him the opportunity to kill American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians and to inflame sectarian hatreds. But as we all know, foreign terrorists represent only 6 to 8 percent of those committing violence in Iraq. By far, most attacks are carried out by Iraqi Sunni insurgents and by the growing Shiia and Sunni sectarian groups battling each other. The American-backed effort to arm tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and officers, coupled with a failure to curb a nearly equal number of militia gunmen, has created a galaxy of armed groups, each with its own loyalty and agenda. Sectarian violence has become almost as serious a threat as the insurgency. As former commander of U.S. Central Command General Anthony Zinni said in April, ``These militias will be a fact of life after we are gone. No one seems to have a plan for these militias.'' It is a disturbingly familiar refrain, Mr. Speaker: No one seems to have a plan. On the ground, reconstruction is not going well. A plan to build 150 health care clinics has not resulted in much more than empty shells and uneven walls. Power blackouts remain a constant frustration. Only 19 percent of Iraqis today have working sewer connections, down from 24 percent before the war. While most Iraq reconstruction projects are way behind schedule, there is one construction effort that is right on target: the $592 million U.S. embassy, which will be the size of about 80 football fields. The recent report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found massive corruption and mismanagement of U.S. aid. Billions of dollars have been lost or squandered through fraud and corruption, much of it by a handful of corporate contractors with special, privileged ties to the administration and a near complete lack of systematic oversight of funds. And still, Mr. Speaker, there is no accountability for this money and no accountability for this war, not within the Republican White House and not here in this Republican House. This is a critical point, because this debate must be about more than simply how long we will stay in Iraq. Where is the accountability for the corruption taking place in our reconstruction projects? Where is the accountability for our troops receiving faulty body armor and other equipment? Where is the accountability for the lack of funding to provide services for all the veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who are dealing with post- traumatic stress and other needs? Where is the accountability for the creation of death squad-type militias within the Iraqi police and security forces? Where is the accountability for the abuse of prisoners and detainees which is costing the United States so much of its credibility and standing in the international community? It is not the role of the Congress to turn a blind eye to whatever the administration wants to do. Quite the opposite. It is our responsibility to oversee every single taxpayer dollar that is being spent on this war. The total bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan stands at $450 billion. If we stay in Iraq for just one more year, we will have spent, off budget, off the books, half a trillion dollars on this war, a debt that President Bush and the Republican majority intend to pass on to our children and our grandchildren. Leadership, Mr. Speaker, requires courage. It requires taking responsibility. It requires accountability. It demands competence. In every single one of these areas, the White House, the Pentagon, this Republican Congress score an F for failure. Instead, all the American people are getting is a world class PR and spin campaign coming out of the White House. Make no mistake, H. Res. 861 requires no accountability from the White House or the Congress on the war in Iraq. It will not provide any increased protection for our troops on the ground. It will not protect our tax dollars from further waste, fraud, or abuse. It won't demand direction, let alone a plan, from the President about how and when our troops will return home. So here we are, treating the issue of war and the safety of our troops with a resolution that carries the same force of law as a resolution congratulating a sports team. Quite frankly, this process is an outrage and it should be rejected by this House. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the House Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is, under an open rule, is it a requirement that a substitute or that substitutes be filed with the Rules Committee in order to have them debated and voted on the House floor? Because my understanding is it is not a requirement.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. As an American, I deeply resent any restriction imposed by my government or any other government under freedom of churches and religious organizations to exercise their religion, meet in fellowship with their counterparts in other countries, worship together, collaborate on projects of common interest and celebrate their faith together. This administration has taken actions contrary to the very soul of what it means to be an American. It has denied U.S. churches and religious organizations that have been meeting with their Cuban counterparts for years, often decades, renewal of their licenses to travel to Cuba. They have imposed arbitrary restrictions and definitions on what it means to be a church, a national religious organization or a religious denomination. For 5 months a bipartisan group of Members have asked the decisionmakers at the State and Treasury Departments to meet with us and U.S. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religious leaders to discuss these restrictions, but so far they have refused. Now they are preparing even more restrictions that will discriminate among the many religious organizations on the island and pick and choose who it is okay to break bread with in faith and fellowship. They will take it upon themselves the right to say what constitutes a church and who is a legitimate person of faith. The United States of America does not and must not take such actions against communities of faith. I urge the people to support the Flake amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and praise Congressman John Lewis for visiting New Bedford, Massachusetts, at the end of May. Congressman Lewis described for students and community members his important involvement in the American Civil Rights Movement, and he reminded all of us how we need to find the courage to continue the Movement. I'd also like to thank Congressman Barney Frank for inviting Congressman Lewis to speak to the people of New Bedford. The friendship between these two Members of Congress spans more than 40 years, and as Congressman Frank states, Representative Lewis continues to be ``one of the great moral forces in this country.'' Representative Lewis, a great hero of mine, spoke to 1400-plus students and teachers at New Bedford High School, sharing his experiences growing up in the segregated South, and his eventual involvement with nonviolent protests. Congressman Lewis told the students ``that it was the young, like himself and many others who formed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,'' who led the way in the Civil Rights Movement. I would like to place into the Record, the following editorial, Timely Message from John Lewis, which appeared in the June 1, 2006, edition of the New Bedford Standard-Times, which describes why the words of our friend and colleague, Congressman John Lewis, have such meaning and resonance in all of our communities today. [From the New Bedford Standard-Times, New Bedford, MA--June 1, 2006] Timely Message From John Lewis Whether it was the hand of the Almighty or simply the good sense of our local congressman, Barney Frank, yesterday's visit to New Bedford by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., one of the great heroes of the American Civil Rights Movement, could not have been timed more perfectly. The 56-year-old Rep. Lewis, who is the son of a sharecropper born in segregated Alabama, brought a message of hope and healing to a city preparing to bury Bernadette DePina, who was shot to death in her home last week, just days after her 23-year-old son David DePina II's arrest on charges of murdering a 20-year-old man. Rep. Lewis didn't talk about crime or punishment or politics. He talked about growing up poor in the segregated South, about being inspired as a 15-year-old listening to the radio by the actions of the late Rosa Parks and the soaring words of a young black minister, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., to stand up for the dignity of all and ``to find a way to get in the way'' of those who would deny others that dignity. And that's what he did. Arrested scores of times in nonviolent protest of discriminatory voting practices, segregated schools, lunch counters and public transportation, he was threatened, beaten, spit upon and hated by Southern whites trying to maintain the legalized segregation of the Jim Crow south. He has faced trouble, counted losses and continued his fight as what Congressman Frank--his friend for more than 40 years--calls ``one of the great moral forces in this country.'' ``I am not bitter today, and I am not going to be bitter tomorrow,'' Rep. Lewis said. And then he said something important to the community of New Bedford, which some fear has split along racial, ethnic, neighborhood and economic fault lines. ``We are one people,'' he said in the soaring voice of the preacher he grew up wanting to be, with the same simple conviction that powered Dr. King. ``We all need each other. We all live in that same house.'' He cautioned 1,400 sophomores and juniors at New Bedford High School not to grow bitter but to become involved in their own mission to make things better for all. He urged the students to register to vote and to vote when they turn 18, a privilege he marched for four decades ago. The congressman told the students that it was the young, like himself and many others who formed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, who led the way in the Civil Rights Movement. ``And it will be the children in New Bedford who will say, `We're going to live in peace because we are all brothers and sisters.' '' His words inspired a standing ovation in the packed high school hall. They stirred the imagination of Stephanie Houtman, 15, a sophomore. ``He was talking about how they burned his back with cigarettes,'' Yet he did not relent. He did not stir from the segregated lunch counter. Dominick Baptiste, 16, walked out of the auditorium with a broad smile on his face at the end of the speech. ``It made me feel good to know that people can fight racism,'' he said. ``The fact that he was able to find the courage to sit at the white table. The fact that he was able to go back again and again.'' The congressman's visit reminded the city of what we all know. What happens to a family on Ash Street or at Monte Park or the United Front or County Street happens to all of us. And unless we let our own bitterness go, unless we reach across the way to our neighbor, we will never be what we want to be, what we should be. It ought not take a visit by a congressman from Georgia to remind us of that. Deep down, we all know that. Having the courage to do something about it is the real test.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward amendment. It increases funding by $30 million for the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, and it decreases the Andean Counter Drug Initiative by the same amount. The reduction in the ACI account should come from eradication and military related aid above the President's request level. It is my understanding from figures provided by the Foreign Operations Subcommittee that, under the ACI, the President requested $506.2 million for Colombia; the committee provided $545.2 million for all these categories of aid. So even after this amount is reduced by $30 million, aid for Colombia requested by the President would still total $515.2 million, or $9 million above the President's fiscal year 2007 request. Mr. Chairman, I have been on this House floor before expressing my concerns about our policy in Colombia. The drug eradication policy, to be blunt, has been a miserable failure. The Colombian military continues to commit heinous acts with impunity. Now, I know that some of my esteemed colleagues who oppose this amendment will once again come to the House floor with their charts and graphs and arrows pointing this way and that, but no matter how you slice and dice it, the bottom line is that after 6 years and $4.7 billion for Colombia, we are exactly where we started out as far as drug cultivation is concerned. The same amount of coca is being grown today in Colombia as in 1999. And this isn't Jim McGovern just saying this; this fact comes from our own Office of Narcotics Control and Drug Policy. It is their figures, their findings, their conclusion; the State Department backs them up on this. $4.7 billion. As the committee report accompanying this bill states so eloquently on page 62: after a massive increase in fumigation from 47,000 hectares at the start of Plan Colombia to today when we fumigated 138,775 hectares last year, we have accomplished zilch, Mr. Chairman. Coca cultivation in Columbia is at the same level or maybe slightly above from where it was when we started. On Monday, Mr. Chairman, headlines in the newspapers informed us that a Colombian military unit murdered in a deliberate cold-blooded ambush one of the most successful U.S.-trained antidrug units in Colombia. Yesterday the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee froze $30 million in military aid because it was so enraged over these murders and the State Department's recent human rights certification. Mr. Chairman, we have to respond to this. This House has to respond, and this is the moment to do so. We are not undermining President Uribe by adopting this amendment. Colombia will still receive more than what the President of the United States of America asked for in fiscal year 2007. But we can send a powerful message to the Colombian Armed Forces that we won't keep writing blank checks, we won't keep turning a blind eye, we aren't a cheap date you can take advantage of. Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity to do some real good with this amendment. We can fund the President's request for U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance fund. The fund currently stands at its lowest balance in over a decade. The State Department generally draws down between $60 million and $70 million in ERMA funds each year. There are just too many unexpected emergencies happening around the world. Without the increase provided by the amendment, we could be threatening the life-saving assistance that can mean the difference of life and death to persons caught in tragic violence or natural disaster. Whether we are looking at an increasingly explosive border between Chad and Sudan to preventing food aid pipeline breaks in Kenya and Uganda, to being able to respond quickly to victims of earthquakes or volcanoes, this fund is one of the President's most effective tools. With this amendment we can give the President what he has requested and needs for Colombia and ACI, and we can give him what he asked for and needs to meet emergency refugee crises. And at the same time, Mr. Chairman, and for the first time, we can send a powerful message to the Colombian military that our pockets and our patience are wearing thin.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, if we want to let Latin America know that we get it on human rights, then let us shut down this notorious school. If we genuinely want to show Latin America that our priorities are not the military, but development and democracy, then let us establish a western hemisphere institute for judicial reform, for civil engineering, for local governance, for rural development, for human rights. Let us show Latin America we get it on human rights, and by closing down this school, we also send a powerful signal to the rest of the world that human rights remains our highest priority. I urge my colleague to support the McGovern-Lewis amendment to prohibit funds in this bill for WHINSEC.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my good friend from Georgia, maybe he did not hear my opening speech, but I cited a case that happened 2 weeks ago where a graduate of the School of the Americas was involved in killing counternarcotics police in Colombia. The other thing is, I have heard from the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Arizona that the vast majority of graduates from this school go on to serve their countries honorably. How do we know? There is no follow-up done by this school and the Department of Defense. The only reason we know about the notorious cases is because of the hard work that goes on by human rights organizations on the ground and people in our own State Department. That is how we know, but there is no follow-up. There is no basis to say that the majority go on to serve their countries honorably. We do not know that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to the gentleman from Florida, we are not against the training of Latin American soldiers. We train over 20,000 Latin American soldiers each year, but only a fraction of them, fewer than 600, are actually trained at the School of the Americas. We want to shut the School of the Americas down because we believe it is anathema to America's commitments and America's human rights. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the following is a list of individuals that I cited in my opening remarks who are graduates of WHINSEC who have committed gross human rights violations against civilians: Supporters of the WHINSEC consistently argue that nothing associated with the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) should be taken into consideration when debating the merits of the WHINSEC. However, even at these early stages, the WHINSEC is repeating the mistakes of its predecessor organization. Latin American nominees are supposed to be thoroughly vetted, but pre-screening of applicants remains inadequate. Amnesty International detailed in a 2002 report, Unmatched Power, Unmet Principles, the many loopholes and gaps that exist in the current screening process. Already a number of students with previously well-known, well-documented histories of human rights abuses have been awarded scholarships to attend the WHINSEC, including: Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz (El Salvador) attended the WHINSEC in 2003. In 1983, he commanded a unit responsible for a very notorious massacre of indigenous peoples at the Las Hojas Cooperative in Sonsonate, El Salvador. This was a high- profile human rights case, included in the list of cases congressionally mandated for investigation during that period, and cited annually in the State Department's Human Rights Country Reports throughout the 1980s. The United Nations Truth Commission on El Salvador, established under the terms of the 1992 Peace Accords, identified Col. Cid Diaz as the commander who ordered and led the massacre and recommended he be brought to justice. Ironically, he returned to attend the SOA in 1988 and 1991, even after the U.S. State Department had identified the unit most likely responsible for the Las Hojas massacre. He then returned to attend the WHINSEC in 2003. Major Fillmann Urzagaste Rodriguez (Bolivia) attended the WHINSEC in 2002. In 1997, then Captain Fillmann Urzagaste Rodriguez was one of those responsible for the kidnapping and torture of Waldo Albarracin, who was then the director of the Popular Assembly for Human Rights in Bolivia; Mr. Albarracin is now the official Human Rights Ombudsman for the Government of Bolivia. At the time, the Bolivian Chamber of Deputies Commission undertook an investigation of the case and determined that it needed to be sent to the courts for further investigation and prosecution, where unfortunately it languished given the military impunity during that period. This same case is also the subject of a high-profile petition to the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In 2002, Urzagaste Rodriguez, now a major, took a 49-week officer training course at the WHINSEC. Captain Dario Sierro Chapeta, Lieutenant Colonel Francisco Patino Fonseca, and Captain Luis Benavides Guancha (Colombia) are all Colombian police officers under investigation for personal use of counter-narcotics funds. In June 2002, the Colombian Attorney General's office, at the request of the U.S. government, opened a ``disciplinary'' investigation into alleged activities of corruption by members of the Colombian National Police, including these three officers. The first two officers, namely Captain Sierro Chapeta and Lt. Col. Patino Fonseca, attended the WHINSEC in 2002 (it isn't clear whether the charges against the 3 were brought before, during or after their acceptance to the WHINSEC, but it was well known that their unit was under investigation). Captain Benavides Guancha attended the WHINSEC for 18 weeks in 2003, well after the targets he investigation were known to the Colombian and U.S. governments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, it has been many years since we last debated this issue. In 1999 the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to stop funding the U.S. Army School of the Americas. That vote so shook the Department of Defense that the following year, they brought a proposal to the Congress to close the SOA and organize a new school, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. In the past 5 years, we have continued to see the notorious legacy of the School of the Americas live on. To this day, human rights violation and criminal acts continue to be committed by its graduates. But what about the Western Hemisphere Institute itself? While it is still in its early years, already we have seen the Institute welcome to its courses well known, well documented human rights violators. This has happened with the 2003 admittance of a Salvadorian colonel responsible for the 1983 massacre at Las Hojas. This case, and his name, were cited in the United Nations Truth Commission report in 1993, and even in our own State Department Country Reports. The Institute accepted and trained in 2002 a major from Bolivia responsible for kidnapping and torture of Waldo Albarracin, who today serves as Bolivia's human rights ombudsman. This is a case that was presented to the OAS Human Rights Commission. And three Colombian officers under investigation for personal use of counternarcotics funds, and let me add under investigation at the insistence of the United States Justice Department, were admitted to the Institute in 2003. What possible kind of pre-vetting program could possibly let such notorious figures into its classes? Why are our tax dollars being spent on giving these guys a junket in Georgia? And if the WHINSEC cannot even screen out well known murderers and criminals, what about those who are less well known? Mr. Chairman, Latin America is already walking away from the WHINSEC. Argentina and Uruguay recently announced they will no longer send any of its military or police to the school. Enrollment from Latin America has been steadily falling over the past 3 years. In 2003, there were 1,190 students at the WHINSEC. This year there will only be 668. 77 percent of the students come from just five countries, mainly the Andean nations. But while enrollment has declined by 40 percent, funding for the school has remained steady or slightly increased. U.S. soldiers are now attending the WHINSEC to fill up the classrooms. Mr. Chairman, what are we doing here? I will tell you one thing that we are doing, we are sending the wrong signal to Latin America. We are telling them that we will not shut down the school that is anathema to civil society and human rights organizations throughout the hemisphere. And if you wonder what the old School of the Americas has to do with all of this, well, let me just tell you. Every time someone gets murdered in Latin America today by someone trained at the School of the Americas, their family, friends and colleagues, they remember that the U.S. trained this guy at that notorious school. That school still exists for them. It is at the same military base, in the same buildings with much of the same curriculum and the same teachers as the old school. Excuse me if they do not get the difference. If you do not think this is happening, let me go back to the article that I referred to in the earlier debate, in Monday's Boston Globe about the military commander who orchestrated the ambush and murder of U.S.-trained antidrug police, a U.S. trained antidrug police unit in Colombia. That Colombian commander was trained at the School of the Americas. So we have a U.S.-trained Army officer murdering U.S.-trained antidrug police. It makes no sense. We can let Latin America know that we get at our human rights by stopping some of the funding for this school which remains to this day a powerful symbol of U.S. fixation on the military to the detriment of military rights. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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