Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, let me just kind of go over a few things here. First of all, on the issue that somehow we are withdrawing from our support for Colombia, let me remind my colleagues that the President of the United States asked for $506.2 million. The committee provided $545.2 million. My amendment would reduce that to $515.2 million, or $9 million above the President's request for Colombia. So we are not doing anything here to walk away from Colombia. Secondly, on the issue of human rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported this year that more grave violations of human rights were committed directly by Colombia's military forces than in the past. The ICRC has recorded a 13.6 percent increase in disappearances. The number of people forced from their homes by violence increased by 8 percent over the past year. I introduced into the Record earlier, and I will remind my colleagues about an article that appeared in the Financial Times. The headlines, Colombia, The Most Dangerous Place For Trade Unionists. And I also inserted into the Record, and I will remind my colleagues about this article that appeared in a number of newspapers that the Colombian military units assassinated U.S. trained antinarcotics teams at the bidding of the drug mafia. So in some areas, there is improvement, but Colombia is still near the top of any human rights watch list. Let me, again, make one other point that I have made repeatedly here. We have invested $4.7 million in Colombia. We were promised that coca cultivation would be cut by 50 percent by the proponents of this. The bottom line is, according to this chart, that has not happened. In fact, coca cultivation has actually increased in Colombia. I agree with my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) when he says the conservatives are supposed to, they don't want to eliminate waste and demand more efficiency in government. Well, by any measure, this has not been an efficient use of taxpayer dollars. So, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me just say that we have heard the arguments on the other side. Massive increases in fumigation, overwhelming support for President Uribe, kidnappings down, cities and highways safer. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is all true. But massive increases in fumigation have not led to any reduction in coca cultivation. Overwhelming popular support for President Uribe has not resulted in even a dent in the impunity enjoyed by military officers tied to drug lords, mafia kings, paramilitaries and who carry out violent human rights crimes and other criminal acts. Kidnappings are down, but assassinations, disappearances and death threats against labor, religious indigenous Afro-Colombian and other community leaders is skyrocketing according to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross and every other reputable human rights organization in the world. And if cities and highways are safer, the rural country side is as dangerous, violent, bloody and as perilous as ever. We can do something good with this amendment. We can do something right. We can provide the President with a little more than he asked for, both for refugee emergencies and for Colombia. So I would urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Leach-Payne-Lofgren-McCollum- Grijalva-Schakowsky-Lee amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I am the last remaining speaker on my side. I don't know whether you have any other speakers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to alert the Members that there is broad support for this amendment. The support ranges from the American Refugee Committee to Amnesty International to the International Crisis Group, International Rescue Committee, the Jesuit Conference, Mercy Corps, Refugees International, the Steel Workers, the United Methodist Church. I could go on and on and on. Support for this amendment ranges from--The American Refugee Committee, Amnesty International, The International Crisis Group, International Rescue Committee, The Jesuit Conference, Mercy Corps, To--Refugees International, The Steelworkers, The United Methodist Church.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Facts are stubborn things, and maybe I haven't been clear in this debate, but when the opposition here talks about we are cutting aid to Colombia, that is not true. The bottom line is we are providing Colombia everything that the President of the United States has requested, plus $9 million more. That is not cutting Colombia. That is not walking away from the drug war. What we are frustrated with is the billions that we are spending are not accomplishing the goals we were promised. We are concerned there could continue to be gross human rights violations by the Colombian military. We want to send a signal and strengthen President Uribe's hands in helping to bring those military men to justice who committed those terrible murders against those police officers. We also want to call attention to the fact that all of this money that we have been sending down there has done nothing to reduce the amount of coca cultivation and growth in that country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), the co-chair of the Refugee Caucus.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to put this debate in perspective. Nobody is talking about the dismantling our support for Colombia. Nobody is talking about withdrawing all of our support to Colombia. What we are talking about is sending the appropriate message at this appropriate time. I will agree with the gentleman that fumigation has never been higher. But the problem is that there is even more coca in Colombia today than there was in Plan Colombia's first year. So maybe we need to rethink our strategy. Maybe it is not working. I think any reasonable person who looks at the statistics, provided by our own government, would come to that conclusion. I will agree with the gentleman that President Uribe deserves credit for lowering the number of kidnappings in Colombia. But I am not prepared to give him a pat on the back in the face of what just happened, where U.S.-funded Colombian military soldiers went out and killed in cold blood antinarcotic policemen who are dedicated to combating drugs in Colombia. What kind of message are we sending when we respond to that by doing nothing, by saying you have to continue to get everything that you expect? The United States Senate understands what is at stake. They froze $30 million in military aid in response to that. We need to send a signal too: we are not a cheap date. We want to support you, but we want there to be accountability. We want an end to the violence. We want the military not to be above the law. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, we are very much committed to Colombia and committed to success, but the fact of the matter is that after $4.7 billion there is even more coca in Colombia today than there was in Plan Colombia's first year. We want success. We want to achieve results. We just don't want to go along because we don't want to admit that maybe we can improve this policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Armed Services (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will insert in the Record at this point an article that recently appeared in the Financial Times entitled, ``Colombia `most dangerous' place for trade unionists'' in the world. [From the Financial Times, June 6, 2006] Colombia ``Most Dangerous'' Place for Trade Unionists (By Frances Williams) Colombia remains the most dangerous place on earth to be a trade unionist, with 70 people killed there last year for union activities. In addition, 260 Colombian trade unionists received death threats ``in a climate of continuing impunity for the assassins, according to the annual survey released today by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Right-wing paramilitary groups and the state security forces have been blamed for most of the violence in Colombia. The ICFTU also records slayings in Brazil and Honduras, and a ``pervasive climate of violence and fear'' in Guatemala. Worldwide, a total of 115 people were murdered for defending workers' rights in 2005, more than 1,600 were subjected to violent assaults and some 9,000 were arrested. Apart from Colombia, the report highlights violence and repression in Iraq, Iran, El Salvador, Djibouti, China, Cambodia, Guatemala, Zimbabwe and Burma. Though the death toll was down from 145 in 2004, almost entirely due to fewer killings in Colombia, ``we are nevertheless witnessing increasingly severe violence and hostility against working people who stand up for their rights,'' said Guy Ryder, ICFTU general secretary. Even in the industrialised world workers' rights are frequently violated or eroded, the report says. The Bush administration is accused of encouraging ``union-busting'' through measures via its National Labour Relations Board to reduce the influence of trade unions. The ICFTU also notes aggressive publicity campaigns in the US aimed at weakening workers' trust in trade unions. Australia is criticised for a wave of anti-union laws that it said would deprive most workers of protection from unfair dismissal. Publication of the report by Brussels-based ICFTU, whose 233 affiliated organisations represent 145m workers, is timed to coincide with the annual conference of the International Labour Organisation now underway in Geneva. The conference is expected to condemn Belarus for persistent interference in trade union affairs and to consider action against Burma for its refusal to end forced labour. In Asia, violence against trade unionists by police and security forces was documented last year in Burma, South Korea, India, Cambodia and China, where dozens of trade union activists continue to be incarcerated. In the Middle East, 13 union representatives were assassinated in Iraq and there were reports of torture and violence against strikers in Iran. In several other countries trade unions are outlawed or severely restricted. In Africa, the report singles out Djibouti and Zimbabwe, where the trade union movements suffer constant harassment by the government of President Robert Mugabe. Mr. Chairman, I would also insert in the Record an article that I referred to earlier that appeared in the Boston Globe about how ``Colombia says soldiers killed antidrug police.'' That Colombia's military unit assassinated a U.S.-trained, elite antinarcotics team at the bidding of the drug mafia 2 weeks ago. And what is the response of this House? Nothing. The United States Senate froze $30 million in military aid because they were so outraged that the Colombian military, who we finance, went out and killed in cold blood this anti-drug police unit. Mr. Chairman, we need to send a strong signal that we are not a cheap date, that we are watching, that we care and we demand accountability. [From the Boston Globe, June 6, 2006] Colombia Says Soldiers Killed Antidrug Police authorities probe colonel for link to major trafficker (By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan) Bogota.--Suspicions that a Colombian military unit assassinated a US-trained, elite antinarcotics team at the bidding of the drug mafia two weeks ago have proven true, officials say, in a case that has badly shaken public confidence in the military. On May 22, 10 of the country's most successful antidrug police were killed by a military platoon in the outskirts of Jamundi, an area under the influence of narco-traffickers 195 miles southwest of the capital, near Cali. Two military officers and six soldiers were arrested Thursday on the basis of incriminating cellphone text messages and crimescene evidence that investigators say prove the eight men planned the killings. The suspects insist the shootings were a ``friendly fire'' mistake. ``This was not a mistake, this was a crime; this was a deliberate decision, a criminal decision,'' Attorney General Mario Iguaran said last week. ``They were doing the bidding of a drug trafficker.'' Authorities are investigating bank accounts allegedly containing $44,000 belonging to Army Colonel Bayron Carvajal, the most senior officer arrested, as well as his alleged links to Omar Garcia Varela, according to Colombian newspaper El Tiempo. Varela is accused of being right-hand man of drug boss Diego Montoya, one of the United States' 10 most-wanted narcotraffickers, who is believed to control properties and drug laboratories near the site of fatal attack. The United States has offered $5 million for information leading to Montoya's capture. Questions remain in the Jamundi case about the extent of alleged collusion with drug traffickers within the armed forces, and how high up it may go. The arrests came days after the US State Department certified Colombia's human rights record, ensuring the flow of most US military aid to this country. Last year, Congress withheld some military assistance on worries that the Colombian government, which has waged a nearly decade-long campaign against drug corruption, was ignoring extrajudicial killings or cooperation between the military and right-wing death squads. The Jamundi case has sparked a national outcry that has reached up to President Alvaro Uribe, but Uribe on Friday said he was not ready to oust generals to hold them responsible for the killings. The best way to restore military credibility, he said, would be to clarify events and impose sanctions on the guilty. Among the most damning evidence against the arrested soldiers are text messages allegedly sent by Carvajal on the day of the killing to the lieutenant and sergeant in charge of the platoon. ``Pull back the ambush. . . . Everything is set for tonight,'' read one message leaked by authorities to El Tiempo and the newsmagazine Semana. That afternoon, Carvajal sent another message, the media reported: ``Get ready for the group to come with the chicken so you can get it.'' ``Chicken'' was the nickname of civilian informant Luis Eduardo Betancur, who was leading police to a suspected 440- pound stash of cocaine. Betancur was also a registered informant of Carvajal, authorities say. He was found shot in the neck, with his balaclava removed, investigators say. Eight of the 10 police killed were shot in the back, and ``the crime scene was contaminated before investigators arrived,'' said an investigative official yesterday who spoke on condition of anonymity. Investigators suspect soldiers may have fired shots from the police officers' weapons after they died, in an effort to make it look like there was a confrontation, El Tiempo reported. Fewer than half of the soldiers in the 28-man platoon fired at the police. Witnesses interviewed by telephone from Jamundi say the police identified themselves during the attack and begged the soldiers not to shoot. More than half of the shots fired originated from a military sniper who was hidden from view, said an investigative official. When colleagues of the slain police arrived at the scene to investigate, another text message allegedly demanded to know why they had been allowed to pass a military roadblock. The police unit had been trained by the Drug Enforcement Administration and was responsible for more than 200 arrests of drug traffickers, including 23 wanted for extradition to the United States. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who is an expert on Colombian's eradication policy.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, my colleague is absolutely right, eradication has dramatically increased in Colombia, but it has achieved absolutely nothing. There is even more coca in Colombia today than there was in Plan Colombia's first year. We have gone from 336,000 acres in 2000 to 355,000 acres, and that is actually a 6 percent increase. How is that success? When Plan Colombia started, it was supposed to decrease coca growing by 50 percent over 5 years. That is what we were promised. Well, $4.7 billion later, we have a 6 percent increase over 5 years the amount of coca being grown in Colombia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who is a Colombian expert and who was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Colombia.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall the last time I came to the House floor to say anything good about a rule, but the fact of the matter is this is a good rule. Every Member who brought an amendment before the Rules Committee, their amendment has been made in order. So this is a good rule. We have no speakers, we are not requiring any votes, and I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for bringing this to the floor. I rise today in support of the FY 2007 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. I commend Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey, as well as the rest of the Appropriations Committee, for all their hard work on this legislation. Historically, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is not considered under an open process like the other appropriations bills. Instead, the House usually considers this bill under a closed process. However, even though the Rules Committee reported a restrictive rule again, this year every amendment offered in the Rules Committee was made in order. Mr. Speaker, it's refreshing that this bill is a bipartisan product of the legislative process, a true rarity under this Republican leadership. The Republican leadership should look to this bill as a lesson in how this body should be run. Sunshine should be let it. Amendments should be made in order. Mr. Speaker, as much as possible, the process should be open. The fact that Mr. Obey and others had questions regarding the operations at the Office of the Architect of the Capitol was valid and was heard. With unanimous support in Committee, Ranking Member Obey's amendment putting the Comptroller General in direct control over the office of the Architect of the Capitol and the establishment of an Office of the Inspector General in the Office of the Architect of the Capitol was offered and adopted. The rule protects that amendment from being struck from the bill. Mr. Speaker, with an ever growing deficit of $9 billion, I think even my good friend and colleague, Congressman Flake, would agree with me in the right to question where funds have been spent on the new Capitol Visitors Center. Now, I realize the cost is often never close to the estimate; however, this project was originally budgeted at $265 million and the new projected cost estimate is $556 million. That is $25 million more than double the cost and we are not finished. Completion dates and costs seem to just be getting later and higher. The rest of the budget for the Legislative Branch seems to get it right. Small overall increases help keep Congress functioning. With a $110 million increase from FY06, this bill provides for 50 new Government Accountability Office, GAO, investigators to provide for increased oversight in gulf coast reconstruction and the war in Iraq. Providing for a strong and properly funded GAO is important, especially when considering that oversight is nonexistent in this Republican- controlled House. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey for their hard drafting this legislation and for their commitment to this body. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my friend, Mr. Bishop, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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, I rise today to thank and praise Congressman John Lewis for visiting New Bedford, MA, this past week, to discuss his important involvement with the American Civil Rights Movement, and to remind 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. The two Congressmen are friends of 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 the American Civil Rights Movement, 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. [From the New Bedford Times, 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 day's after her 23-year-old son David DePina II's arrest on charges of murdering a 29-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 the 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. An 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 it. Having the courage to do something about it is the real test.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am sure there will be a number of amendments offered during the day. I just want to call my colleagues' attention to one amendment that may be offered by Representative Johnson of Illinois that I strongly oppose, and I would urge all my colleagues to oppose it as well. This is an amendment that is supposedly an attempt to tackle the obesity problem in this country, but what it is, is an amendment that would restrict the choice of people who are on food stamps. It would basically dictate to people on food stamps that they could not buy certain things, and this is problematic, I think, for a number of reasons. First, I think the emphasis should be on promoting healthier foods in our nutrition and not on constant punitive measures against poor people. If we want to deal with the obesity problem in this country, which is a serious problem, we should do so thoughtfully, and we should do so with considerable deliberation to make sure that what we are doing is actually solving and tackling the problem. I do not think this will do that. Secondly, this bill I do not think is the appropriate bill for us to make these kinds of big changes. There are other bills that are more appropriate coming down the line, and I hope that my colleagues will respect that. But, again, rather than limiting choices for poor people, we should focus our attention and put the emphasis on healthier foods, like fruits and vegetables, without limiting people's choices. We should focus on nutrition education, and we should focus on raising people out of poverty instead of constantly blaming them and trying to pursue punitive measures, which I think is not only the wrong way to deal with the problem but I also think shows kind of a lack of respect for people who are struggling in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member on this committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a moment to thank Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro and members of the committee for providing funding for the Congressional Hunger Center. The Hunger Center is co-chaired by my colleague Congressman Jo Ann Emerson and myself, and it trains young people to be the future leaders of the anti-hunger movement. The Congressional Hunger Center, I think, is known to most Members of this Chamber. It has an incredible staff, an excellent staff, and does a very good job in raising awareness and getting young people involved and getting them to feel passionate about combating hunger, not only here in the United States but around the world. I think every Member of this Chamber should be proud of this center's work. So I am pleased that the committee continues to fund this center. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the DeLauro amendment will increase funding for alternative energy research, something that is desperately needed in our Nation these days. The cost of the amendment is fully offset by rolling back a mere 1.21 percent, the tax cut for Americans making more than $1 million annually. Mr. Speaker, the energy crisis continues to get worse and worse in our country every day. All you need to do is fill up your gas tank or open your heating bill to know that the cost of fuel is skyrocketing, with no signs of letting up anytime soon, if ever. We can continue to ignore this crisis until the costs are prohibited or our supplies run dry, or we can do the responsible thing and invest in research and development of alternative energy sources, something that we should have been doing a long time ago. Our energy needs are growing every day in this Nation and in the rest of the world as well. We have to find other ways to meet those needs. We need a substitute for oil and other fossil fuels. There are many promising alternative energy sources out there that we need to explore immediately to ensure that they are available in the near future. The DeLauro amendment will help support these efforts. Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee last night, we were told, as we are told often, that there is a germaneness issue and that thereby they would not make this amendment in order, but the fact of the matter is that those of us on this side of the aisle are trying to actually solve America's problems. We are trying to propose alternatives and pay for them as we go. We are not just proposing ideas and not identifying where the money would come from. We are actually laying out a plan to make this country energy independent, to try to deal with the rising costs of gas and of oil, and this is the only way we can do this. We are constantly denied the opportunity to debate and to vote on a comprehensive plan or to deal with this issue. This is the moment. I want to point out to my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the agricultural appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the DeLauro amendment. A ``no'' vote will allow us to be able to support an initiative and a plan to deal with this energy crisis, to actually map out a strategy to support renewable energy sources. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the DeLauro amendment that was rejected in Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro for working together on this important bill. They have taken the President's inadequate budget proposal and made it better. Chairman Bonilla and his staff deserve to be congratulated for doing the right thing with this bill. And Ranking Member DeLauro and the Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee, including Ranking Member Obey, deserve credit for improving the chairman's mark. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the very important antihunger programs in this bill that make a real difference in the lives of millions of people here in the United States and around the world. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be a cochair of the Congressional Hunger Center and of the Hunger Caucus. I have seen how important our anti-hunger programs are to low-income Americans. I have met families who, through no fault of their own, have to rely on Federal anti-hunger programs to put food on their table. In my own district, I am working with State and local officials to make sure every eligible person in need signs up and receives these important benefits so that central Massachusetts and southeastern Massachusetts is made up of hunger-free communities. On the Federal level, we must continue to fight for critical anti- hunger programs. In his budget, the President eliminated the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food to low-income mothers and children under 6 years of age, as well as America's elderly poor. Literally hundreds of thousands of people would have been left to fend for themselves if this program had been shut down, as the President had requested. Thankfully, Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro not only restored the funding eliminated by President Bush, they also provided an increase of $11 million over last year's level. I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are thankful that this bill includes a $40 million increase for the WIC Program over last year's allocation, or $44 million more than the President's request. WIC is one of the most successful domestic maternal and infant health and nutrition programs in the history of the United States. I am troubled, however, that funding in this bill for the child nutrition programs is below the President's request and that funding for the food stamp program is almost $3 million less than last year, at a time when more and more and more people are falling below the poverty line. Mr. Speaker, even though I believe the funding levels for anti-hunger programs should be increased even more than what this bill was able to provide, I am more concerned that the administration and Congress continue to lack a cohesive anti-hunger, antipoverty strategy. Mr. Speaker, I know the Agriculture Appropriations Act is not the most appropriate bill to establish such a policy, but it is the vehicle that ultimately funds many of the important and most fundamental programs that help lift people out of poverty. I believe we can end hunger and poverty, if only we have the political will to do so. I challenge my colleagues in this chamber to do more. And it will not necessarily cost a great deal more, but it will take far better coordination of public and private efforts. It will take a concerted effort by the Federal Government, and it will take the heart and compassion of a great Nation to eradicate poverty and hunger in the United States once and for all. I believe in the heart of the American people. I think we saw that heart after Katrina. I think we see that heart every time there is a crisis abroad and children are in need. Mr. Speaker, over the next year, I hope we all rise to the occasion and commit to this worthy and necessary goal. Overall, Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill should be commended for restoring funding for many of our most important domestic hunger and nutrition programs. Regrettably, due once again to the extreme limits on the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, the same cannot be said of international hunger and good aid programs. The committee was able to maintain last year's funding levels, but so much more is needed. The George McGovern-Bob Dole International Food for Education Program is basically frozen at last year's levels. This was done despite a bipartisan letter from over 100 Members of Congress asking that funding for the McGovern program be restored to its fiscal year 2001 level of $300 million. This bill provides only one-third of that amount. McGovern-Dole has proven itself time and time again to be one of our most effective tools in reducing hunger in school-aged children, and increasing attendance and academic performance, especially among girls in some of the poorest places in the world. I know that the committee supports this program. I just hope that the chairman and the ranking member will find a way in conference negotiations to increase the funding for this program so that it can reach more children in the neediest communities in the developing world. Mr. Speaker, I also regret that P.L. 480, title II, food for peace, emergency food aid and development programs, have also basically been level-funded, although I do appreciate that the committee did find a few additional dollars for this program. In fiscal year 2006, Congress has ostensibly provided $1.218 billion for title II, and this bill provides $1.226 billion for title II. Unfortunately, what is hidden by these figures is that, for the past 3 years, the Congress has ended up appropriating about $1.5 billion each year so that title II can meet global food emergencies. This year is no exception. In the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental, which is currently awaiting House-Senate conference negotiations, there is about $350 million in title II emergency food aid; $225 million of that emergency food aid is for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. If the President had put those funds in last year's regular budget request, and Congress had approved and appropriated those funds in the regular agriculture appropriations bill, then that food would be on its way to the people of Darfur today. Instead, the World Food Programme has been forced to cut food rations in half for 2.6 million Darfur refugees and displaced people. Why should we care about this? Well, Mr. Speaker, as a Congress, we should care because this is deceptive budgeting, and poor planning hinders our ability to respond to emergencies as they arise. But more importantly, much more importantly, we should care because people are dying from lack of food because we do not have the funding in hand that we knew ahead of time we would need for fiscal year 2006 and that we should plan now to have in hand for fiscal year 2007. We know emergencies happen. We know we have been appropriating about $300 million or more each year for the past 3 years in supplemental appropriations bills to meet those needs. Let us do the right thing and build such funds into our planning process. Put those funds in the regular budget and include and approve them in the regular agriculture appropriations bill. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. No country in the world has been as responsive to international food emergencies as the United States. No other country even comes close to our generosity. The United States has been and continues to be the leader in providing food and humanitarian aid for Darfur. It is past time that the rest of the world step up to the plate. The funds sitting in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental will not reach the President's desk until June. And therefore the food aid itself will not reach the people of Darfur until November. If USAID had those moneys now up front, the ration cuts in Darfur would not be happening, period. I appeal to the President. I appeal to the appropriators and to the leadership of this House, do not repeat this mistake in 2007. We need to plan ahead. Somehow, before this bill comes back to us as a conference report, we need to find a way to substantially increase Title II funding so that we are not robbing food aid from one hungry family to feed another simply because we failed to provide the necessary funding to plan for and to meet global food emergencies. Mr. Speaker, I know the committee cannot do this on its own, which is why I make a plea for all of us to work this problem out, so that we are not faced with such desperate choices next year. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member DeLauro, and their colleagues on the committee should be commended for their hard work on this bill. They have done the best they could despite the difficult choices that face them in this process. They deserve our respect and gratitude. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Maryland who just spoke that I agree with almost everything he just said, except when he said that he was going to vote for the underlying rule, because the rule specifically does not protect the global warming language. So I do not know how the gentlemen can feel on the one hand very passionately about doing something about global warming and having us look into the issue, and on the other hand go ahead and vote for a rule that will allow anybody on this floor to strike it. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly a year since we considered the Interior appropriation, the last Interior appropriations bill. One year ago I joined with my colleagues in voicing my outrage at the inadequate funding levels for critical environmental and conservation programs, and last year, like this year, we were told that because of the budget allocation this was the best that we could do, we will try to do better next year. So here we are today in the wake of having the Republican leadership ram through a martial law rule in order to take up a budget resolution that just like last year's version slashes programs in areas of education, job training, conservation, public health and medical research and social services. Another year has gone by, but it is still the same old story. And so I rise today, sadly, in opposition to the fiscal year 2007 Interior appropriations bill. This bill is an assault against our environment and it should be defeated. Once again, it significantly cuts funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and completely eliminates the Stateside Grant Program. That is right, zero dollars for the Stateside Land and Water Conservation Program. I am simply not interested in hearing the same old argument that this is simply the best we can do given the budget allocation. The budget allocation does not just fall from the sky, this Congress voted on the budget yesterday. The Republican majority chose to slash environmental programs. The Republican majority chose to eliminate the State grants for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Republican majority chose to pass a budget that requires a completely inadequate allocation for the Department of Interior and environmental programs. Mr. Speaker, we have the results of those choices before us today. We could have done better. We could have chosen to move away from the deliberate policy of putting the privileges of millionaires ahead of the needs of our communities and families. Since 1964, LWCF funding has been used to support the acquisition and maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests and public domain lands, and the stateside program has helped to preserve open space, slow urban sprawl and given our children safe places to play. This program has broad bipartisan support, and success stories can be found in every single State and every single community throughout this country. In fact, this year I joined with my colleagues from New York (Mr. King) and New Jersey (Mr. Holt) in urging the committee to restore funding to the Stateside Grant Program. One hundred fifty Members shared this concern and signed on to a bipartisan letter. Mr. Speaker, it is all about priorities: Tax breaks for the wealthy few or open space and environmental protections for the majority of Americans. I commend Mr. Taylor and Mr. Dicks for the good in this bill, but the good is not enough to outweigh the bad. The Republican majority in this House have made their choices. It is the wrong choice. I urge my colleagues to hold true to their promise to the American people and reject this bill. We must do better. Congress of the United States. Washington, DC, March 14, 2006. Hon. Charles Taylor. Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, RHOB, Washington, DC. Hon. Norm Dicks, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, LHOB, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge the Subcommittee to restore funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) state and local grant program to $100 million for FY 2007. The LWCF state assistance program provides matching federal grants to states and local communities to develop outdoor recreation facilities and resources. This competitive grant program provides funds to the states that choose local projects based on need and quality of the project. Unfortunately, the FY 2007 budget eliminates funding for the state assistance program. An inadequate funding level for this program has had detrimental effects on communities across America, a number of which have been unable to begin certain new projects or to complete recreational projects already begun. This lack of funding would also mean that youth sports teams trying to access more facilities to relieve the stress of over-crowded fields and resources won't be able to find such fields, or community service organizations needing public recreation resources won't have them. The recently revised USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines call for 30 minutes of regular physical activity to promote health, psychological well-being, and a healthy body weight. Every American needs to take this call to heart, and for most Americans, local public parks and recreation areas are the place they would most like to do their daily physical activity. Our communities need funding for this program, which will increase opportunities for adults and children to have better access to close to home health promotion and disease prevention resources. The Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance program has aided local recreation projects in over 98% of all U.S. counties, and the federal investment has been matched many times over with local funds in 40,000 sports fields, community recreation facilities, and natural parks. We believe that this program is vital to assisting communities that are trying to provide close to home places for all Americans to get active and stay healthy. The LWCF matching grants especially help those communities that are facing the problems associated with exploding growth such as a critical lack of sports fields and lack of necessary community planning. These grants also assist many small communities to build possibly their only public recreation facility, a facility or park that would not exist with out the federal funds that match their local funds and make the investment possible. Given the national obesity crisis and the need for all Americans to have access to public places and spaces to have a place to get active and stay healthy, we strongly urge you to support an appropriation of $100 million in FY 2007 for the LWCF state assistance program. Sincerely, James McGovern, Peter King, Rush Holt, Neil Abercrombie, Gary Ackerman, Thomas Allen, Robert Andrews, Brian Baird, Tammy Baldwin, Melissa Bean, Xavier Becerra, Shelley Berkley, Timothy Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Sherwood Boehlert, Leonard Boswell, Rick Boucher, Jeb Bradly, Henry Brown, Sherrod Brown, Dave Camp, Lois Capps, Michael Capuano, Benjamin Cardin, Dennis Cardoza, Russ Carnahan, Julia Carson, Ed Case, Ben Chandler, Donna Christensen. Wm. Lacy Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, James Clyburn, John Conyers, Jerry Costello, Joseph Crowley, Henry Cuellar, Elijah Cummings, Jo Ann Davis, Susan Davis, Tom Davis, Peter DeFazio, Diana DeGette, William Delahunt, Rosa DeLauro, John Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Michael Doyle, Rahm Emanuel, Eliot Engel, Anna Eshoo, Lane Evans, Mike Ferguson, Michael Fitzpatrick, Harold Ford, Jeff Fortenberry, Vito Fossella, Barney Frank, Wayne Gilchrest, Charles Gonzalez. Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Raul Grijalva, Luis Guitierrez, Jane Harman, Alcee Hastings, Brian Higgins, Tim Holden, Darlene Hooley, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, William Jefferson, Tim Johnson, Sue Kelly, Dale Kildee, Ron Kind, Dennis Kucinich, John Kuhl, James Langevin, Tom Lantos, Rick Larsen, John Larson, Barbara Lee, Sander Levin, John Lewis, Daniel Lipinski, Frank LoBiondo, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn McCarthy, Betty McCollum. Thaddeus McCotter, Jim McDermott, Mike McIntyre, Cynthia McKinney, Michael McNulty, Carolyn Malone, Ed Markey, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Doris Matsui, Mike Michaud, Juanita Millender-McDonald, George Miller, Dennis Moore, Jerrold Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal, James Oberstar, Solomon Ortiz, Tom Osborne, Frank Pallone Jr., Donald Payne, David Price, Nick Rahall II, Silvestre Reyes, Tom Reynolds, Mike Ross, Tim Ryan, John Salazar, Bernie Sanders. Jim Saxton, Janice Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, Allyson Schwartz, John J. H. Schwarz, David Scott, Robert Scott, Christopher Shays, Brad Sherman, Rob Simmons, Ike Skelton, Louise Slaughter, Adam Smith, Vic Snyder, Mark Souder, John Spratt, Pete Stark, Ted Strickland, Bart Stupak, Ellen Tauscher, Lee Terry, John Tierney, Edolphus Towns, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Chris Van Hollen, James Walsh, Diane Watson, Melvin Watt, Henry Waxman, Jerry Weller, Lynn Woolsey.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 30 seconds so he can respond.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).