Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Isn't it accurate that the language that the gentleman just referred to in the bill is discretionary, whereas what we are talking about is statutory language that would require reporting every 90 days so that we don't make the same mistake we did in Iraq?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, whom I have a lot of respect for. First of all, the cost of the program that we were debating was only given to members of the committee that the President chose, not all members of the committee. Secondly, I find it scandalous, quite frankly, that this Congress is abdicating its responsibility to put in place checks and balances on the President's domestic spying program. When you talk about enforcing and abiding by the Constitution of the United States, that is one of our responsibilities. I think what the President is doing is illegal. We should have a debate on this. The White House should be more forthcoming. Quite frankly, it is an outrage. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 357, offered by the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). This resolution would support the goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month. Cystic Fibrosis is one of the most common life-threatening genetic diseases in the United States. Approximately 30,000 people in the United States have cystic fibrosis, and about 1,000 new cases of cystic fibrosis are diagnosed each year. Tragically, more than half of those with CF are children. As I stand here today, more than 10 million Americans are unknowing, symptom-free carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene. Significant improvements have been made in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Just a few decades ago, children with CF did not live past 10 years of age. Today the life expectancy has improved, and the number of adults with CF has steadily grown. Even so, there is no cure for this disease, and much still must be done to provide people with CF with a normal and healthy life expectancy. Early diagnosis is the key, and that is why it's so important that we work to further public awareness and understanding of cystic fibrosis. We must increase support for those affected by this disease and ensure that they have access to quality care, and we also must support research to find a cure for CF. I am proud to provide my support to this cause, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 357 so that the month of May can be dedicated to educating all Americans about cystic fibrosis, about the courage of those who suffer from this disease, and about the important research underway to find a cure.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor one of America's great teachers and scholars of law and an inspirational figure for everyone who believes in the creative spirit of non- violence, Mr. Caleb Foote, who passed away on March 4, 2006. Caleb Foote began his life journey in Massachusetts. He was born in Cambridge in 1917, graduated from Harvard in 1939, and earned his master's degree in 1941. He was raised on Quaker beliefs and held deep principles that rejected the use of violence. During the period of World War II he was sent to prison for those beliefs when he refused to serve in the military or to perform alternative service in support of war. After completing his prison sentence, he spoke out against the internment of Japanese-Americans, working with photographer Dorothy Lange to produce a pamphlet on the subject in 1943. He was forced to serve a second term in prison for continuing to refuse the draft, but he was pardoned by no one less than President Harry S. Truman. In the 1950s, Mr. Foote went back to college and earned his law degree. For the remainder of his career, he taught law and became a leading champion for the rights of the poor, the young, minorities, and the disenfranchised within the criminal justice system. Even after he retired, he continued his research and exposed the failures of the juvenile justice system in California. America has lost a champion of justice and a man of principle. I extend my condolences to all the members of Caleb Foote's family and his community of friends, who knew him not as a symbol, but as a husband, a father, a grandfather, a friend, and a colleague. I submit for the Record the April 3, 2006 article from the New York Times describing Caleb Foote's life and achievements. [From the New York Times, Apr. 3, 2006] Caleb Foote, Law Professor and Pacifist Organizer, 88, Dies (By Douglas Martin) Caleb Foote, whose moral sense influenced him to go to prison for refusing to do even noncombatant work in World War II, then led him to become a law professor known for advocacy of criminal rights, died on March 4 at a hospital in Santa Rosa, California. He was 88. The cause was a blood infection, said his daughter, Heather Foote. Mr. Foote was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on March 26, 1917. He graduated in 1939 from Harvard, where he was managing editor of The Harvard Crimson, and earned a master's degree in economics in 1941. The Quaker faith of his mother drew him to pacifism, and he was hired that year by the Fellowship of Reconciliation, a pacifist organization, to open its Northern California office. His draft board had denied his request for conscientious objector status in 1940, deciding that his religious argument for the status was based more on humanist principles than on theology. Mr. Foote then refused an order to report to a camp to perform alternative service, and as a result in 1943 he was convicted for violations of the Selective Service Act. ``Only by my refusal to obey this order can I uphold my belief that evil must be opposed not by violence but by the creation of goodwill throughout the world,'' Mr. Foote said in an interview with The Associated Press. He served six months at a federal prison camp, then resumed his work with the fellowship, spending much of his time speaking out against the internment of Japanese-Americans. In 1943, he helped produce a pamphlet on the subject, titled ``Outcasts,'' with the photographer Dorothea Lange. In 1945, Mr. Foote was again sentenced for draft law violations and served a year at a federal penitentiary. He was pardoned by President Harry S. Truman. From 1948 to 1950, Mr. Foote was executive director of the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors. He then decided to go to law school, inspired by the desire to address the racial and economic inequalities he had witnessed in the criminal justice system, his daughter said. In 1953, he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he was managing editor of the law review. The next year, he became a professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law. He persuaded a federal judge to reverse the conviction of an American Indian man whose lawyer had been incompetent. At a law school convention in New York in 1954, Mr. Foote called for the strengthening of civil remedies for false arrest. In 1956, he moved to Penn's law school, where he led a student team that studied New York City's bail system and recommended changes. He became a leader in bail reform, and, in 1966, his book, ``Studies on Bail'' was published. He argued that the bail system was biased against the poor and an unfair burden on falsely accused defendants. He even argued that bail was inherently unconstitutional. In 1965, Mr. Foote became a professor at the Boalt School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, where he specialized in family and criminal law. In 1968, after student protests rocked Berkeley, he was a co-chairman of an investigative committee that recommended changes that included giving the campus autonomy from the rest of California's university system. He retired in 1987 and moved to Point Reyes Station in Marin County, California, where he became active in local conservation efforts and lived until his death. In 1993, he did a study for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco showing that the corrections department's share of state expenditures had grown to 8.2 percent from 3.9 percent over the past 10 years, while higher education's part had fallen to 9.3 percent from 14.4 percent. Besides his daughter, of Washington, Mr. Foote is survived by his wife of 63 years, the former Hope Stephens; their sons, Robert Foote of Copper Hill, Virginia; Andrew Eliot Foote of Los Angeles; Ethan Foote of Santa Rosa; and David Foote of Volcano, Hawaii; and four grandchildren.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam) 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, we have seen this movie before. Just like last year and the year before that and the year before that, the budget resolution put forward by the House Republican leadership today is an awful piece of legislation. There is no other way to describe it. It is a budget that hurts American families. It is a budget that continues to create a government without a conscience. It is a budget that punishes the poor and the middle class and rewards the very wealthy and special interests. It is a budget that explodes our Nation's deficit and passes mountains of debt onto our children and grandchildren. It is a budget that deliberately misleads the American people about the cost of our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that deserves to be defeated soundly by every Member of this House. The details speak for themselves. This budget includes a deficit for 2006 of $372 billion and a deficit for 2007 of $348 billion. In fact, if this budget is approved, the five largest deficits in the history of the United States of America will have occurred in the past 5 consecutive years, all during the period when the House, the Senate, and the White House are totally under Republican control. What in the world has happened to the party of fiscal discipline? They have become the party of runaway spending and reckless tax giveaways. Even worse than this unchecked spending binge is the Republican leadership's deliberate misleading of the American people. We are at war, Mr. Speaker, and every day our brave soldiers patrol the most remote areas of Afghanistan and the most dangerous neighborhoods in Iraq. Every day the American people learn of more roadside bombings, insurgent attacks, and death in Iraq. Every day the Iraqis seem more and more unable to form a functioning government, and every day Iraq slips further and further into chaos and civil war. And every day our credibility around the world gets lower and lower. And every day our Nation sinks deeper and deeper into a violent quagmire. But with all of this, Mr. Speaker, how do you explain only $50 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2007, and after that no funding at all? Now, if the Republicans actually carry out what they are promising in this budget, the United States won't be spending a penny in Iraq or Afghanistan after 2007. Maybe they have miraculously stumbled upon an exit strategy, which would be just fine with me. But last year, the United States spent over $100 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all told we have spent $357 billion over the past 4 years on fighting these wars. President Bush recently announced that the American troops will be in Iraq until at least 2009. The truth, of course, is that the Bush administration will be back before we know it asking for tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars more in so-called emergency funding to pay for their failed foreign policy. But then, Mr. Speaker, why should we expect the Republicans in Washington to start telling the truth about Iraq now, given the fact we have been lied to, deceived, and misled from day one. What will happen is that the Republican leadership will write a blank check without asking the tough questions, without demanding the straight answers, and without conducting the kind of oversight that is our responsibility as Members of Congress. And while we are on the subject of war and its aftermath, Mr. Speaker, let us examine how this budget handles our veterans. Now, my Republican colleagues will pat themselves on the back and crow about how they have increased funding for veterans in fiscal year 2007, but once again the devil is in the details. The truth is that over the next 5 years, the Republicans actually cut the same funding by a total of $4 billion. Do they think our current and future veterans are just going to fade away? Talk about cutting and running. At a time when America is creating hundreds, if not thousands of new veterans, and when thousands of those veterans are going to need significant health care support for the rest of their lives because of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is shameful that the Republicans in Washington are blatantly ignoring our veterans. Sending our brave servicemen and women to war without providing for their care when they return is not an American value. Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you are going to send our servicemen and women into war, you have an obligation to them, a moral obligation to them that when they return home as veterans that they will be cared for. To do otherwise is to disrespect their service. And that is what this budget does. How does anyone in this Chamber vote for this budget and then go back to their districts, look their veterans in the eye and say with a straight face that we have done our best for you? You can't. The list of misplaced priorities in this budget, Mr. Speaker, goes on and on. This budget slashes critical programs in the areas of education, job training, environmental protection and conservation funding, public health programs, medical research, and social services. It fails our responsibility to protect America by allowing $6.2 billion worth of cuts to homeland security programs. And where is the money for port security? Didn't my Republican friends say that they were concerned about our ports when joining with Democrats in opposing the President's selling of our port security to the United Arab Emirates? Maybe I need new bifocals, but I cannot find the necessary funding to make our ports secure in this budget. This budget cuts programs that helps low-wage workers and vulnerable families. In fact, the Republican leadership cuts into these programs even more deeply than President Bush's proposal. To top it all off with a Nation at war, with desperate priorities that need to be met, with veterans who need our help and the gulf coast still devastated from last year's hurricanes, the Republican leadership still has the audacity to give the wealthiest Americans $228 billion in new tax cuts while passing the cost of those tax cuts onto our children. It just takes my breath away. My friends on the other side of the aisle will say this budget reflects necessary tough choices. My question, however, is this: Why do all of the tough choices hurt average families? Why don't some of the tough choices include forgoing tax cuts for wealthy people or ending subsidies in tax breaks for oil companies that are gouging families at the pump, or no more giveaways to pharmaceutical companies until they provide cheaper drugs for our citizens? Why is it all of the Republican tough choices spell tough choices for working families, senior citizens, students, veterans and the most vulnerable? Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. Democrats have a plan that works, a plan that reestablishes fiscal discipline by implementing a pay-as- you-go strategy, a plan that provides our veterans over $8 billion more in assistance than the Republican budget, a plan that balances the budget by 2012, a plan that properly funds our domestic priorities including homeland security, a plan that gives our veterans the care and the respect they deserve, and a plan that provides fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of hardworking middle-class Americans. What the Republicans have proposed today is out of step with the American people. Indeed, it is way out of the mainstream. This is a budget that reflects a heart of stone. I can only say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the day has come for a new direction, a new set of priorities, a new commitment to the American people. The day has come for us to recreate a government with a conscience. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying there are numerous reasons to oppose this budget. Education funding goes down, health care funding goes down, environmental protection money goes down, and I go on and on and on. But what particularly I find astounding is the way our veterans are being disrespected in this budget. The gentleman mentioned before all these veterans groups that are thanking him for what they are doing. The fact of the matter is, I am hearing the opposite from every major veterans organization in this country. I have a letter here from the Disabled Veterans of America asking us to end the cycle of the constant cutting of benefits, that people right now are waiting in lines. And we have more veterans that are going to be produced as a result of this war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been to Iraq, and I have seen those men and women serving our country. I have a disagreement with our policy, but they are doing an incredible job. And you on the majority are doing a disservice to these veterans by not providing the necessary funding not only to meet the needs of the veterans that currently exist, but you don't even account for the veterans, the thousands of veterans, that will be produced as a result of this war. It is wrong, it is immoral for us to pass a budget that doesn't respect our veterans. Vote ``no'' on this budget. Vote ``yes'' for the Spratt substitute.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to the gentleman, in case he has not read it, the Democratic proposal actually balances the budget by 2012, which is something that the Republican budget does not do. What we have a problem with is giving tax breaks to Donald Trump at a time when you are shortchanging veterans. We think those are misplaced priorities. At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas, my colleague on the Rules Committee. He says he is proud of this budget. Quite frankly, I am ashamed that this budget is coming out of this Congress with the cuts that are contained in this budget that I think are going to hurt working families and also be devastating for our veterans. I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side that in 1995 the VA treated 2.6 million people. Last year it was 5.4 million people. And that number is going to go up and up and up. And yet in this budget, we see over the next few years a $4 billion cut. That to me makes absolutely no sense. We know that the demand on the VA is going to become greater and greater, and yet we are deliberately shortchanging veterans health and veterans benefits. We know what the future is going to hold, but we are fudging the numbers here. I think that that is not only irresponsible but, Mr. Speaker, it is dishonest. The gentleman from Texas talked about planning. Well, boy, the planning that the Republicans have done here has just led to such great success. We have the biggest deficits in the history of the United States of America. Boy, that is great planning. More of our debt is owned by foreign countries than at any other time in our history. I don't know too many people who feel good about that. Your planning has done such a great job that, quite frankly, it is pushing our country towards bankruptcy. And he talked about the insatiable appetite of people who want to spend money. Look, I am all for fiscal restraint. We want to pay as you go. We want to make sure that every new program that we talk about, every new revenue initiative that we talk about is paid for. That is the way families do it. That is not the case with Republicans. But when you talk about insatiable appetite, I can't help but think of your energy bill, which provides these incredible tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies that have never made more profits than they are right now, that are gouging American taxpayers at the pump, and you are giving them billions of dollars. Talk about insatiable appetite. Or the drug companies that can't provide our senior citizens a decent cost for prescription drugs and you are sending more and more subsidies and tax breaks and liability protections to these industries that, quite frankly, need to respect our citizens more. So that is the kind of insatiable appetite that has gotten us into this mess, and we have had enough of it. We need new priorities; and I hope that my colleagues, again, will turn down this budget. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of veterans funding again. The gentleman from Florida keeps on bragging about how the Republicans have been so good to our veterans and have increased dramatically veterans funding over the last decade. First of all, let me just say that I don't know of a single Member of Congress who have gone back to their districts and heard from veterans and people who work in VA facilities and other veterans health benefit facilities that somehow, boy, you have given us all we need. We don't need any more. What you have handed us is enough to meet the demand. I mean, in fact, what you hear is the opposite. And I am going to just say one thing to the gentleman. Over the past 10 years, all this bragging he is doing about increasing the veterans budget, from 1996 to the year 2000, the number of unique patients increased by $2.4 million. And on a per capita basis, veterans health care funding increases average only 0.1 percent per year, a level well below inflation for medical care. So we are not meeting the current needs of our veterans, and in this budget there is no way we are going to meet the future needs of our veterans when we are creating more veterans because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating thousands of new veterans. That is an undeniable fact. Thousands of these men and women have been severely injured, and most will need medical services and benefits for the rest of their lives. And even without the influx of this new generation of veterans, the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 spending for the VA doesn't even meet the health care needs of our current number of veterans and military retirees. According to every major veterans organization in the country, we are still about $1 billion short each year. But the Republican budget before us actually decreases the discretionary funding for VA benefits and services each and every year over the next 5 years. So FY 2011, just 5 years away, is actually $4 billion less than FY 2006. That is their budget. So I ask, is this how we honor our troops? Is this how we support them when they come home? I hope not. And I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. Again, I would simply say that the spending he is bragging about for the last 10 years didn't even keep up with inflation. But putting that aside, let's talk about the next 5 years. Let's talk about your budget, the budget you have. I have got the numbers here. In fiscal year 2007, it goes up by $2.6 billion. Then in fiscal year 2008, you go down by $100 billion. In fiscal year 2009, you go down by $1.4 billion. And in fiscal year 2010, you go down by $3.1 billion. And then in fiscal 2011, you go down by $4 billion. And I would just remind the gentleman, maybe he has not been reading the newspapers lately, but we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thousands of new veterans are going to come into this system. And your budget shortchanges not only them, it doesn't even meet the needs of the current veterans. So from the veterans' perspective, this budget is deeply flawed. I think it shows a disrespect for the service of those men and women whom we have sent over to fight for our country. We owe them more than this. And I would urge my colleagues if you want to support veterans, this is not the way to do it. This is the place you take a stand. You say no to this budget, send them back, and let them do what is right by our veterans. There is no way we should be shortchanging our veterans, and this budget does that. Mr. Speaker, I would at this time like to submit into the Record a letter from the Interreligous Working Group on Domestic Human Needs, representing the major Protestant and Catholic churches and faith organizations. They state that ``as communities of faith . . . we are called upon to hold ourselves and our communities accountable to the moral standard of our Biblical tradition. We speak together now to express our concern about our national priorities.'' The letter is called a ``Faith Reflection on the Federal Budget,'' and it opposes what is before us today. Interreligious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs A Faith Reflection on the Federal Budget As communities of faith, we are grounded in a shared tradition of justice and compassion, and we are called upon to hold ourselves and our communities accountable to the moral standard of our Biblical tradition. We speak together now to express our concern about our national priorities. In the year that has passed since this reflection was originally written, this concern has deepened as we have watched poverty, food insecurity, and the number of people without health insurance climb for the fourth year in a row. Across the country, churches and faith-based organizations who care for our most vulnerable people are straining under increased demand for services due to cuts in federal funding for critical safety net programs. Devastating hurricanes have underscored real problems of racism and inequality in our country and along the Gulf Coast, and scattered throughout the country survivors are struggling to provide for their families while waiting for the bold action that has yet to materialize from our national leaders. These circumstances make it necessary to even more closely examine our government's decisions, particularly those concerning the budget, through a moral lens. The federal budget remains a fundamental statement of who we are as a nation. The choices we make about how we generate revenues and spend our shared resources reveal our true allegiance. As people of faith we must continue to ask: Do these choices uphold values that will strengthen our life together as a nation and as part of the global community? We offer this reflection as a starting point for such a dialogue and to make clear the values to which we hold ourselves and our nation accountable. Community and the common good ``But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you . . . and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will have your welfare'' (Jeremiah 29:7, NRSV). Our nation's well-being is dependent on the well-being of all its members. In order to form a more perfect union, the preamble to the U.S. Constitution commits this nation to promoting the general welfare. In faith language we would call that the ``common good.'' The budget should reflect a commitment to the common good by ensuring that the basic needs of all members of society are met. At this time, when Gulf Coast communities are still struggling to recover from last year's hurricanes, when nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, 37 million live in poverty and one in five children lives in a household experiencing food insecurity, additional cuts to critical human needs programs cannot be justified. Investments in education, job training, work supports, health care, housing, food assistance and environmental protection strengthen families and communities and promote opportunity for all. These should be budget priorities. Budget decisions must be evaluated not just in the short term, but with respect to their long-term effects on our children's children, the global community and on all of creation. Concern for those who are poor and vulnerable ``Give the king your justice, O God . . . May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice . . . . May he defend the cause of the poor of the people and give deliverance to the needy (Psalm 72: 1-4, NRSV). As a nation we have a special responsibility to care for the most vulnerable members of society. All budget decisions and administrative procedures must be judged by their impact on children, low-income families, the elderly, people with disabilities and other vulnerable populations. Whatever one's position on the war in Iraq or on the tax cuts, these policies are driving the deficit. Attempting to pay off the deficit by cutting programs that affect needy populations, when these programs did not lead to the deficit, is unjust. Economic justice ``Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people'' (Isaiah 10:1-2, NIV). God has created a world of sufficiency for all; the problem is not the lack of natural and economic resources, but how they are shared, distributed and made accessible within society and throughout the world. Our government should be a tool to correct inequalities, not a means of institutionalizing them. The federal budget should share the burdens of taxation, according to one's ability to pay, and distribute government resources fairly to create opportunity for all. Endorsing organizations National: American Baptist Churches USA; American Friends Service Committee; Bread for the World; Call to Renewal; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Church of the Brethren Witness/Washington Office; Church Women United; Conference of Major Superiors of Men; The Episcopal Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Institute Justice Team--Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Jesuit Conference USA; Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns; Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA; NCCC Justice for Women Working Group; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Pax Christi USA; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and Society; Women of Reform Judaism. State and Local: Arizona--Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Arizona. California--Lutheran Office of Public Policy-- California; Pacific Central West Region of Union for Reform Judaism; Sisters of the Good Shepherd, San Francisco. Colorado--Lutheran Advocacy Ministry--Colorado. Delaware-- Lutheran Office on Public Policy, Delaware. Florida--Union for Reform Judaism--Southeast Council. Illinois--Lutheran Network for Justice Advocacy; Lutheran Social Services of Illinois; Protestants for the Common Good. Minnesota-- Institute for Welcoming Resources; Minnesota Council of Churches. Missouri--Sisters of the Good Shepherd--St. Louis,

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California's comments. But I will tell you, most CPAs that fudge the numbers in real life go to jail. And the fact of the matter is in this budget, the numbers are fudged. $50 billion for Iraq for the next 5 years? Give me a break. You know what is going on. You know what is going on. The bottom line is you are going to be coming back and back and back for more and more money. Look, the gentleman raised the Democratic budget proposal. Well, let me just elaborate a little bit and suggest that he read it. The Democratic budget proposal would return the budget to balance. We reach balance by the year 2012, and we also have smaller deficits than the Republican budget and accumulate less debt. By contrast, the Republican budget never returns to balance and even refuses to show how big the deficit will be after 2011. Our proposal includes fiscally responsible budget enforcement rules. The Democratic budget backs the two-sided pay-as-you-go budget enforcement rule that requires that the cost of any new mandatory spending or revenue legislation be fully offset. This is the way families operate. They pay as they go. They can't accumulate the debt that you have accumulated. There is no way that families could operate the way the Republican majority has operated here. During the 1990s, the two-sided PAYGO rules played a critical role in turning record deficits into record surpluses. Do you remember those days? The Democratic budget also requires a separate vote to increase the debt limit. You used to be concerned about that, but no longer. Now we sneak the increase in the debt limit through without having to put Members on record, and it prohibits using fast track reconciliation procedures to make the deficit even worse. We invest in education, and we keep our commitment to veterans. I mean, to me one of the most egregious elements of the budget that the Republicans have proposed is that you turn your back on America's veterans. We have sent them to war. There will be more veterans in the future, not less, and you did not put aside the adequate funding to make sure that these men and women who have served our country with great honor get the respect that they have earned and that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the major Jewish community service providers in our country, and they ask all of us to oppose this Republican budget resolution because it will force, in their view, harmful cuts in education, health care, nutrition, housing and other services critical for children, families, seniors, and people with disabilities. I ask my colleagues to listen to the plea of these faith-based groups. April 5, 2006 Dear Representative: The Jewish community has long demonstrated a commitment to economic and social justice. We have been vigorous in advocating policies and programs to fight poverty and to help address the needs of disenfranchised vulnerable populations, including the elderly, working poor, disabled, youth, and refugees. The budget process is one of the most important actions taken by our government each year and is an integral part of allocating funds for important human needs programs. While we recognize that deficit reduction is critical to the economic stability of our country, we believe it is essential that it be done in a fair and balanced manner. Over the past months we have spoken out against cuts that we believed would disproportionately hurt those in most need. The budget plan passed out of the House Budget Committee would make huge cuts to domestic discretionary programs. These cuts would be extremely harmful both to our social service agencies that are dependent on public funding as well as the vulnerable populations we advocate on behalf of. Programs such as the Older Americans Act, the Social Services Block Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, and the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program are critical to the elderly, refugees, children, and persons with disabilities, and all would likely face severe cuts if this budget proposal is enacted. We believe that budgets are documents which reflect the values and priorities of those who create them. With the increase in hunger in American households; housing costs rising faster than wages; and more than 45 million Americans lacking adequate health care coverage, funding for social services to assist these individuals is more critical than ever. This budget does not accurately reflect our values. As you consider the Budget this week, we ask you to oppose this Resolution that will force harmful cuts in education, health care, nutrition, housing, and other services that are critical for children, families, seniors, and people with disabilities. Sincerely, Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America. Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies. B'nai B'rith International. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. International Association of Jewish Vocational Services. Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Jewish Labor Committee. Jewish War Veterans of the USA. National Council of Jewish Women. Union for Reform Judaism. United Jewish Communities. Women of Reform Judaism. Women's American ORT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam). Facts are indeed a stubborn thing. The fact is that this budget that the Republicans have put forward cuts funding for veterans. Over 5 years, the budget cuts funding for veterans health care by $6 billion below current services. Republicans will tout the fact that the budget raises discretionary spending for 2007 by some $2.6 billion, but these apparent gains are quickly reversed with a cut for 2008 of $59 million below current services, and cuts of increasing amounts in subsequent years culminating in a cut of $4 billion for 2011. One other fact: a couple years ago, the VA itself testified it needed a 13 to 14 percent increase each year to maintain what it is doing. This budget in no way reflects what this Veterans Administration has said. So facts are a stubborn thing. This budget is not good for veterans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague on the Rules Committee. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006. I wish to thank my good friends and colleagues on the House International Relations Committee, in particular Chairman Henry Hyde and Ranking Member Tom Lantos. I would also like to thank the honorable gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Donald Payne, for his leadership on Darfur and peace in Sudan, as well as my Massachusetts colleague, and Co-Chair of the Sudan Caucus, Representative Michael Capuano. Mr. Speaker, the genocide in Darfur is an affront to the world, and a challenge to the moral and political leadership of the U.S., the European Union, the NATO Alliance, the African Union, and the international community and its representative body, the United Nations. To date, we have failed, individually and collectively, to rise and meet this challenge. Every day, the carnage continues. Every day, villages are destroyed. Every day, women and girls are raped. Every day, children are held in servitude. Every day, the Sudanese government in Khartoum and its terrorist allies, the Janjaweed militias, sit fat and happy, secure in their knowledge that the world is all bark, and no bite--and they continue their pillage and their terror and their violent acts with impunity. This bill, Mr. Speaker, attempts to hold the Government of Sudan, its leadership and its militia allies accountable for their acts and their crimes. It is not enough, Mr. Speaker, but it takes important steps to strengthen current sanctions, increase the pressure on Khartoum, demand greater support for the African Union peacekeeping mission (AMIS), and require greater action by the international community, including the U.S., to put an end to the slaughter. I wish the bill would have required the establishment and enforcement of a no-fly zone over Darfur, but at least it includes a sense of Congress provision in support of the no-fly zone. But I warn you, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of controlling the skies over Darfur, government planes and helicopters will continue to support and protect the terrorist militias as they carry out genocidal acts against the defenseless population. Mr. Speaker, everyone talks about Darfur. For the past 3 years the world has called what is happening in Darfur genocide. And yet the situation continues, the crisis worsens, the blood continues to flow, smoke still rises over the few remaining villages, refugees from the region pour into over-crowded camps, hunger and famine stalk the refugees, and the conflict spills over into neighboring countries. We cannot continue to talk about Darfur, yet turn our eyes away. We cannot continue to talk about Darfur, yet take no actions to stop the killing. I fear, Mr. Speaker, the peace of the dead. This is not an African problem, this is a crime against humanity--all humanity--our humanity. I support H.R. 3127; it is a good step in the right direction; but it is not enough. We in this Congress; we in this Nation; we in this world have failed to meet the test of Darfur--and we will continue to fail until the killing stops, peace is achieved, and the murderers--and all those who aid and abet them--are held accountable and brought to justice. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3127.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, my colleague, for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this rule and on this bill. Mr. Speaker, scarcely 2 months ago, the Republican majority voted to cut $12 billion from Federal student aid programs. That is what they did. And not a single member of the Democratic minority voted for those cuts. This raid on student aid represents the single largest cut in the history of these critical Federal programs. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to force America's college students and their families to pay the price for the majority's irresponsible management of our Nation's budget. It is wrong to make students and families who are already struggling to pay for college foot the bill for tax cuts for the super-rich. In February, President Bush submitted his budget for fiscal year 2007, which this House is likely to take up next week and which continues to cut America's Federal investment in higher education. For the sixth year in a row, President Bush has broken his promise to raise the maximum Pell Grant to $5,100. Instead, his budget freezes the maximum level at $4,050, well below what is needed for low-income students to pay for college. Once again, the President's budget eliminates Federal funding for Perkins loans and sharply cuts back funding for campus-based grants like the SEOG and work study. Financially needy students are further denied opportunities to achieve a college education by a budget that eliminates programs that directly help them prepare for college, including GEAR UP and Upward Bound. So here we are today, preparing to bring H.R. 609 to the House floor. Does this bill restore the purchasing power of the Pell Grant? No, it does not. Instead, it increases the maximum Pell Grant by just a measly $200 over 6 years. When Pell Grant first began, it covered 84 percent of the cost at a 4-year public college. Today, because of inadequate funding, the Pell Grant covers only 42 percent of the cost, forcing millions of students to go deep into debt, work long hours, or forget college altogether. Does this bill guarantee that only the minor authorized increase for the Pell Grant in H.R. 609 will actually be funded at this level? No, it does not. Assuming Republican priorities remain the same, we will continue to see budgets and appropriations that fall far short of what is needed to make college affordable for all of America's qualified students. Mr. Speaker, there is still time for the Republican leadership to do the right thing. We can strengthen and improve this bill, but only if the Rules Committee makes in order amendments like the Miller-Kildee alternative. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as written, misses the mark. We must help more of our students get to college and afford to stay there. If we fail to truly make this our number one priority, then we fail our students, our families, our communities and the Nation, and we inflict long-term damage on America's ability to compete, our economy and America's future prosperity. What a rotten legacy this Republican Congress is leaving future generations: enormous Federal debt and the slashing of important vital programs to give all Americans the opportunity to pursue higher education. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, your priorities are wrong. Your priorities will do damage to our students and will undercut our Nation's ability to remain an economic superpower. You have already slashed away at Federal funding for elementary and secondary education despite all the new Federal mandates that have been imposed on our schools by No Child Left Behind. Now here we are shortchanging higher education. When is enough enough? Don't tell us you do not have the money. You have money for tax breaks for Donald Trump and the super-rich, but you don't have money when it comes to helping working families. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that if education is your priority, then you need to vote against this bill, send this bill back and force this Republican majority to do what is right. Do not listen to the rhetoric about somehow we are improving Pell Grants and we are providing more assistance to our younger people. The fact of the matter is the purchasing power of Pell Grants is at an all-time low. We could do better. Without significant changes in this bill, I regret that I cannot support H.R. 609. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. This should be an open rule. If anything should be debated on this House floor, it should be education. Last night, we had many Members offer amendments, and here we are with a restrictive rule. We should spend a week on education. We should not be rushing this in a day or two. Let's spend a week. It is that important. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and vote against the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again we are asked to provide tens of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq under the pretense that this war, now entering its fourth year, is a so-called unexpected emergency. The Iraq war is indeed an emergency, Mr. Speaker, but it is hardly unexpected. I support the funds provided in this bill for the continuing hurricane relief and recovery for the people in the gulf coast. I support the funding for emergency humanitarian needs, famine relief and peacekeepers in Darfur, Sudan. I would like to be clear, Mr. Speaker, I support our diplomatic, humanitarian, economic and military activities in Afghanistan, but I simply cannot support a single dime more for the war in Iraq. Every day, the American people wake up to headlines describing how much worse the situation grows in Iraq: Iraqi Police Tied to Abuses and Deaths; Chaos in Iraq; U.S. General Says U.S. Troops Add to Instability; 72 Percent of U.S. Troops Want Withdrawal Within a Year. Mr. Speaker, Iraq is in the midst of a spiraling civil war. On February 26, Pentagon officials said that the number of Iraqi army battalions capable of fighting the insurgency on their own has slipped since September from one battalion to none. The newly formed government is paralyzed by sectarian divisions. The U.S. has turned its back on rebuilding Iraq. Ironically, the Bush administration has no problem cutting and running on reconstruction for Iraq. Mr. Speaker, did you know that the only new construction aid in this supplemental is for more prisons in Iraq? Not schools or hospitals or roads, just prisons. As both the GAO and the Inspector General have determined, there never was any systematic plan for stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq. Now we are paying the price. Over 2,300 American military men and women have paid the ultimate price, their lives, trying to do their best to implement this awful policy, but it cannot be done, Mr. Speaker. And we cannot allow ourselves to be on the floor of this House next year looking at another so-called emergency supplemental for Iraq and talking about 5,000 or 10,000 American troops who have lost their lives. It is time to bring our uniformed men and women home. It is time to begin a safe, orderly drawdown of our troops, one that we can control. If the Iraqis are not willing to solve their own problems through less bloody means, then why on Earth should American troops die for them? Like so many of my House colleagues, once we were in Iraq, I felt we had a moral obligation to help the Iraqis rebuild their nation and form a representative government, but, Mr. Speaker, we are not helping anymore. Our presence is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Mr. Speaker, it is easy for Members of this House to stand up and say, stay the course because, quite frankly, none of us are risking our lives. None of us are in harm's way. None of us are stuck over there because of the stunning failure and ineptitude of politicians in Washington. If you want to protect our troops, let's bring them home. So it is with regret, genuine regret, that I must vote against passage of the supplemental. The House has become addicted to voting for more money for a policy that has gone terribly, terribly wrong. It is time to stop. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his courtesy. I would simply say to the gentleman that the situation in Iraq right now is out of control. There is a civil war. A majority of the Iraqis want us gone. A majority of our troops believe that we should come home. And I know the gentleman has been there. I have been there, too. Let me tell you something. It is one thing for a United States Congressman to go over and visit in Iraq and be protected 24 hours while they are over there; it is another thing for a American soldier to be put in the middle of a civil war where so many have lost their lives for a policy that has been based on fiction.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Shrewsbury High School DREAM Team. During their 10 years of exceptional service, the DREAM Team, which stands for Daring to Reform Education on AIDS Matters, has played a vital role in helping those impacted by the AIDS virus. In addition to spreading awareness about AIDS, the DREAM Team is committed to helping those in the Worcester area plagued by hunger, homelessness, and other problems. Since its creation in 1996, the Shrewsbury High School DREAM Team has raised awareness in youth of the importance of not being complacent about social crises. Although the organization's initial objective was helping the local population affected by the AIDS virus, their objective has widened to a variety of social causes, as can be seen by their involvement with the Holiday Christmas Party this year at the Community Health Link Shelter in Leominster, through which over 400 presents were collected. The Dream Team also sponsored a food drive at Thanksgiving that benefited St. Anne's Outreach Services and the Worcester County Food Bank in Shrewsbury. The DREAM Team's concern for those in need and their acknowledgement of the critical role today's youth play in alleviating social problems is fundamental in the education of the town of Shrewsbury and the nation at large. I am grateful to the DREAM Team for their contribution to my community and ask my colleagues to join in me in honoring this exemplary organization.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Member Henry Waxman of the House Government Reform Committee for their leadership on moving this important resolution through the committee and to the House floor for its consideration today. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4152, which would designate the United States Postal Facility at 320 High Street in Clinton, Massachusetts as the Raymond J. Salmon Post Office. Mr. Speaker, by designating this Federal post office today, we honor a great American. Raymond J. Salmon was born on April 16, 1923 in the small town of Clinton, MA. As a young man, Ray responded to the call of duty during World War II and became a member of the United States Army serving as a Technical Sergeant. Returning home from the war, Ray began work for Congressman Phillip Philbin of Clinton, Massachusetts, in 1950, and he remained in public service as the Congressman's Chief of Staff until 1970. During his time as a Hill staffer, Ray completed law school, was admitted to the bar in 1952 and was a sole practitioner until 1977. While practicing law, Ray was appointed the Clerk Magistrate of Clinton District Court in 1976 and remained loyal to his position until his retirement in 2000. Ray brought honor and an enthusiasm to his position, and everyone in town knew and admired Ray for his character and love of public service. Actively engaged in the community, Ray was a member of many civic groups, including the Knights of Columbus, American Legion, Polish American Veterans, and the Clinton Elks Lodge. Mr. Speaker, if you ever have the opportunity to travel to the town of Clinton, you will be hard-pressed to find someone who was not fond of Ray. Clearly, his spirit lives on throughout this small, tight-knit community. By designating this facility as the Raymond J. Salmon Post Office, we honor not only this truly great individual, but the community he served and the people who knew him so well.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently absent for the rollcall votes on the motion to recommit on the Defense Appropriations Conference Report and the Conference Report itself. If I were present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and ``no'' on final passage of the conference report for the FY 06 Department of Defense Appropriations.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) 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.)