Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we will have an opportunity to debate the substance of this bill, I guess not only during the rule but afterwards, but I am still kind of baffled as to why this bill has to be brought to the floor under a closed rule, why the ranking Democrats on the committee of jurisdiction could not even be given the courtesy of being allowed to offer an alternative. This is unbelievable to me, that a bill of this importance would come to the floor and we are entirely shut out. And speaking of being shut out, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) had four amendments to be brought before the Rules Committee. He waited patiently and testified before the Rules Committee. Four good amendments, and all four of those were dismissed routinely as well. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, millions of Americans who work in the private sector are relying on having an employer-sponsored pension plan when they retire. An important part of the American dream is to have a nest egg that people can tap into during their golden years so that they are not forced to literally work until they die. American workers have fought for and earned the right to pay into a pension system that will provide an income once they retire. Unfortunately, there are serious problems with America's private pension system. Madam Speaker, pension security is an important issue, one indeed which should be addressed by this Congress, but pension security must be addressed in the right way and it deserves to be addressed in a democratic way. Bankruptcies in the airlines, steel, and the auto parts industries, for example, are straining the abilities of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or the PBGC, to guarantee the private pensions of workers in these industries. The PBGC was created as an insurance system for America's private pension plans. It exists to make sure that America's workers will receive a pension when they retire, even if the company they work for cannot pay that pension. Now, while there are real problems in some industries, like the steel industry, there are also serious cases of pension dumping, where a corporation claims it cannot fulfill its obligations and dumps its pension onto the PBGC. The net effect is a real strain on the PBGC and ultimately a crisis in the pension system. The PBGC is an insurance policy for America's workers. It is a safety net should a company not be able to pay its pension obligations. But it is not supposed to be a dumping ground for corporations who want to boost their bottom line and just do not feel like paying the pensions they promised their workers. It is this looming crisis in America's pension system that brings us here today. Now, no one believes we should sit and wait while America's pension system crashes around us, but we need to address this problem in the right way, and regrettably, Madam Speaker, the Pension Protection Act the Republicans have concocted is not the right way. Mr. Boehner, one of the authors of this bill, told the Rules Committee yesterday that this bill is tough medicine. What he did not say is that it is tough medicine for America's workers. Madam Speaker, this bill will have a real effect on millions of Americans' lives and on the quality of their lives as they grow older. The fact is that this bill that Chairman Thomas and Chairman Boehner have brought before us will make the problem worse, not better. This is the wrong prescription for what ails America's pension system. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the PBGC estimate that the Pension Protection Act will actually lead to an increase in pension plan terminations and an increase in the PBGC's liabilities by billions of dollars. Clearly, that simply cannot be what anyone in this Chamber really wants. The goal should be to enact legislation that guarantees workers their full pensions. Instead, passage of this bill will allow corporations to turn their backs on their loyal employees and shirk the responsibilities they face to provide a real pension to their employees. There exists in this country a culture of corporate corruption, where companies like Enron and WorldCom squander billions of dollars in retirement funds, and this legislation does not do anything, nothing, to fix that. Congressman George Miller, a strong champion of the American worker and working families, recently released a report entitled: Broken Promises--America's Pension Plans At Risk. This report shows that pension plans are underfunded by $450 billion; that the PBGC is $23 billion in the red, with more obligations coming in every day, and that the current pension and bankruptcy laws allow companies to dump their unwanted pension obligations on to the PBGC. Proving that this bill makes things worse and not better, the report documents that the Boehner-Thomas bill could, and I quote, ``cause as many as half of all large pension plans to freeze benefits.'' Ranking Member Miller, along with Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Committee Rangel, have an answer. They have crafted a substitute that actually protects workers' pensions. The substitute also reforms the bankruptcy laws so that corporations cannot hide behind bankruptcy in order to dump their pension obligations onto the PBGC. In addition, the Miller-Rangel bill addresses a serious inequity where rank and file pension plans are at risk of being dumped onto the PBGC but somehow the corporate executives continue to receive golden parachutes. A CEO should not receive millions of dollars in bonuses and other incentives if they have terminated the pension plan for their rank-and-file workers. Now, I am sure my friends on the other side of the aisle will boast about how their legislation they have crafted is fabulous. I disagree, but I respect their right to have their say and to have their views debated. Those of us on this side of the aisle believe we have a better approach, one that is fair to millions of Americans and their families who get up every morning, put in a hard day's work and are the very backbone of America's economy and our communities. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we will not have an opportunity to present our proposal. The Republicans on the Rules Committee late last night said, no, an alternative viewpoint will not be tolerated, cannot be presented to the Members of this House, and it certainly will not be debated and voted on on this floor. Apparently, the Republican definition of democracy is my way or the highway. They have decided that the United States House of Representatives is really not a deliberative body, it is a place that does not respect differing viewpoints, and it is unreasonable to have a full and open debate on an issue as important as pension protection. Last night, Chairman Boehner, to his credit, said he had no problem with Democrats having an ability to offer a substitute. So what happened? I will tell you what happened. The Republican leadership, in yet another display of arrogance and disrespect, decided to close the process, to gag us, to use the Rules Committee as a weapon to stifle debate. Once again the Rules Committee is where democracy comes to die. Now, let me say, with all due respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is the majority that is responsible for creating a climate in this House that is devoid of bipartisanship and civility. It is beyond my comprehension why the majority would deliberately choose to shut us out of being able to offer an alternative. This is not the House of only Republicans, this is the people's House, where serious issues should be debated and voted on. This rule is anti-democratic, this rule is closed, and this rule should be defeated. Broken Promises--America's Pension Plans at Risk: Independent Analysis Finds That Republican Plan Makes Pension Crisis Worse Broken Promises Put Millions of Americans' Pensions at Risk Americans are worried sick about their retirement nest-egg, and they are demanding decisive action by Congress. They saw what happened at Enron and WorldCom and at other companies-- where billions of hard earned investments by employees disappeared forever in only months due to corporate fraud and mismanagement. Today employees and retirees are watching as some employers like United and USAir have rushed to dump their pension promises onto the taxpayer and other employers, at the expense of employees and retirees who face billions in uninsured pension promises. Traditional pension plans, once the sturdy pillar of retirement security, are very much at risk unless Congress takes immediate action. Here are the serious warning signs that threaten our nation's pension plans: Pension plans are now underfunded by $450 billion, up over 1,000% since 2000. The agency that insures traditional pension plans (the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) is $23 billion in the red, and is facing billions more in possible claims from companies such as Delta Airlines, Delphi, and Northwest Airlines. Pension and bankruptcy laws allow companies to dump their unwanted pension promises onto the PBGC, leaving taxpayers, employees and retirees to foot the bill. Like the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s, taxpayers are at risk of having to pay billions of dollars due to broken promises, this time by company-sponsored pension plans. Many employees and retirees face severe reductions in their promised pension benefits as their plans are turned over to the federal government, or frozen by companies when their sponsor falls behind in their obligation to fund promised benefits. Employees are blindsided when their plan is dumped onto the federal government because they are not provided up-to-date information on the real financial condition of their pension plan. Employees and retirees in such cases are not only cheated out of promised pension benefits, but sometimes suffer further injury and insult by company executives who cut their own sweetheart golden parachute deals. Now Delta and Northwest are in bankruptcy and very well could dump their pension plans onto the PBGC. According to the PBGC, Delta Airlines is underfunded by $10.6 billion. The PBGC loss would be $8.4 billion, and the employees and retirees would lose $2.2 billion in promised benefits. Northwest Airlines is $5.7 billion underfunded. The PBGC loss would be $2.8 billion, and the employee loss even greater-- $2.9 billion. And now more dominos are falling. Delphi Auto Parts has filed for bankruptcy--the largest such filing in the history of the auto industry. According the PBGC, the Delphi claim on the PBGC would be $4.1 billion. The hit on employees--estimated over $10 billion in uninsured losses-- would be the largest ever. That tops the $6 billion in worker losses that PBGC estimates occurred from its 4 previous largest pension plan terminations. Republican Proposal Actually Makes Pension Crisis Worse, Not Better According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican House Bill (H.R. 2830) passed by the Education and Workforce Committee and Ways and Means Committee would increase the PBGC's red ink by $9 billion over the next ten years. The PBGC also analyzed the House bill and found it would increase the agency's deficit bill billions more than current law projections. Specifically, it found that Republican House bill would permit pension sponsors to slash required contributions by $75 billion over the next ten years compared to contributions required under current law. The PBGC's 35 page study released on October 26, 2005 analyzed detailed information of 400 pension plans, representing 50% of the liabilities and underfunding in the pension system. The Republican proposal could cause as many as half of all large pension plans to freeze benefits. The PBGC estimates that more than 50% of a sample of large pension plans would either have to freeze some or all benefits if the Republican proposal's benefit limitation provisions had been in effect (based on the Administration's most recent data.) The limitations would prevent benefit increases and lump sum payments for all affected plans, and prohibit future benefit accruals by the most underfunded plans. H.R. 2830 fails to reform pensions in several other respects. The bill fails to stop companies from dumping their obligations on to the federal government, fails to provide employees with accurate information on the financial condition of pension plans, fails to stop executives from cutting and running with their own sweetheart pension deal while slashing employee pensions, fails to protect older employees when a company converts to ``cash balance'' plans, permits conflicted investment advice, and punishes employees for plan underfunding by curtailing benefits. Democrats Fight to Save and Strengthen Traditional Pension Plans Democrats are fighting to save and strengthen pension plans by: Stopping companies like United from dumping their unwanted pension promises onto the taxpayers and employees. Because the Congress didn't lift a finger to stop United from unloading its pension plan, we have a new group of companies ready to dump and run. The government should not be a cookie jar for companies who failed to keep their fiduciary promise to set aside funds for their employee pension plans. Requiring pension plans to follow a clear and fair plan to restore their pension funds. The pension bills going through Congress right now actually make underfunding worse according to the Congressional Budget Office and the PBGC government pension insurance agency. Requiring pension plans to give employees accurate, up-to- date information on their pension plans financial condition. Employees should never have to wake up one morning and read in the papers that their pension plan has failed. Today, sponsors of pension plans are permitted to keep two sets of books, one set of books make available to the public and one set of more accurate books that is kept secret by the federal government. Prohibiting company executives in charge of underfunded pension plans from entering into sweetheart retirement deals while they're moving to dump their employees pension plan on to the taxpayers. Conclusion Millions of Americans have worked hard to earn the retirement promised by their company. Without urgent, decisive action by Congress, millions of Americans face the loss of billions in irreplaceable like savings due to the broken promises of their plan sponsor. The Republican answer to this crisis is to hasten the unraveling of pension plans by allowing companies to skip out on over $75 billion in contributions over the next 10 years, and increasing PBGC's red ink by billions of dollars. At the same time, Republicans are refusing to stop companies from dumping their unwanted pension promises onto the PBGC at the expense of taxpayers, employees, and other employers. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Well, let me thank my colleague from Florida for that eloquent and accurate statement and assessment of where we are here. And, Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 7 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, once again, we heard an interesting speech but no explanation as to why we have to bring this bill to the floor under a closed process and why we are shut out from even offering an alternative. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia just gave a nice speech, but nobody on that side has explained why on this very important issue that the Democrats and people with alternative views should be entirely locked out from participating in amending this bill. This is an outrage. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3199. While this conference report makes some improvement to the current PATRIOT Act, it fails to address some major deficiencies, and in many ways, it makes the current situation worse. The original intent of the PATRIOT Act was to provide our law enforcement officials with the necessary tools to make our country more secure. While maintaining national security is absolutely a necessary responsibility of Congress, it can and must be achieved without compromising our civil liberties. Unlike the proponents of H.R. 3199, the American people do not believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive goals. A delicate balance between enhancing security and protecting liberty needs to be present. But unfortunately, this bill before us today falls far short to achieving this appropriate balance. Mr. Speaker, back in 2001, when the PATRIOT Act was enacted, 16 provisions were sunsetted or authorized for a certain period of time because of their controversial nature and also due to the hurried manner in which they were drafted; 14 of these 16 provisions are made permanent by this conference report. And while three of the most contentious provisions have been sunsetted for 4 years, even that is too long. Section 215, commonly referred to as the Library Records Provision, grossly expands the Federal government's ability to seize records and investigate citizens' reading habits without any notification. Section 206, dubbed the Roving Wiretaps Provision, grants the government the power to perform so-called John Doe wiretaps in which they do not have to disclose the phones that will be tapped or even the names of the suspected person. Section 6001, known as the Lone Wolf Provision, broadly redefines the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's, FISA, standard for the agent of foreign power. The new definition is so expansive that the Government can now define any individual non-U.S. person as a terrorist suspect, even if the individual has no clear ties to a foreign government. Mr. Speaker, it is more than apparent that these three provisions pose a threat to American citizens' civil liberties. And while I would rather see these provisions removed from the legislation, I am encouraged that a shorter sunset has been placed upon them. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, shorter sunsets do not do the trick. Sunsets alone do not fix the severe substantive flaws of these sections, and they do nothing to address the deficiencies of the 14 other provisions that are being made permanent by this report. Instead of opting to apply shorter sunset dates to these misguided provisions, Congress should be exploring appropriate ways to fix them. After all, giving the government the power to violate civil liberties is wrong regardless of whether we give the government that power for 1 year or 4 years or for 100 years. Most notable of the deficient provisions, which was made permanent by the original PATRIOT Act, is section 505, known as the National Security Letters provision, NSLs. These NSLs are administrative subpoenas, issued by high-ranking Department of Justice officials, which force a person to turn over a wide range of personal records. Essentially, NSLs allow the FBI to conduct secret, warrantless searches of any records they deem relevant to national security. What is most concerning about NSLs are the rate in which they are being issued and the eventual relevancy of the retrieved records. More than 30,000 NSLs are being issued a year, a hundred-fold increase since the enactment of the PATRIOT Act. Meanwhile, only a handful of NSL investigations have ever gone through the judicial process. Moreover, the FBI has surreptitiously gathered information on tens of thousands of Americans. They are maintaining databases on these citizens. And instead of deleting information on NSL recipients once an investigation is completed, the FBI is abusing this power and holding onto personal information of Americans who have never been accused of any crime. Mr. Speaker, while this conference report does require the Department of Justice to report the number of national security letters they issue, it fails to address the abuse of power and the unconstitutionality of the provision. As determined by a Federal court judge on October 4, 2005, the NSL provision was ruled to be unconstitutional. So instead of reevaluating this provision or at the very least sunsetting it, the NSL provision remains permanent and continues to infringe upon the civil liberties of the American people. Mr. Speaker, we all must be reminded that privacy is a right guaranteed by our Constitution, not a luxury that we can simply discard when it becomes inconvenient to the government. Shorter sunsets and minimal regulations imposed on the Department of Justice do not cure the serious problems with these provisions. Congress needs to go back to the negotiating table, reevaluate these provisions, and come up with a report that strikes the appropriate balance between advancing security and defending our civil rights. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 4506. This legislation, introduced by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, extends by 3 months the 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act set to expire at the end of this year. Extending the PATRIOT Act in its current form for 3 months would give lawmakers the opportunity to reevaluate these contentious provisions, fix them, and then issue a conference report that actually protects the civil liberties of the people of this country and not hinders them. I would like to share a quote from an article entitled ``Going Down in History with USA PATRIOT Act,'' which appeared in the November 27 edition of the Massachusetts Republican: ``Unless lawmakers are prepared to revise the USA PATRIOT Act to include modest protections to safeguard civil liberties, they will go down in history as the authors of remarkably bad legislation.'' Mr. Speaker, when we in Congress authorize Federal agencies, it is our responsibility to grant them with an appropriate level of power so that abuse will not occur. It is also our responsibility to demand accountability and conduct appropriate oversight. Sadly, under this Republican leadership, neither responsibility has been fulfilled. One final observation. We are all, every single Member of this House is committed to protecting our country from terrorism. We must adjust our laws accordingly to deal with any potential threat. But we must not undercut or undermine the protection of our civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, democracy requires courage, and we can protect our citizens from terrorism and at the same time protect their civil liberties. They are not mutually exclusive. I am not convinced that the bill as written will enhance our national security, nor am I convinced that these broad, sweeping powers that we are now giving to our government will not be abused. In our recent history, we have seen abuse of power. We have seen civil rights leaders in this country, people who have advocated equal treatment under the law for all of our citizens, we have seen these people put under surveillance. They have been wiretapped. We have seen others who have raised their voices in dissent or who have advocated issues that are now viewed as the mainstream, we have seen that they have been spied upon by our own government. So let us not give government more power than is needed. That is my fear today, that we are going too far, that we are paving the way for abuse, and that if we enact this bill as written, a little bit of the Liberty Tree will die. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia how many more speakers he has?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will close for our side. Madam Speaker, this bill overreaches. It paves the way for abuse and is a potential threat to innocent, law-abiding citizens. We are not a police state, and what makes us different from so many others is our freedom and our respect for basic civil liberties and our respect for privacy. I understand the urge of some to embrace this legislation; but let me remind you that every time you chip away at our civil liberties, you give the terrorists a victory. You take away something that is essential to who we are as Americans. Let us adjust and enhance our laws accordingly, to give law enforcement officials what they need; but let us not give them more than what they need. This bill puts us on a dangerous path. There are over 150 provisions in this bill that are noncontroversial, that everybody agrees on, that will help track down terrorists and criminals; but there are a few provisions that so cross the line that they threaten our privacy and our civil liberties and do not make us safer. We can defend our country; we can protect our people without trashing the Constitution. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). (Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) 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 wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to the leadership on both sides of the aisle for bringing this resolution to the House floor before we adjourn for the year. I especially want to thank Western Hemisphere Subcommittee Chairman Burton, Subcommittee Ranking Member Menendez, House International Relations Committee Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Lantos, Majority Leader Blunt, Democratic Leader Pelosi, Speaker Hastert, Rules Committee Chairman Dreier and all of their staffs. Mr. Speaker, on December 2, 1980, Maryknoll Sisters Maura Clark and Ita Ford, Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel and Cleveland lay missionary Jean Donovan were brutally violated and murdered by members of the Salvadoran national guard. The guardsmen who pulled the triggers and their immediate superior, a sub-sergeant, were tried, convicted and imprisoned in 1984 for these heinous crimes, although they were later released in 1997 and 1998. But I am not here today to recall these tragic events. I am here to remember and honor their lives. These four courageous American women dedicated their lives to the safety and welfare of others, to the poor and the desperate of El Salvador, especially the women and children left homeless and destitute by the violence and the war of that era. It is the way that they lived their lives and the work that they carried out that has proven to be so inspirational to so many people in the 25 years since their death and especially the young people who are looking for role models, both secular and spiritual, to guide their own futures. I had the privilege to spend December 1 through December 6 in El Salvador and to participate in the many 25th anniversary events organized by the Maryknoll Sisters and other Salvadoran and American religious leaders honoring the lives of these four wonderful women. I was a member of a delegation coordinated by the Washington office on Latin America and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. Our delegation joined over 200 other Americans and an equal number of religious representatives from throughout Central and South America and elsewhere. During our 5 days in El Salvador, we walked in the footsteps of these women. We visited small rural communities where they lived and worked. We met with the campesinos, the priests and the sisters with whom they labored. We attended mass, and we worshipped at the site where their bodies were found. And we listened to the members of their families and their religious orders tell stories of their lost loved ones that brought these women vividly and joyously to life for all of us. While it was a time of sorrow and remembered grief, it was also a time of celebration, for these four American women are remembered with great love and affection by the Salvadoran people and by so many Americans across our country. Their spirits burn bright and have served to inspire many others, including young people, to lives of service. Who now remembers those who brutalized and murdered them, unless it is with a shudder? Several 25th anniversary events were held here in the United States during the December 2 weekend in cities as diverse as Kansas City, Boston, Cleveland, Seattle, Detroit, and Milwaukee. Across our country we will also find community centers, neighborhood health clinics, and groups that provide counseling for young women and mothers dedicated to these four women. We will find libraries, schools, and scholarly centers named in their honor and books, films, plays and music created to celebrate their lives. In El Salvador, throughout Latin America, and even around the world, it is common to come across communities and humanitarian projects named after Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, Ita Ford, and Dorothy Kazel. I have been very privileged to get to know some of the family members of these women, and I have long been a friend of the Maryknoll Sisters. A finer group of people one simply cannot find. It is for them, the families, friends, and colleagues of these four church women that I am proud the House is acting on this special remembrance of their loved ones who have been lost to them these past 25 years but who always remain, as they say in Spanish, ``presente'' in their hearts, minds, and souls. I believe these four American women represent the very best our country has to offer. They represent the best values and ideals, not only of the American people but of all people. My recent time in El Salvador inspired me. It reenergized me. It reminded me that we must remain committed to continuing the church women's legacy by helping the poor and disadvantaged of El Salvador develop their communities and create a more hopeful future for all. I urge my colleagues to approve of H. Res. 458 and to remember the very special lives dedicated to service of Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, Ita Ford, and Dorothy Kazel. Statement on the 25th Anniversary of the Four Missionary Women--Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, Bishop of Orlando, Chairman, USCCB Committee on International Policy, November 21, 2005. Twenty-five years ago, many throughout the world were shocked by the news of the abduction, rape and murder on December 2nd 1980 of four American missionary women in El Salvador. That same year saw the intensification of the civil war in that country that was dramatically marked first by the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero on March 24th and, nearly a decade later, by the slaughter of six Jesuit priests and their two aides at the Central American University on December 16th 1989. There can be little doubt that the sacrificial deaths--the martyrdoms--of these exemplary Christians, representing the episcopate, the life of vowed religious men and women, and the Catholic laity. Nor is there doubt that the findings of those guilty for these crimes served to hasten the end of that fratricidal war that was finally concluded with the January 1992 Peace Accords. Sister Maura Clarke, MM, Sister Ita Ford, MM, both of the Maryknoll Sisters, Sister Dorothy Kazel, OSU of the Sisters of St. Ursula, and lay missionary Jean Donovan of the Cleveland Diocesan Mission team were all young, dynamic, deeply committed missionaries. They saw the face of Christ in the poorest and most vulnerable of the people of El Salvador and sought to offer what aid and consolation they could provide. In the poisonous political atmosphere of the time, their concern for ``the least of these'' was seen by some as a challenge to an unjust status quo. May we today rededicate ourselves, together with the bishops and faithful of El Salvador and all of Central America, to the task of peace, justice and reconciliation throughout the Americas for which these exemplary women gave their lives.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. You are going to vote against the Hunter amendment. Thank you for voting against your own amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.