Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the American people want this Congress to debate the war in Iraq. We should have had a debate before we entered into this war. Instead, we rushed into it. Yesterday, Congressman Jack Murtha, a man of conscience, a decorated Vietnam veteran, one of the leading advocates for the military here in the United States Congress, stood up and told it like it is, that the situation in Iraq is getting worse, not getting better, and we, our huge U.S. presence, is a major part of the problem. We have become the focus. We have become the people who are being attacked. Congressman Murtha deserves credit. Rather than engaging in a debate, what we hear from the other side and from the White House is more and more smear tactics, those who claim they are somehow being unpatriotic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Dissent in the face of policies that you disagree with is patriotism. To remain silent as you see this country going down the wrong path is not patriotism, it is moral cowardice. I praise Congressman Jack Murtha for having the courage of his convictions and standing up and leading the way to get us out of this war in Iraq.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as Congress prepares to recess today for the Thanksgiving holiday, I wish to take a moment to congratulate my friend Brendan O'Connor on the recent occasion of his 50th birthday, November 3, and to express my gratitude for his extraordinary contributions to the greater Worcester, Massachusetts community. In a place rich with kind people and colorful characters, Brendan stands apart but certainly not alone. His quick wit, brilliant sense of humor and boundless compassion have endeared him to countless admirers both near and far. This was never more evident than at the spectacular 50th birthday celebration his wonderful wife Claire and devoted sons Rory and Eamon hosted for him at Worcester's historic Tuckerman Hall on Saturday, October 22, 2005. My wife Lisa and I were honored to attend that unforgettable evening with scores of Brendan's family and closest friends. The night was made truly special by the presence of Brendan's father, Sean, who traveled from the family's native Limerick City, Ireland; and all four of his siblings--his brothers, John, Kevin and Declan, and his sister, Carmel. And while Brendan's dear departed mother Joan (Horgan) O'Connor was not able to be there in person, her spirit was felt in the festive atmosphere that continued well into the night. All in all, the birthday party was an incredible tribute to Brendan but it does not reveal the full measure of the man. Mr. Speaker, in addition to being a great human being, Brendan O'Connor is a also a very successful entrepreneur. As proprietors of the renowned O'Connor's Restaurant and Bar in Worcester, Brendan and Claire have graciously welcomed thousands upon thousands of hungry and thirsty patrons to their establishment. Every customer that comes through their doors is treated to excellent cuisine accompanied by the sterling service and warm hospitality the Irish have made famous. In fact, O'Connor's has grown to become much more than just a popular dining destination. It has become an institution deeply embedded in the fabric of the Worcester community. This is due in large part to Brendan's remarkable gift for making everyone he encounters feel special and at home. However, it is important to note that Brendan does not reserve his gifts and talents for his patrons alone. He has generously given his time and energy to numerous civic and charitable causes. As a long-time board member and past-president of the Emerald Club of Worcester County, Brendan has raised enormous financial support for the clients of the Mercy Centre through the promotion of Irish cultural events. His tireless efforts on behalf of the Emerald Club and the Ancient Order of Hibernians earned him the well-deserved honor of having been previously selected as the Grand Marshal of Worcester's annual Saint Patrick's Day Parade. Brendan has also shared his talents with the Worcester area youth as a volunteer soccer coach for many years. His unbridled passion and skillful teaching of the sport have produced numerous championship teams at various competitive levels. More importantly, he has been a positive guiding force in the lives of an untold number of young people. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply say that Brendan O'Connor is among the most beloved figures in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts. His charm is exceeded only by his devotion to his family and fellow man. I look forward to celebrating many more happy occasions with he and his wife Claire and congratulate him again on this important milestone in his life.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note with sadness the passing of John Lee of Attleboro, MA. Mr. Lee died on October 22 at the age of 85. John Lee was an academic and athletic star at Attleboro High School and later at Providence College. After serving his country in World War II as a captain in the Army Air Corps, he returned home to establish a successful, 53-year law practice. A towering pillar of his community, John Lee served as Attleboro city solicitor, legal counsel to the towns of Plainville and West Bridgewater and the Norton, Foxboro and Seekonk School Departments. He also served as a member of the Attleboro School Committee. As Plainville Selectwoman Andrea Soucy recently said, Mr. Lee was not only a brilliant lawyer, but also a person of the highest character. ``He had tremendous integrity. He had the highest of ethics. He was very, very special,'' Ms. Soucy said. In addition to his beloved wife Muriel, Mr. Lee is survived by 7 of his children and 16 grandchildren. Mr. Lee could always be seen at his grandchildren's games and activities. John Lee represented the very best of citizenship, honor and integrity. I know that all of my colleagues in the House join me in sending our condolences to Muriel, the entire Lee family and all of those who knew and loved him.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Fred F. Holmes award was established by the Veterans' Council of North Attleboro, Massachusetts, to recognize individuals who have had a positive effect on the lives of local veterans. On November 11, 2005, Veterans Day, it was my great pleasure to attend a ceremony honoring this year's recipient of the Holmes award, Mr. Joseph K. ``Joey Irish'' Clougherty. Mr. Clougherty was born in Brookline, Massachusetts, in 1948. His family settled in South Boston, where he graduated from high school in 1966. Mr. Clougherty enlisted in the United States Army in May 1967, and arrived in Vietnam later that November. Mr. Clougherty spent a year in Vietnam as part of the 5th Light Equipment Maintenance Company Long Binh and Headquarters Co. 185th Heavy Equipment Maintenance Battalion. After extending his stay in Vietnam for a total of twenty months, Mr. Clougherty returned to make his home in Dorchester, Massachusetts. Mr. Clougherty spent ten years of service in the City of Boston Department of Public Works and Fire Department before eventually settling down in North Attleboro. Since 1995, Joe has served as the North Attleboro Assistant Veterans Agent, solving problems for the entire veteran community and their families. Those who know Joe know he is a man of great compassion and loyalty, with an endless capacity for assisting those in need. This dedication is exemplified by the tremendous counseling and supportive services he has provided to the over 2,200 veterans of North Attleboro over the past decade. The citizens of North Attleboro, and especially its veterans, are fortunate to have a person like Joe Clougherty in their midst. I know all my colleagues will join me in offering Mr. Clougherty our deep gratitude and heartfelt congratulations as this year's recipient of the Fred F. Holmes award.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not know a single Democrat who supports the Hunter resolution that would basically provide for the immediate withdrawal without the protection for our troops. This is a counterfeit. This is an insult to this institution. And to not allow us to have a real debate, to not allow us to bring up different proposals, I think, undercuts the process. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia how many more speakers he has on his side.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 16 years ago today, in the dead of night, the Salvadoran Army's U.S.-trained Atalacatl Battalion entered the grounds of the University of Central America in San Salvador, pulled six Jesuit priests from their beds, marched them out onto the lawn behind their residence, put high-powered rifles to their heads and shot them dead in cold blood. A few minutes later, these same soldiers discovered the Jesuits' housekeeper and her teenager daughter hiding in the house and murdered them as well. A bipartisan commission appointed by the Speaker of the House and chaired by our former colleague, Congressman Joe Moakley, investigated this heinous crime, identified the killers, and the Commission's report became critical evidence in the prosecution and conviction of the priests' killers and, I believe, in creating support for the U.N.- brokered negotiations that ended El Salvador's 12-year civil war. Mr. Speaker, I knew these priests. I was proud to call them my friends. Let us take a moment to remember their courage and to remember the bipartisan work of this House under the leadership of Joe Moakley that helped El Salvador forge a pathway to peace. Let us never forget the names of those who were murdered on November 16, 1989: Father Ignacio Ellacuria, Father Ignacio Martin-Baro, Father Segundo Montes, Father Armando Lopez, Father Joaquin Lopez y Lopez, Father Juan Ramon Moreno, Celina Maricet Ramos and Elba Julia Ramos.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, beginning on Veterans Day, President Bush has begun a series of attacks against his critics on the war in Iraq. He has been supported by a well-orchestrated set of groupies of conservative policymakers, Members of Congress and talking heads all spouting the same line, that the Bush Administration was not alone in believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Everyone thought so. And the administration certainly did not manipulate or misrepresent any intelligence to Congress, the American people or to the international community. Mr. Speaker, this is just one more false claim in a history of falsehoods put forward by this administration in its effort to cover up its failures in Iraq. Today's New York Times editorial attempts to set the record straight on the Bush coverup of the truth. On Veterans Day, President Bush claimed that Congress had access to the same intelligence as his administration. This is patently false. According to the Washington Post and The New York Times, President Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who are dependent on his administration to provide Congress with materials. More recently, the President has asserted that Congress had more intelligence information than the White House. This is so patently absurd, I barely know how to respond. The only intelligence materials the Congress has, it receives from the President and his administration. The President has gone on to state that the bipartisan investigation carried out by the Senate Intelligence Committee found, and I again quote, no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. This claim is wrong on several counts. First, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has not yet done its inquiry into whether Bush officials mischaracterized or misrepresented intelligence. Second, the Senate Intelligence Committee's first report did find that the national intelligence estimate was manipulated. Finally, the overall soft approach of this first report by the Senate Intelligence Committee has been disputed by several senior intelligence officials. Richard Kerr, the former acting CIA director, who led an internal investigation of the CIA's failure to correctly analyze Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability, stated that the intelligence analysts were pressured and heavily so. Senators Rockefeller, Durbin and Levin noted in their additional views to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report that the CIA's independent review found, and I quote, significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. A second independent investigation by the CIA ombudsman found that the, quote, hammering by the Bush Administration on Iraq intelligence was unusual and that George Tenet confirmed that agency officials had raised with him personally the matter of pressure on analysts. President Bush tries to assert that President Clinton believed in the same threat. What he leaves out is that President Clinton has repeatedly asserted that he believes it was a mistake to invade Iraq before the United Nations weapons inspectors had a chance to complete their investigation. In fact, the U.N. investigation was aborted before it even had a chance to really begin by the launch of U.S. military operations. Mr. Speaker, President Bush asserts that other governments' intelligence agencies agreed with ours. That is simply false. Many countries felt that the U.S. intelligence was faulty or overblown and did not agree with their own intelligence data, and that is why they opposed us in the United Nations Security Council or declined to provide troops for our invasion. Even this year we have heard Vice President Cheney continue to imply that Iraq was somehow tied to the September 11 attacks and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Well, let us set the record straight. There were no weapons of mass destruction, there were no ties to al Qaeda, there was no imminent threat. The arguments in favor of war presented to Congress and the American people by the President deliberately used the most inflammatory of language. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say one more word on the President's latest series of attacks. He says that those of us who criticize the war, who called for withdrawal, or who focused on how the American people were deliberately misled into supporting the invasion on Iraq, that somehow we are betraying our troops and advocating a cut-and-run strategy. Mr. Speaker, our troops, who have carried out this mission with courage, dignity and sacrifice, represent our Nation with honor, but they have been betrayed. They have been betrayed by policymakers who rushed into a war on false pretenses, they were betrayed by policymakers who sent them into harm's way and overruled the good advice of our top military leaders as to troop strength and post- invasion planning, and they have been betrayed by policymakers who will not admit that mistakes were made and significant changes in policy are required in order to bring them home safe and sound. Critics of this policy strongly support reconstruction assistance for Iraq. We strongly support the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. We strongly support internationally supported security forces in Iraq. We do not support cutting and running, but we do not support lying and hiding. Mr. Bush cannot rewrite history, he cannot rewrite the intelligence again, and he cannot continue to lie to the American people. The truth, the ugly truth, is coming out. [From the New York Times, Nov. 2005] Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists. Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today. It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true. Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had-- Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress--and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful. Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the President's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact. It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working--a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics. The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise. The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer. Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers. Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was ``significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection'' between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's ``hammering'' on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency. Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated. The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why. Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that ``it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.'' We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this so-called Deficit Reduction Act is an intellectually dishonest, cruel hoax. The Republican leadership claims they are reducing the deficit, but in reality they are actually hurting the poorest and most vulnerable in this country: Health care for poor people, slashed by $9.5 billion; food for poor people, decreased by over $840 million; student loans for college students, a $14.3 billion cut. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita reopened the eyes of Americans to the staggering poverty that still exists in this country, yet the Republican leadership wants to slash over $50 billion from programs that will help our most vulnerable citizens across America. If that were not bad enough, there is a tax cut worth at least $70 billion on its way. Combined with this upcoming tax cut, the so- called Deficit Reduction Act will actually increase the deficit by $20 billion. We are a much better country than this bill puts forth. If this bill passes today, the Republicans will have succeeded in creating a government without a conscience. Shame on them. Let me appeal to the moderates on the other side. Do the right thing. Don't throw away your conscience. Don't be a cheap date. Vote against this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close as I began today by pointing out to my colleagues that this conference report prohibits funding from being used by the United States Government for torture. We need to make this the absolute policy of our country. Friday is Veterans Day, and we need to do everything we can to honor our veterans, but we can honor our veterans in part by doing everything we can to protect the soldiers who are now on the field, and that must mean making torture something that this country will never be part of. I am horrified, quite frankly, by the behavior of the White House on this issue. They attempted to try to undermine what Senator McCain has tried to do in the Senate and what some of us have tried to do here in the House. Those who believe that torture should have no place in America or American society are frustrated by what the White House is trying to do. We are a much better country. The U.S. Army Manual bans torture, prohibits it. And one of the reasons why is because those who are in the military understand that it jeopardizes the lives of Americans, of American soldiers. How do we demand that the international laws be respected and that if one of our citizens was taken as a prisoner that they not be abused or tortured if it is not the policy of this country to prohibit torture in any shape or form? We need to do better, Mr. Speaker. I will just conclude by saying that I urge my colleagues to support this bill. We do not have any problem with the rule. But I would also urge my colleagues, once this bill is passed, to join with those in the Senate in a bipartisan way to prohibit torture once and for all. This should not be part of America. We are much better than this. We do not stand for that. And if the White House does not get the massage, we need to force the issue and to send them a bill that in fact has this prohibition in it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, my point is that if in fact we can all agree that torture is abhorrent and something that should not be part of this society, then I hope we can all in a bipartisan way support the effort of Senator McCain, who wants to make it the policy of this land. My problem with the White House, quite frankly, is that I am puzzled why they are trying to lobby to undermine what Senator McCain is doing. I am also quite frankly shocked by the recent revelations in the Washington Post about these secret prisons that we have all over the world where really, basically, there is no accountability. So my point is, if we can all agree that this is wrong, let us make it the absolute law of this land and comply with what the U.S. Army Manual says and support Senator McCain in his efforts. And I hope we can do that in a bipartisan way, and I thank the gentleman.

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

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. Speaker, with the passage of this rule, this House will consider the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2006. I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, for working together to create a bill that seems to be a fair and responsible piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I believe that budgets are moral documents, and where and how we decide to spend the taxpayers' money says more about our values as a society than any speech or political rhetoric possibly could. This conference report, among other things, rightfully retains language included in the House-passed bill that prohibits funds being used to support or justify the use of torture by the United States Government. Despite the rhetoric coming from the White House, this language is both necessary and appropriate. As the most powerful democracy in the history of the world, we have a moral responsibility not only to promote the expansion of our democratic values around the world, but perhaps most importantly, to demonstrate our commitment to them through our own practices and in the legislation we pass here in the Congress. One of the most dramatic and significant tests of that commitment is before us today in the debate over our own use of the abhorrent practice of torture. The United States of America, as the leader of the free world, cannot and must not engage in a behavior which has been condemned around the world by the international community. To engage in such a heinous practice is a betrayal of our own values as defenders of freedom and liberty. The fact that those who would seek to take away our freedom and the freedom of others utilize such techniques is in no way a justification here. As a matter of the highest national security, we must openly and outright reject the use of torture as a means of achieving military victory in this or any other war. Our ideals as a Nation demand nothing less. Indeed, the fact that we must even engage in this debate on the House floor is indicative of the deep crisis of conscience which has embroiled the White House. Senator John McCain is working hard to build on the language in this conference report with regard to torture and include language in the DOD authorization bill prohibiting the use of torture and to make real and meaningful policy changes. His amendment is important. It is broadly supported and should be signed into law as soon as possible. It is disconcerting that, as we speak here today, the White House is fighting Senator McCain and others who support his initiative every step of the way. Senator McCain certainly knows a lot more about the reality of detention and torture and the ineffectiveness of torture than the President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of Defense. The recent revelation that the United States has secret prisons around the world and that there is no accountability or there is no oversight of what goes on in those prisons, quite frankly, is a national scandal. This is not what America is about. This is not what America stands for, and the sad reality is that the reckless behavior of this administration when it comes to torture has put our own soldiers in more jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, America can do better; and once we pass this conference report, I hope we will all join in a bipartisan way to support Senator McCain's effort to ban torture as a policy for this country once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the conferees once again stripped the Sanders provision from this bill that would have prevented funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions in section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. These provisions permit searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists. This amendment passed by a vote of 238-187, yet the Republican leadership has decided to strip it out of the bill. This is wrong and these provisions, like so many others in the PATRIOT Act, quite frankly should be stripped out of the bill as well. Mr. Speaker, the American people do not want this provision. A majority in this Congress do not want this provision, and yet somehow it managed to basically be null and voided in the conference committee. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes language prohibiting the White House from blocking the importation of discount prescription drugs through trade agreements. That means that the White House cannot subvert the House's authority by preventing the American people from having access to life-saving, affordable prescription drugs. I strongly believe that access to affordable medication and health care should be a right in this country and not the fodder of a political power struggle. Health care should be a right in the United States of America and not a privilege. I applaud my colleagues in both Houses for demonstrating the rare political will to constrain the power of this White House in the interest of protecting the American people. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, budgets are moral documents, and this budget is a statement of America's principles. The level of funding the committee had to work with is woefully small because of the fiscal ineptitude of the Republican leadership in Congress and the Bush administration. Their policy of tax cuts for the rich and a continual growing of the Federal deficit has forced important programs like legal services for the poor and COPS funding to be cut. This is irresponsible, and this does not reflect the wishes and values of the American people. With that, Mr. Speaker, let me once again commend Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for making the best out of a bad situation. I appreciate their help and their hard work. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Kolbe, Ranking Member Lowey, and their respective staffs for consistently working in a bipartisan fashion and trying year after year to bring before the House a bill that all Members can support. For those of us who care in particular about the contributions made by the United States in reducing global poverty and hunger, increasing educational opportunities, access to health care and food security in some of the poorest places on this Earth, we very much appreciate the time and the effort that they invest in making sure that this bill responds to these needs and priorities. I must express, however, Mr. Speaker, my regret that the final conference report did not include the Leahy-McConnell language dealing with the paramilitary demobilization taking place in Colombia. I recognize the language in the conference report is the result of some compromise, but it appears to me that the majority of compromising had to be done on the Senate side. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about news reports that demobilized paramilitary groups are regrouping into Mafia-like criminal organizations. New paramilitary groups seem to be springing up like daisies and their ranks are often made up of newly demobilized paramilitary troops. Like all Members of Congress who follow Colombia, I want the demobilization process to work. I want it to succeed. But the process is not helped when the Congress or the administration turns a blind eye to serious failings in its implementation, as has been done over and over and over again. For these reasons, I believe that the certification provision on Colombia's demobilization process in this bill, even though it is watered down, I think is important and needs to be faithfully implemented. Last night during the Rules Committee hearing, I was very reassured when Chairman Kolbe told me that his committee would be vigilant in monitoring the demobilization of Colombia's paramilitary organizations and in overseeing the implementation of the certification conditions contained in the bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I have often raised on the floor of this House my concerns about the long-standing ties between Colombia's armed forces and paramilitary forces and drug traffickers. I have constantly been told by the administration, by the Colombian Government, and even by some Members of this House, that these allegations also simply are not true. Well, last week, on October 28, the New York Times reported how the top two directors of Colombia's intelligence agency, commonly called their secret police, have been forced to resign because the attorney general's office has finally begun an investigation into how the 7,100- member agency has been engaged in a money-making operation to sell intelligence and surveillance equipment to right-wing paramilitary groups. Mr. Speaker, I will include the New York Times article in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned by a new wave of threats, disappearances and murders of Colombian trade unionists, human rights defenders, legal advocates and community leaders which appears to be under way. The violence in Colombia appears to be sharply escalating once again. I would like to mention in particular the murder of Mr. Orlando Valencia, an Afro-Colombian community leader who was forcibly captured off the street by paramilitary forces shortly after he was first briefly detained and then released by the Colombian police on October 15, which shows you the collaboration between the security forces and paramilitaries. His tortured and mutilated body was found a few days later along the side of a local road. At the time of his disappearance, I wrote to our embassy in Bogota, asking them to do all they could to find Mr. Valencia before he was killed; and I am still waiting for a response from our embassy to that letter. So let me say to those who continue to champion billions of dollars in additional aid to the Colombian military and security forces, please pay attention not only to the spokespeople of the Colombian government but to the realities in that country. We should be more concerned. For all that we have invested in that country, we should expect better. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for allowing me the time to express these concerns. I support the rule, and I will support the bill. [From the New York Times, Oct. 28, 2005] Two Top Directors Leave Colombia's Secret Police as Scandal Mounts (By Juan Forero) Bogota, Colombia, Oct. 27.--The top two directors of Colombia's secret police were forced out this week as the government investigated allegations that the agency was mounting a money-making operation to sell intelligence and surveillance equipment to right-wing death squads. The scandal at the agency, the Administrative Department of Security, comes as human rights groups and some legislators have exposed heightened paramilitary activity, including infiltrations of Congress and the attorney general's office. The paramilitaries also continue trafficking in cocaine, despite disarmament talks that underpin President Alvaro Uribe's effort to pacify Colombia with billions in American aid. The 7,100-member intelligence agency has long been dogged by allegations that its agents have worked with paramilitaries of the United Self- Defense Forces of Colombia, an illegal antiguerrilla organization that the State Department has branded a terrorist group. But the latest scandal has been especially explosive, coming amid international criticism that the government has been overly generous with paramilitaries who disarm by treating them leniently in prosecutions. On Tuesday, after consultations with Mr. Uribe, Jorge Noguera, the director of the agency, resigned and its sub- director, Jose Miguel Narvaez, was dismissed. The agency's internal affairs unit and the attorney general's office are investigating whether the Special Intelligence Group, controlled by Enrique Ariza, a close ally of Mr. Noguera, had been planning to sell phone-tapping equipment to Javier Montanes, one of several powerful paramilitary commanders who could then use the system to monitor police and military activity. Mr. Noguera denied the accusations, calling them part of a smear campaign. Mr. Narvaez said in an interview that he and Mr. Noguera were not involved in a conspiracy with the militias. But he said there were agents at the agency ``who veered away from their mission and may have committed crimes.'' The allegations are particularly grave because they add to a string of revelations of paramilitary influence in everything from local governments and the health care system to provincial lotteries. Indeed, a former official at the intelligence agency, Rafael Garcia, has been under investigation for having erased computerized case files containing information on paramilitaries and drug traffickers. ``This is more serious because this is not just having sources on the inside and knowing when they're coming against you,'' said Sergio Jaramillo, a former Defense Ministry official, referring to infiltration of the intelligence agency. ``It is something closer, having active help.'' A political scientist who closely studies the paramilitaries, Mauricio Romero, said the disclosures also showed that the paramilitaries were ``not playing clean'' in peace talks. ``It would be understandable if they were at war with the state,'' said Mr. Romero, a professor at Rosario University in Bogota. ``The fact that there is infiltration and that they are mounting a parallel intelligence system is a security problem not just for the state, but for society.'' Though the paramilitaries have demobilized thousands of fighters, they continue to wreak havoc. On Saturday, Hernando Cadavid, who owned a flower farm next to Mr. Uribe's ranch in northern Colombia, was dragged from his farm and hacked to death with machetes by former paramilitaries. Investigators are trying to determine if the order came from Diego Fernando Murillo, a paramilitary boss recently jailed on Mr. Uribe's orders.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Two things. Is the gentleman saying that the President of Venezuela is a terrorist?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, I appreciate his concerns about the violence by the FARC. I would also just appreciate it if he would also be concerned about the fact that we are supporting the Colombian military and security forces and they continue to be linked to right-wing paramilitary forces which commit crimes. All I am simply saying is that we have certification language, we should enforce it and not continuously waive it because we want to continue to let the money flow. If we stand for human rights, then we need to put our actions where our rhetoric is, and we have not been doing that in Colombia.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of the underlying legislation. H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, demonstrates that a bipartisan, collaborative effort can produce sound legislation. This bill is directly aligned with H. Res. 340, a resolution passed by this House on a vote of 365 to 33, which expressed Congress's disapproval of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London. In taking the next step, H.R. 4128 contains appropriate measures to ensure the protection of private property and addresses the potential for abuse under the power of eminent domain. By providing effective deterrents to abuse, H.R. 4128 protects the constitutional and legal rights of private property owners. The majority in the Kelo decision found that the City of New London, Connecticut, could condemn and take property as part of its economic revitalization plan. Essentially, this decision grossly expanded the use of eminent domain as granted by the fifth amendment. Madam Speaker, this decision legitimized an abuse of the fifth amendment, specifically, the takings clause. According to the Constitution, the government's taking authority over land that is restricted for public use. Expanding the government's ability to strong-arm private property, not necessarily for public use, sets a troubling precedent. Thankfully, H.R. 4128 discourages States and localities from exploiting eminent domain. Overall, this legislation will prohibit State and local governments from receiving Federal economic development funding should they use eminent domain to seize land for private economic development purposes. Federal funding will be lost for 2 fiscal years if a court determines that eminent domain was used improperly. Madam Speaker, Congress, through its spending powers, is authorized to impose policies on State and local governments through appropriations of Federal funds. In the case of eminent domain abuse, it is the duty of Congress to intercede to protect the property rights of all Americans. Protecting the constitutional rights of our citizens should continue to be on the forefront of our concerns. Economic development is clearly crucial for every community in this country, but economic development can and must be achieved without compromising our constitutional rights. I believe that the Kelo case was wrongly decided. Eminent domain must not grant State and local governments the power to take private property away from one and give it to another, all in the name of economic development. Economic development takings are not necessarily in the essence of public use and, therefore, do not constitute the use of eminent domain. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent in the case: ``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the States from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.'' Madam Speaker, as Members of Congress, we all took oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. By supporting this bill, Members are fulfilling their constitutional obligations. This bill, Madam Speaker, is not perfect; but it is needed and it is necessary. I am pleased that the Rules Committee made amendments by our colleagues, Congressman Nadler and Congressman Watt, in order. They and other Members have real concerns with this bill, and their perspectives deserve to be debated and deserve an up-or-down vote. Madam Speaker, while I would prefer an open rule and I, quite frankly, cannot understand why we do not have an open rule here, the Rules Committee did make all the germane amendments in order, so we are not going to object to this rule. I have no further speakers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the underlying bill and to support the rule, and let us move on and get this thing done. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I 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. Madam Speaker, I rise today to once again express my deep concern about this war in Iraq, which is a violent, endless quagmire. Those of us who dissent on this war support our troops. We honor our troops. We respect our troops. In fact, one of the things that we have tried to do is urge the other side of the aisle to provide budgets that actually support our troops when they come home. It is shameful that our veterans' budgets get slashed each and every year. If Members of Congress are going to send young men and women over to Iraq to fight in this war, we had better make sure that when they come back they have the resources they need to get on with their lives. We have lost 2,000 Americans in this war. There is no end in sight. There have been no weapons of mass destruction. There was no imminent threat. There was no nuclear threat. There was no tie to al Qaeda. This war has nothing to do with the War on Terror. In fact, it has diverted important resources from the overall war on terror. We need to get our priorities straight. We need to focus on the war on terror. Let us end this war in Iraq.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this morning the top story on the front page of the Washington Post describes in detail how the CIA has been hiding and interrogating al Qaeda and other prisoners in covert prisons around the globe. No one knows what the rules of the game are for the interrogations that take place there. There is no accountability, no genuine oversight. In fact, information about these facilities and their practices has been deliberately withheld from the Congress and the American people. In effect, the prisoners in these jails simply disappear. Mr. Speaker, this is not what America stands for, this is more like Chile under Pinochet or Argentina under the junta. We know now why Vice President Cheney is so determined that the final defense appropriations conference report include exceptions to Senator McCain's provision against torture and the Markey provision prohibiting rendition. If those provisions are watered down or struck down by the defense conferees, then mark my words, Mr. Speaker, America will lose a piece of its soul. Let us reclaim the values and the principles that have made this country great. Mr. Speaker, the text of the article in today's Washington Post is as follows: [From the Washington Post, Nov. 2, 2005] CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons (By Dana Priest) The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement. The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents. The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions. The existence and locations of the facilities--referred to as ``black sites'' in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents--are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country. The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long. While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad. But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military--which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress-- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody. Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation. The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent. Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives. Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission. ``We never sat down, as far as I know, and came up with a grand strategy,'' said one former senior intelligence officer who is familiar with the program but not the location of the prisons. ``Everything was very reactive. That's how you get to a situation where you pick people up, send them into a netherworld and don't say, `What are we going to do with them afterwards?' '' It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing. Host countries have signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as has the United States. Yet CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved ``Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,'' some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as ``waterboarding,'' in which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning. Some detainees apprehended by the CIA and transferred to foreign intelligence agencies have alleged after their release that they were tortured, although it is unclear whether CIA personnel played a role in the alleged abuse. Given the secrecy surrounding CIA detentions, such accusations have heightened concerns among foreign governments and human rights groups about CIA detention and interrogation practices. The contours of the CIA's detention program have emerged in bits and pieces over the past two years. Parliaments in Canada, Italy, France, Sweden and the Netherlands have opened inquiries into alleged CIA operations that secretly captured their citizens or legal residents and transferred them to the agency's prisons. More than 100 suspected terrorists have been sent by the CIA into the covert system, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials and foreign sources. This figure, a rough estimate based on information from sources who said their knowledge of the numbers was incomplete, does not include prisoners picked up in Iraq. The detainees break down roughly into two classes, the sources said. About 30 are considered major terrorism suspects and have been held under the highest level of secrecy at black sites financed by the CIA and managed by agency personnel, including those in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, according to current and former intelligence officers and two other U.S. government officials. Two locations in this category--in Thailand and on the grounds of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay--were closed in 2003 and 2004, respectively. A second tier--which these sources believe includes more than 70 detainees--is a group considered less important, with less direct involvement in terrorism and having limited intelligence value. These prisoners, some of whom were originally taken to black sites, are delivered to intelligence services in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Afghanistan and other countries, a process sometimes known as ``rendition.'' While the first-tier black sites are run by CIA officers, the jails in these countries are operated by the host nations, with CIA financial assistance and, sometimes, direction. Morocco, Egypt and Jordan have said that they do not torture detainees, although years of State Department human rights reports accuse all three of chronic prisoner abuse. The top 30 al Qaeda prisoners exist in complete isolation from the outside world. Kept in dark, sometimes underground cells, they have no recognized legal rights, and no one outside the CIA is allowed to talk with or even see them, or to otherwise verify their well-being, said current and former and U.S. and foreign government and intelligence officials. Most of the facilities were built and are maintained with congressionally appropriated funds, but the White House has refused to allow the CIA to brief anyone except the House and Senate intelligence committees' chairmen and vice chairmen on the program's generalities. The Eastern European countries that the CIA has persuaded to hide al Qaeda captives are democracies that have embraced the rule of law and individual rights after decades of Soviet domination. Each has been trying to cleanse its intelligence services of operatives who have worked on behalf of others-- mainly Russia and organized crime. Origins of the Black Sites The idea of holding terrorists outside the U.S. legal system was not under consideration before Sept. 11, 2001, not even for Osama bin Laden, according to former government officials. The plan was to bring bin Laden and his top associates into the U.S. justice system for trial or to send them to foreign countries where they would be tried. ``The issue of detaining and interrogating people was never, ever discussed,'' said a former senior intelligence officer who worked in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, or CTC, during that period. ``It was against the culture and they believed information was best gleaned by other means.'' On the day of the attacks, the CIA already had a list of what it called High-Value Targets from the al Qaeda structure, and as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attack plots were unraveled, more names were added to the list. The question of what to do with these people surfaced quickly. The CTC's chief of operations argued for creating hit teams of case officers and CIA paramilitaries that would covertly infiltrate countries in the Middle East, Africa and even Europe to assassinate people on the list, one by one. But many CIA officers believed that the al Qaeda leaders would be worth keeping alive to interrogate about their network and other plots. Some officers worried that the CIA would not be very adept at assassination. ``We'd probably shoot ourselves,'' another former senior CIA official said. The agency set up prisons under its covert action authority. Under U.S. law, only the president can authorize a covert action, by signing a document called a presidential finding. Findings must not break U.S. law and are reviewed and approved by CIA, Justice Department and White House legal advisers. Six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush signed a sweeping finding that gave the CIA broad authorization to disrupt terrorist activity, including permission to kill, capture and detain members of al Qaeda anywhere in the world. It could not be determined whether Bush approved a separate finding for the black-sites program, but the consensus among current and former intelligence and other government officials interviewed for this article is that he did not have to. Rather, they believe that the CIA general counsel's office acted within the parameters of the Sept. 17 finding. The black-site program was approved by a small circle of White House and Justice Department lawyers and officials, according to several former and current U.S. government and intelligence officials. Deals With 2 Countries Among the first steps was to figure out where the CIA could secretly hold the captives. One early idea was to keep them on ships in international waters, but that was discarded for security and logistics reasons. CIA officers also searched for a setting like Alcatraz Island. They considered the virtually unvisited islands in Lake Kariba in Zambia, which were edged with craggy cliffs and covered in woods. But poor sanitary conditions could easily lead to fatal diseases, they decided, and besides, they wondered, could the Zambians be trusted with such a secret? Still without a long-term solution, the CIA began sending suspects it captured in the first month or so after Sept. 11 to its longtime partners, the intelligence services of Egypt and Jordan. A month later, the CIA found itself with hundreds of prisoners who were captured on battlefields in Afghanistan. A short-term solution was improvised. The agency shoved its highest-value prisoners into metal shipping containers set up on a corner of the Bagram Air Base, which was surrounded with a triple perimeter of concertina-wire fencing. Most prisoners were left in the hands of the Northern Alliance, U.S.- supported opposition forces who were fighting the Taliban. ``I remember asking: What are we going to do with these people?'' said a senior CIA officer. ``I kept saying, where's the help? We've got to bring in some help. We can't be jailers--our job is to find Osama.'' Then came grisly reports, in the winter of 2001, that prisoners kept by allied Afghan generals in cargo containers had died of asphyxiation. The CIA asked Congress for, and was quickly granted, tens of millions of dollars to establish a larger, long-term system in Afghanistan, parts of which would be used for CIA prisoners. The largest CIA prison in Afghanistan was code-named the Salt Pit. It was also the CIA's substation and was first housed in an old brick factory outside Kabul. In November 2002, an inexperienced CIA case officer allegedly ordered guards to strip naked an uncooperative young detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets. He froze to death, according to four U.S. government officials. The CIA officer has not been charged in the death. The Salt Pit was protected by surveillance cameras and tough Afghan guards, but the road leading to it was not safe to travel and the jail was eventually moved inside Bagram Air Base. It has since been relocated off the base. By mid-2002, the CIA had worked out secret black-site deals with two countries, including Thailand and one Eastern European nation, current and former officials said. An estimated $100 million was tucked inside the classified annex of the first supplemental Afghanistan appropriation. Then the CIA captured its first big detainee, in March 28, 2002. Pakistani forces took Abu Zubaida, al Qaeda's operations chief, into custody and the CIA whisked him to the new black site in Thailand, which included underground interrogation cells, said several former and current intelligence officials. Six months later, Sept. 11 planner Ramzi Binalshibh was also captured in Pakistan and flown to Thailand. But after published reports revealed the existence of the site in June 2003, Thai officials insisted the CIA shut it down, and the two terrorists were moved elsewhere, according to former government officials involved in the matter. Work between the two countries on counterterrorism has been lukewarm ever since. In late 2002 or early 2003, the CIA brokered deals with other countries to establish black-site prisons. One of these sites--which sources said they believed to be the CIA's biggest facility now--became particularly important when the agency realized it would have a growing number of prisoners and a shrinking number of prisons. Thailand was closed, and sometime in 2004 the CIA decided it had to give up its small site at Guantanamo Bay. The CIA had planned to convert that into a state-of-the-art facility, operated independently of the military. The CIA pulled out when U.S. courts began to exercise greater control over the military detainees, and agency officials feared judges would soon extend the same type of supervision over their detainees. In hindsight, say some former and current intelligence officials, the CIA's problems were exacerbated by another decision made within the Counterterrorist Center at Langley. The CIA program's original scope was to hide and interrogate the two dozen or so al Qaeda leaders believed to be directly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, or who posed an imminent threat, or had knowledge of the larger al Qaeda network. But as the volume of leads pouring into the CTC from abroad increased, and the capacity of its paramilitary group to seize suspects grew, the CIA began apprehending more people whose intelligence value and links to terrorism were less certain, according to four current and former officials. The original standard for consigning suspects to the invisible universe was lowered or ignored, they said. ``They've got many, many more who don't reach any threshold,'' one intelligence official said. Several former and current intelligence officials, as well as several other U.S. government officials with knowledge of the program, express frustration that the White House and the leaders of the intelligence community have not made it a priority to decide whether the secret internment program should continue in its current form, or be replaced by some other approach. Meanwhile, the debate over the wisdom of the program continues among CIA officers, some of whom also argue that the secrecy surrounding the program is not sustainable. ``It's just a horrible burden,'' said the intelligence official.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her leadership in the Out of Iraq Caucus and for her leadership in the effort to achieve peace and to achieve a more rational U.S. foreign policy and to do the right thing on behalf of our country. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the war in Iraq was wrong. I believe it was a mistake. This was a war based on fix. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no ties to al Qaeda. There were no nuclear weapons. There was no imminent threat to the United States. And with the acquiescence of this Congress, I am sad to say this country rushed into a war, a war that has turned out to be a violent quagmire, a war with no end. Mr. Speaker, we have already spent some $300 billion on this war in Iraq. There is no end in sight. We are told that if we are there for another 2 years that the figure will be up to $1 trillion. Now, think about it. What could we do with hundreds of billions of dollars? We could reduce our deficit and reduce the debt. We could actually do something very important in helping to insure some of the millions of Americans who do not have health insurance in this country. We could help to rebuild our schools and provide a first-class education to every single young person in this country. We could rebuild our infrastructure. Or we can put it toward helping our veterans who have fought in the wars over the years, who have given so much of themselves, and who are sick and tired of getting nickled and dimed by this Congress with budgets that underfund the veterans' affairs every single year. Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that the policy that we should pursue is one that requires the United States to end our involvement in Iraq. I have legislation that I have introduced that requires an end to the war in Iraq now, not 6 months from now, not a year from now, not at some date to be determined by the President. We have given him his chance, and he has come back and said that he just wants to stay there for the next decade. He does not seem to be mindful of the fact that everything that he said about this war has turned out to be false. I want this war ended now. I think the majority of people in this country want this war ended now. They realize that this huge U.S. presence in Iraq right now is not calming the violence. They realize that we are now a major part of the problem. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we got in Iraq. It is not just al Qaeda. It is other terrorist organizations, quite frankly, that are now sticking their nose in Iraq, trying to get at the United States. It is not about the future of Iraq. It is about the United States of America. Now I believe that the time has come for the President to authorize an orderly and safe withdrawal of our troops. The legislation that I have introduced calls for that, right now. If it passes today, it would begin today. The legislation says that we can support all efforts to make sure that our troops have a safe and orderly withdrawal from Iraq. It says that we can support reconstruction efforts in Iraq, which I think is important. We helped destroy that country. We need to help rebuild that country. It says that we can support international forces as transitional security in Iraq. If other countries want to provide a transitional security force, we should be able to support that. Hopefully, some of the neighboring Arab countries will want to do that. We should be able to support a U.N. force or a NATO force going in. But the bottom line is, I think it is clear to anybody who has been watching this, that the time has come to demand that no more U.S. forces be in Iraq. It is time to end this war. Mr. Speaker, now I know that there are some, and I hear it a lot, every time those of us try to raise some questions and try to raise some dissent, there are those who say, well, you should not do that. It is somehow unpatriotic. You are not supporting our troops. You are not supporting our country. You are giving comfort to the enemy. I hear that all the time when I speak about my opinions on Iraq or when I hear others speak in ways that dissent from this current policy. Well, nothing could be farther from the truth. Let me tell you, it takes absolutely no courage at all for anybody in this House or in the United States Senate or in this administration to wave the American flag and say, stay the course and send more troops. It takes no courage at all. Because it is not us whose lives are on the line and, with very few exceptions, it is not our children whose lives are on the line. Over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in a conflict that the President of the United States said would be a relatively short conflict that would be easily manageable and that would not entail these casualties. He was wrong. Two thousand Americans have now died, over 2,000 Americans. That is not counting the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have lost their lives. The President and his administration was wrong on this. We were not told the truth. I sat through all of those classified briefings with the Secretary of State, with the Secretary of Defense, with all of the intelligence agencies that they brought up here to tell us about what this war would be if we got into it, and everything they said was wrong. Now, one of two things explains that fact. One, either our intelligence agencies are just so incompetent and so dumb that they got everything wrong; or, two, that this intelligence was exaggerated. Now, I do not believe that our intelligence agencies are dumb. I do not believe our intelligence agencies could get anything that wrong. We spend billions of dollars each year in supporting our intelligence agencies. I do not think, I do not believe that anybody believes that they got it that wrong. What I think most people believe is that the intelligence that was presented to the Congress and to the United States people was the intelligence that this administration thought fit their argument, complemented their argument. It was not a balanced picture. It was what they wanted to present; and, as a result, there was a rush to war. Mr. Speaker, we need to figure out a way now as to how to get out of this. It is imperative that we get out of this now. I have been to three funerals in the last few months in my own district of young men who have lost their lives in this conflict. I have seen their families grieve, their friends grieve. I do not want to see any more families have to go through that. I want this administration to come clean on what the facts are, on what their plans on, and also come clean on the intelligence leading into this war. I want to say one thing about the Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. I will tell you, I was never more proud of him than I was yesterday when he finally stood up and showed the commitment and showed the spine to ask the tough questions that people all over this country, Republican and Democrat alike, have been asking, and that is, what was the intelligence that brought us into this war? Was it exaggerated? How was it manipulated? How could we have gotten it so wrong? I want to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I think Democrats and Republicans alike believe, I am not saying in this Chamber, but I am saying throughout the country, believe that if, in fact, there are people in this administration who intentionally and deliberately exaggerated intelligence and manipulated intelligence to get us into this war, then those people should be fired and fired now. What you saw was Scooter Libby's indictment is just the tip of the iceberg. Quite frankly, the President should fire Karl Rove now. He lied to the President of the United States. He lied to the American people. He told the President, along with Mr. Libby, that they had no knowledge of who leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the press. We now know that that is a lie. And the fact that this President sees no problem with keeping his top aide on after this man lied about something so serious, quite frankly, is very disturbing to this Member of Congress. These are serious matters. War is a big deal. This is not something to be taken lightly. The great English conservative Edmund Burke once said, ``A conscientious man would be cautious in how he dealt with blood.'' This administration claims to be conservative. Well, they should heed Edmund Burke's words. They have been too casual with how they have dealt with blood. They have been too casual with how they have deployed our troops overseas. And the indifference that we see each and every day at press briefings by White House spokespeople, by the President; you never hear from the Vice President, so I cannot really say much about him. But this kind of casual attitude that everything is just great. Let us just stay the course. We are doing the right thing. It takes my breath away. I do not know if it is that they do not watch TV or they do not read the newspapers or they do not talk to those who are on the ground in Iraq or those families who have lost loved ones, but the fact of the matter is this is a serious matter. I think the only way that we are going to see a change in course is for Members of Congress to organize, like we are doing here in this Out of Iraq Caucus, for people across this country to join in protest, to join in dissent, to start writing their Members of Congress and saying, we demand that you end this war and end it now. That is the only way we are going to see an end to this war. Because I am convinced, watching this administration in action, that nothing will change. Sadly, I am convinced, by watching the leadership of this Congress and how they have behaved during these last few years of this war, with this indifference, with this kind of cover-up mentality, to not question the administration, to not hold them accountable for anything, to not do our job with proper oversight, I am convinced that unless Members of Congress are pressured by their constituents, then we will not act here as well. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that I love this country more than anything, and nothing disturbs me more than to see us involved in a war that we have no business being in. Nothing disturbs me more than to see the loss of innocent lives that we see going on each and every day. I think we are better. I think we can do better. You know, great nations sometimes misstep. Sometimes great nations make mistakes. It is up to great nations to fix those mistakes. We have made a mistake in Iraq. This is not about whether we honor our troops or not. I honor our troops. I want to do more for our troops. I wish the people on the other side of the aisle would join us in demanding more money for our veterans. I am worried about all of those men and women coming back from Iraq with post-traumatic stress syndrome. I am worried that they are not going to get the health care they deserve. I am worried that their families are not getting the benefits that they need and that they deserve. I am worried about people coming back to no jobs. So this is not about our commitment to our troops. We are committed to our troops. We honor them. We are in awe of their service. They have done what their country has asked. This is about whether this policy is right or whether this policy is wrong. And if you believe, as many of us do, that this policy is wrong, then you need to stand up and you need to be counted, and you need to demand that this policy change and change now. It is not patriotic to remain silent in the face of policies that you object to. That is not patriotism. That is cowardice. And we need to stand up, those of us who believe that this war is wrong, and I know that there are many who are silent right now who believe as we do that this war was wrong. They need to stand up and join with us. Enough is enough. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) put it eloquently and succinctly. Enough is enough. This war needs to come to an end. Not one more dollar, not one more death. This is the time to do it. We are trying, with this caucus, to energize people on both sides of the aisle, this is not a partisan issue, to come together and demand that we change our policy. Our country is so much better. We are so much better than this. We stand for so much more than what is on display in Iraq. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the White House listens to those of us in the United States Congress. Our numbers are growing each and every day who disagree with this war. And I hope they are watching these public opinion polls and listening to people all across this land who are saying they do not want any more war, they do not want any more people to die. They are tired of being engaged in a war that is dragging our good name into the mud. This is not America. We are so much better. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to what we are saying tonight, to join with us and hopefully help put this country on a better course. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman who just spoke from Indiana, I appreciate the fact that he is sensitive to when House rules are violated. I just wish he would join with us when the House rules are violated routinely on a number of rules that deal with a number of important pieces of legislation. I would also say, too, this legislation, I think, is good for a whole bunch of reasons, but one of the reasons is because it provides money for food stamps, WIC and feeding programs. Feeding people is, I think, an important issue, and especially in the aftermath of the hurricanes that have hit the gulf coast. There are a lot more people that are going to need to take advantage of some of the programs that are encompassed in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending committee Chairman Lewis and subcommittee Chairman Bonilla as well as committee Ranking Member Obey and subcommittee Ranking Member DeLauro for bringing a freestanding fiscal year 2006 agriculture appropriations conference report to the floor today. For the first time in several years, the agriculture appropriations conference report has not been folded into an omnibus bill and is allowed to be voted on up or down on its own merits. Until this year, that has been a rare accomplishment, and I believe our distinguished colleagues deserve to be commended for their efforts. Mr. Speaker, while I will support the conference report, I do have some concerns with the final conference report and with the process by which it has been completed; and I am going to let some of the others who are on the Appropriations Committee talk about that in more detail. But, apparently, there were serious policy disagreements between the House and the Senate that were magically resolved without any vote by the conferees. There are examples of identical provisions, passed in both bodies, being changed in the conference committee even though House rules preclude such provisions from being rewritten. I think we can do much better than that, Mr. Speaker. I also have some policy concerns with this conference report. One provision that was dropped in the conference had to do with privatization of the administering of the food stamp program. Senator Harkin and others in the Senate had some serious concerns with a proposal in Texas to allow Accenture to administer the State's food stamp program. Their concerns led to the inclusion of a provision preventing such privatization. Senator Harkin attempted to modify that provision for inclusion in the final conference report, but his effort was rejected. Ultimately, the provision was dropped altogether from the conference report. I am very concerned about a wholesale change like this in the food stamp program. The conference report actually allows every State to privatize their food stamp programs. We may find out that this is a good thing, but I do not believe we should rush into such a big change without testing it first in a few pilot programs. The food stamp program is one of the best run Federal and State programs and should not be subjected to such a wholesale change. Another provision that I am concerned about is the country of origin labeling provision. The 2002 farm bill set a date certain for country of origin labeling for various meat, poultry, and produce products. I was disappointed by past efforts that have delayed portions of this provision. This conference report delays enactment of country of origin labeling until 2008, and it is time to let the country of origin labeling provisions take effect like the Congress intended when it passed the 2002 farm bill. I am also concerned about other provisions dealing with organic produce, the way the Food and Drug Advisory Panel is regulated, and horse slaughter. The horse slaughter provisions are extremely troubling, primarily because majorities in both the House and Senate voted for amendments banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption. This provision should not have been rewritten in conference, and I am disappointed with the conference committee's actions on all three of these issues. However, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not highlight, in my opinion, one of the most positive aspects of this conference report. As many of my colleagues know, I am a strong supporter of the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. I am pleased that President Bush requested $100 million in his fiscal year 2006 budget, and I am pleased this conference report funds the McGovern-Dole program at $100 million. It is still far less than I believe we should be funding it; but, nevertheless, it is an increase over last year's level. Modeled after the U.S. school breakfast and lunch programs, the McGovern-Dole program is successful, it is well run, and it is a popular program that provides food for children in school settings around the world. Named after former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole, this program is operating around the world and has fed millions of children in countries like Afghanistan and Colombia and other developing countries. Mr. Speaker, it is not just I who supports this program. The Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, sent me a letter earlier this year expressing the administration's support for the program. Specifically, the Secretary mentions ``the positive results of increased enrollment, decline in absenteeism, improved concentration, energy, and attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure improvements . . .'' But beyond these, he mentions how important it is that countries are already graduating out of this program. In other words, some countries are getting ready to end their involvement in the McGovern-Dole program because they are now able to provide the school feeding programs themselves. They have become self-sustaining. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Secretary Johanns notes how important the program is and how important proper funding is despite the challenges facing the Federal budget. I will insert this letter from Secretary Johanns into the Record at this point. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC. Hon. James P. McGovern, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman McGovern: Thank you for the letter of December 2, 2004, from you and your colleagues to President George W. Bush, expressing your support for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (FFE). The White House forwarded your letter to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for reply. We apologize for the delay in responding. This Administration greatly appreciates your support for this very successful program. USDA now has 5 years of experience with FFE and its predecessor, the Global Food for Education Initiative. These programs have reached over 7 million beneficiaries and provided close to 1.3 million tons of agricultural commodities as well as other types of assistance to schools and communities. The positive results include increased school enrollment, especially among girls; declines in absenteeism; improved concentration, energy, and attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure improvements, including classrooms, kitchens, storage facilities, water systems, latrines, and playgrounds. We are especially gratified that FFE has resulted in greater local commitment to school feeding activities. In many cases, FFE activities have been so succcssful that local support for school feeding is expanding to the point that FFE assistance can shortly be ended. Examples of these ``graduating'' countries are Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Moldova and Vietnam. We will continue to allocate some FFE resources to these countries this year as we expand the benefits of FFE by implementing programs in additional countries. Additionally, the success of FFE has resulted in other donors becoming involved in school feeding programs. These other donors include the European Union, the German Agency for Technical Cooperation, the Japanese Development Agency, Canada, and the WorId Health Organization. We agree that funding for FFE should be expanded in fiscal year (FY) 2006. While the Administration is making a concerted effort to cut the budget deficit, we have requested $100 million in appropriated funding for FFE in FY 2006, which is double the funding for the program in FY 2004 and an increase of 15 percent compared to FY 2005. Thank you again for writing to support this important program. We look forward to continuing to work with you to improve USDA's overseas food aid programs. A similar letter has been sent to each of your colleagues. Sincerely, Mike Johanns, Secretary.