Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro for their great work and the members of the committee, and I urge support of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Massachusetts for raising some very interesting points. I had spoken earlier about the McGovern-Dole program, which I feel very strongly about. One of the good things about the way this program has been set up is it provides flexibility so that if, in fact, you need to respond to a particular need in a country, to provide food, and there is no food that you can buy in that country, you can use American agricultural produce to be able to feed people. If, in fact, you can buy locally, if there is enough food to buy locally, you can monetize our agricultural riches, and you can then buy the products locally. You can also monetize it to help pay for transportation of some of this food. So it seems to me that it is not all one way or another way, it is somewhere in between, and we need to continue to work this out. But you need to have flexibility in these programs. Again, I think the McGovern-Dole program is a good example of what works. I should also say that Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos are on the floor from the International Relations Committee. Both have been very, very helpful in promoting the McGovern-Dole program, and I am grateful for their efforts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member on the committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I believe the world community, and that includes the United States, can do better in combating hunger in the world. There are 850 million hungry people in the world; 300 million are children. Of those 300 million, half of them do not go to school; and of those who do not go to school, they are mostly girls. We need to change that reality, and the McGovern-Dole program helps mightily toward changing that reality. The fact is we cannot effectively combat disease and overpopulation and illiteracy or deal effectively with sustainability in developing countries if we do not commit ourselves to universal education; and the way we get to universal education, in large part, is through school feeding programs. I would also argue that the McGovern-Dole program does some other important things. It gives people around the world who otherwise would not have any hope, it gives them hope. It gives them a chance to believe that their children will get an education and actually succeed in the world. It gives countries the ability to look forward to truly develop in a way where they can have economies that can support their people. I also think it goes a long way in improving the image of the United States around the world at a time when I think we desperately need to improve our image, because I believe that this is the kind of program that a majority of people, Republicans and Democrats, people from red States and blue States, all think is what America stands for. We are about helping people. We are about giving people a chance. Let me finally say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope at some point the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership in this House can come together and focus more acutely and more effectively on the issue of hunger here at home in the United States and around the world. There are some problems that we cannot solve in my lifetime, but hunger is not one of them. We can do so much better. We have the resources. We have the infrastructure. What we need is the political will, and that is my hope. I want to thank Chairman Lewis, Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member Obey, and Ranking Member DeLauro, along with subcommittee members Emerson and Kaptur, who are strong supporters of the McGovern-Dole program, for their hard work and for increasing funding in this program to $100 million for fiscal year 2006. I truly appreciate their efforts. Again, despite some of my concerns with the process and a few policy matters, I think overall this is a good conference report. I will support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record as well another letter signed by a number of groups urging a vote against H.R. 420. I would also like to include a letter that was sent to every Member of Congress by Michael S. Greco, the President of the American Bar Association, opposing this legislation. I would also like to insert in the Record the text of the letter that I mentioned in my opening speech from the Judicial Conference of the United States which very strongly opposes this legislation. October 25, 2005. Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose H.R. 420, a bill that would restore the discriminatory impact of the old version of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, trample on states' rights to run their own courts, and increase the extent and expense of litigation rather than reduce it. H.R. 420 seeks to roll back Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to an earlier 1983 version of the rule, which would undermine carefully crafted standards that were enacted in 1993. Those changes expanded responsibilities of litigants, while at the same time providing greater constraints and flexibility in dealing with violations of the rule. The current rule requires litigants to ``stop-and- think'' before making legal or factual contentions. It also, however, emphasizes the duty of candor by subjecting litigants to potential sanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable, and by generally providing protection against sanctions if they withdraw or correct contentions after a potential violation is called to their attention. There is no evidence that the current Rule 11 is not working. In fact, Department of Justice statistics show that the number of lawsuits is declining in both federal and state courts. The end result of H.R. 420 would be a shift of the function of Rule 11 from deterring frivolous litigation to increasing litigation by those who have the resources and the time to litigate against opposing counsel. History shows that mandatory Rule 11 sanctions imposed in 1983, and to which H.R. 420 would have us return, were used disproportionately against plaintiffs' (particularly civil rights) attorneys and those attempting to extend the law in support of unpopular causes. More than a decade ago, civil rights organizations-- including some of the undersigned organizations--worked to amend Rule 11 because the old rule unfairly discouraged meritorious civil rights claims. H.R. 420 seeks to force litigants to operate under the terms that we fear, like the former rule we worked so hard to amend, will be used to punish and deter valid claims of discrimination. Nationwide surveys about the former rule found that motions for sanctions were most frequently sought and granted in civil rights cases. Expressing his concerns about the former Rule 11, the Honorable Robert L. Carter, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, noted, ``I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's opportunity to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal [in Brown v. Board of Education] would have been delayed for a decade had my colleagues and I been required, upon pain of potential sanctions, to plead our legal theory explicitly from the start.'' The language of H.R. 420 purporting to protect civil rights claims provides insufficient protection for victims of discrimination because the more severe rules outlined in H.R. 420 can still be applied in civil rights. Had supporters of the bill wanted to effectively protect those who seek justice under our civil rights laws, they could have exempted those claims from the scope of the bill. Moreover, H.R. 420 not only changes the rules for federal courts, it is unprecedented in that its reach extends to state court cases. Section 3 of the bill provides, upon motion, the court is required to assess the costs of the action ``to the interstate economy.'' If the court determines that the state court action ``affects interstate commerce,'' Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ``shall apply to such action.'' Imagining the proceedings necessary to determine whether a particular state court action ``affects interstate commerce'' is mind-boggling. This provision will certainly spawn satellite litigation. Moreover, the total disregard for federalism is astounding. Finally, the vast majority of the federal judiciary opposes the changes contained in H.R. 420. The Judicial Conference of the United States, headed by the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, clearly stated in a letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner that ``the proposed changes to Rule 11 will not help deter litigation abuses, but will increase satellite litigation, costs, and delays.'' The letter also notes there is ``a remarkable consensus'' among Federal district court judges in opposition to changing the rule. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Pamela Gilbert, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, representing the Center for Justice & Democracy, 202.587.5064; Sandy Brantley, Legislative Counsel, Alliance for Justice, 202.822.6070; or Jillian Aldebron, Civil Justice Counsel, Public Citizen's Congress Watch, 202.454.5135. Sincerely, Alliance for Justice. Center for Justice & Democracy. Citizens for a Safer Minnesota. Consumer Federation of America. District of Columbia Million Mom March. Legal Community Against Violence. Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence. National Association of Consumer Advocates. New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. Public Citizen. USAction. Violence Policy Center. Virginians Against Handgun Violence.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has, because I am the last speaker on my side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, here we go again. Whenever the Republican leadership appears to be floundering or simply needs some legislative filler, they turn to the Judiciary Committee for some kind of anti- lawyer, anti-lawsuit bill. We recently considered a bill to ban lawsuits against people who want to sue fast food companies, even though these cases are nonexistent. Now we are here considering another bill that will pass the House and go nowhere in the Senate. The fact is that the Republican leadership has run out of meaningful legislation to consider. They have run out of ideas. So here we are once again considering another bill that attacks America's judicial system and takes away rights from our fellow citizens. Time after time, the Republican leadership refuses to bring necessary legislation to the floor. Where, Madam Speaker, is the legislation combating poverty or ending hunger or increasing access to affordable and comprehensive health care? Where are their priorities? There are 45 million Americans who have no health insurance in this country. Where is the increase in the minimum wage? Where is the legislation to lower gas and oil prices? It was comical to see the Republican leadership gather at a press conference the other day in reaction to the news that oil companies are making record profits. And what was their response? They very nicely asked the oil companies to do more. Why should the oil companies do more when they have passed legislation to give oil companies more tax breaks and more oil subsidies? Where, Madam Speaker, is the oversight into the Iraq war? Over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, and all we get from this leadership and all we get from this White House is ``stay the course.'' Well, stay the course is not a policy; it is a sound bite. We owe our young men and women more than just a sound bite. Where is the genuinely independent 9/11-style commission to investigate the botched response to Hurricane Katrina and to make recommendations on how to prevent such another tragedy in the future? Where is the fully constituted, functioning Ethics Committee to look into the numerous ethics charges that are mounting in this body? No, here we are dealing with legislation that we dealt with last year that is going nowhere. The fact is, the Republican leadership does not care much about these issues, and I know they are out of step with the American people on these issues. So, instead, they bring us the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act once again. This is like watching a bad TV rerun. It was not good the first time; it is even worse the second time. Remember, we considered this bill last year, and just like last year, it will pass this Republican-controlled Congress. They will do their press releases, they will send it over to the Senate, and it will go nowhere. Later today we will hear from members of the House Judiciary Committee who have particular subject expertise on the specifics of this legislation. I will leave it to these Members to explain the intricacies of the Federal Code and the Rules of Civil Procedure and how Rule 11 fits in. I would like for a few minutes, however, to talk about the continued abuse of power that the Republican majority takes to a new level today. Under this rule and under this bill, Republican fund-raisers are rewarded, while the majority party continues its unabashed assault on the judicial branch of this Nation. Do not just take my word for it, Madam Speaker. One of the broadest arrays of groups that I have ever seen has come together to oppose this misguided, short-sighted, mean- spirited legislation. These groups include, but are certainly not limited to, the NAACP, the Legal Defense Fund, the American Bar Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Women's Law Center, and the Consumers Union. The one that stands out the most, however, is the opposition from the Judicial Conference of the United States. Now, what is that? What is this conference that opposes what my Republican friends will describe as a critically important piece of legislation? The Judicial Conference was created by this very Congress in 1922. Their congressionally mandated mission is to be the principal policymaking body concerned with the administration of the United States courts. The presiding officer of this organization is none other than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. You know what the Judicial Conference has to say about this legislation? In a three-page letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner, in short, they say it is unnecessary and it is harmful. If they were less judicious in their choice of words, they would say what I say: It stinks. But what they say, Madam Speaker, this group representing the Federal judges of this country, is that this legislation is fatally flawed. They say that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what the underlying legislation aims to fix, is working better today than ever before. In fact, in their letter to the Judiciary Committee chairman, they say that Federal district judges are united in their opposition to any legislation which seeks to amend rule 11. They specifically urge Congress to reject this legislation. Now, Madam Speaker, let us think this through for just a second, shall we? The organization representing President-appointed, Senate- confirmed judges thinks this legislation is unwise. Why do we think we know better than our Federal judges how to operate the Federal judiciary? Frankly, I would laugh if I did not think that the majority was so sincere in their attempts to undermine the constitutional rights of every single American. Shame on you. Shame on all of you for trying to eviscerate the Constitution, all for a few extra campaign dollars, because that is what this is about. The underlying legislation is not sound public policy, plain and simple. On the contrary, it is outright political grandstanding. So let us be honest and let us call this bill and this debate what they really are: legislative abuse and a political charade. The majority's reckless disregard for judicial integrity mocks our Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, and I implore my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think the reason why we have no other speakers on this side is because everything that possibly could be said was said last year. So all we need to do is just replay the tape recorder and listen to all the arguments. We just seem to be repeating the same debates over and over and over again. Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. This is unwise policy. I understand that the genesis of this legislation is to appeal to those who like to contribute lots of money to particular campaigns, but, quite frankly, I think that is not a sound reason to pass this legislation. As I mentioned before, the Judicial Conference of the United States has outlined very clearly why this is a bad bill. I would hope that my colleagues would listen to some of the experts and do what is right and reject this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, over the past 5 years, we have seen 100,000 Federal housing units lost. We are down 50 percent in real terms in elderly and disabled housing at a time when the leadership on the other side of the aisle has tried to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant Program. They have significantly cut back on the number of section 8 vouchers for low-income housing assistance, and they have tried to limit housing assistance overall, so it is important that this underlying bill pass and at the same time that this reprehensible provision, this attack on poor people, be struck from the bill. Mr. Speaker, to prohibit organizations from receiving funding for housing, many of these organizations, faith-based organizations, that participate in nonpartisan activities, as the New York Times said today, has no place in our democracy. We can do so much better. The fact of the matter is that many of these faith-based organizations that do an incredible job in housing will be barred from participating because of this provision. Vote down the rule. Let us fix this provision. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member on the committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas keeps on saying this is about policy, not politics; but what would be more political than the language in here that denies poor people the right to vote? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver). (Mr. CLEAVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include the following editorial that appeared in today's New York Times entitled, ``A Ban on Voter Registration,'' which is very much opposed to the offensive language in the manager's amendment. [From the New York Times, Oct. 26, 2005] A Ban on Voter Registration Hurricane Katrina made it politically necessary for Republican Congressional leaders to tone down their effort to kill off federal programs for affordable housing. But it has not stopped them from dragging their feet on an important bill to create a valuable housing fund by tapping into a small portion of the after-tax profits of the federally backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fund would initially be aimed at the hurricane-ravaged gulf states, but would eventually help to house poor, elderly and disabled people nationally. Not satisfied with just delaying the bill, House ideologues are advocating an outrageous and potentially unconstitutional provision that would bar the nonprofit groups that build most affordable housing from participating in the fund if they also participate in even nonpartisan voter registration. This would force such nonprofits to choose between their historically important roles: promoting civic engagement and providing housing and other services for low-income people. The provision would conflict with state laws that require housing grant recipients to do things like register voters and would put the federal government in the unacceptable position of actively discouraging political participation. The long-overdue housing fund contains numerous safeguards that would prevent grant recipients from using federal dollars for advocacy. A measure that would bar them from nonpartisan activities has absolutely no place in a democracy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui). (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter from Catholic Charities USA, which strongly opposes the language in the manager's amendment. Catholic Charities USA, Alexandria, VA, October 25, 2005. Hon. James P. McGovern, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman McGovern: On behalf of Catholic Charities USA, the national association of Catholic social services agencies and institutions serving over seven million people in need every year, I urge you to support H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, and to oppose amendments that would prevent experienced faith-based and community-based organizations from successfully competing for the proposed affordable housing funds. We strongly support the creation of the housing funds and are convinced that this initiative would increase the development of affordable housing, but we have learned that the Rules Committee will be asked to put in order a managers' amendment to bar organizations with proven experience in mobilizing community support and resources. We applaud efforts to develop additional non-governmental funding resources to support affordable housing efforts that will be cost neutral to the federal budget. At the same time, we oppose limiting language that essentially bars non-profits whose mission extends beyond the provision of affordable housing. Not only our Catholic Charities agencies, but many religious orders and some parishes, whose missions are serving the poor and vulnerable in their communities, develop and manage very effective affordable housing programs alongside programs that provide food, clothing, counseling, and other health and social services. These agencies should not be barred from affordable housing funds simply because their primary purpose goes beyond affordable housing. In addition, we oppose amendments that restrain non-profits from receiving these funds if they are engaged in any non- partisan voter registration activities, even if these activities are funded by their own resources. One of the strengths of our democratic system has been the almost universal involvement of community-based and religious organizations in encouraging all citizens to register and vote. National religious bodies, regional bodies, such as Catholic dioceses, and local congregations throughout the country organize voter registration efforts and provide transportation to the polls for isolated seniors and people with disabilities. Non-profits with expertise in housing should not have to choose between two equally important missions: supporting full participation in our democracy and providing affordable housing. While this Administration has worked diligently to remove barriers to full participation in federal programs and funding by faith-based organizations, these amendments would bar these very same groups from being considered for this funding while for-profit agencies remain free to engage in these same voter activities. We are puzzled and troubled by the double standard being applied to faith-based and non- profit organizations. Existing limits in H.R. 1461 on activities that qualify for affordable housing funds prevent abuse of this funding. In addition, Catholic Charities agencies routinely sign certifications to receive federal, state, and local government funds that prohibit diversion of program funds for political and lobbying purposes. There are multiple vehicles available to ensure that the new Affordable Housing Funds are protected from inappropriate use by grantees. The proposed Affordable Housing Fund to be created under H.R. 1461 is sorely needed, especially in the devastated Gulf Coast region where hundreds of thousands of families have not been able to return to their homes. In such challenging times, it would be unfortunate if experienced faith-based organizations and non-profits that have performed laudably in meeting the needs of these survivors would be barred from participation in funding that would help meet critical housing needs. Sincerely, Rev. Larry Snyder, President. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and to the manager's amendment made in order under the rule. H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, as reported out of the Committee on Financial Services, was a thoughtful, reasonable, bipartisan piece of legislation. As evidenced by the 65-5 committee vote in favor of the bill on May 25, H.R. 1461 clearly has the support from both Democrats and Republicans. Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank worked together to craft bipartisan legislation that provides real oversight and a stronger, more powerful regulator for Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the Federal home loan banks. The Federal Housing Reform Act, as reported out of the committee in May, is the kind of legislation that the Framers intended Congress to pass. Not only is it legislation that will do good and will improve people's lives, it is legislation that was created out of bipartisan negotiations and compromise. I commend Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their actions on the Financial Services Committee and for producing an excellent bill. But, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republican leadership cannot handle bipartisan success. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support in committee, the Republican leadership held the bill hostage for 5 months, merely because a radical faction of their party opposes affordable housing and, specifically, opposes the Affordable Housing Fund included in the bill. Unfortunately, after being strong-armed by the Republican Study Committee, the Republican leadership forced changes that not only weakened the Affordable Housing Fund provision, but will actually restrict the ability of low-income people from voting in future elections. Here is the deal: They have a manager's amendment that has some very good things in it, but tucked in that manager's amendment there is included some language that many of us find offensive. And the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, wanted to have an amendment made in order to strike that offensive language and was denied that opportunity last night in the Rules Committee. The language that I am talking about specifically denies faith-based and nonprofit groups from funding simply if they express their first amendment rights. Under these restrictions, any nonprofit community group, or church would be ineligible to receive funding if either they or their ``affiliates'' have engaged in nonpartisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. Furthermore, affiliation is defined so broadly that it includes having overlapping board members sharing physical space or other public communications. It is worth noting that for-profit companies are exempt from these restrictions. Why would we protect companies from these restrictions, and impose them on low-income and faith-based communities, the very people who this legislation is supposed to empower? I would ask my colleagues, what do you have against faith-based organizations? We need to enhance access to affordable housing, not reduce it. Mr. Speaker, these restrictions are undemocratic. They are part of a pattern by the extreme right in the Republican Party in an attack on poor people. They are written with the intent to deny poor people the access to vote. These provisions are a direct affront on the democratic principles upon which this country was founded. It seems clear that these restrictions are unconstitutional. They would require any organization that wanted to receive funding from the Affordable Housing Fund to sacrifice their freedom of assembly, which protects their right to associate with one another in groups for economic, political, or religious purposes. We can provide and expand the affordable housing market without trouncing on the Bill of Rights. Just as easily as these restrictions were added into the legislation, they can be removed without affecting the goals of the Affordable Housing Fund or the overall legislation. A multitude of organizations across the country, ranging from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, have expressed their strong disapproval of these egregious provisions. For one reason, these groups realize how harmful these restrictions would be toward fighting homelessness. Homelessness cannot be combatted unless our Nation's affordable housing stock is increased. Affordable housing cannot be expanded if we bar nonprofits and community organizations from tapping into the appropriate resources. Mr. Speaker, affordable housing should not be a partisan issue, but, unfortunately, the Republican leadership has made it so. The battle against homelessness and the expansion of affordable housing needs to be addressed through a coordinated effort between the government and nonprofit and faith-based communities. This language in this manager's amendment severely restricts the ability of affordable housing professionals to fulfill their role. After Hurricane Katrina, President Bush and the leadership in the House talked about the need to help poor Americans rise out of poverty. They talked about improving people's lives. Well, Mr. Speaker, their actions clearly do not match their rhetoric. When the Republican leadership had a chance to help the poorest of Americans to receive affordable housing, they acted to restrict access to a proposed affordable housing fund. When the Republican leadership had a chance to stand up for people who do not have a voice, for people who need help making ends meet, they made a conscious decision to turn their backs on them. Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this debate is the ability to provide affordable housing and access to voting for low-income families. One of the icons of the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks, died on Sunday. We all mourn her passing. But it is hard not to see the irony that 2 days after her death, we are going to debate and vote on a bill that will restrict the ability of the poor to have access to affordable housing and to vote in democratic elections in this country. This is a lousy way to run this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote against this undemocratic and restrictive rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today we mark another sad milestone in our involvement in Iraq with the announcement that 2,000 Americans have died. It is time to end this war. This war was based on fiction: there were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al Qaeda, no imminent threat. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this war. We are bankrupting our Nation. Great nations, Mr. Speaker, sometimes make mistakes, as I believe we have done in this case. This war was a mistake. It is wrong; let us fix it. America can do better. Not one more dollar, not one more death.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 2,000 American troops have now lost their lives in Iraq. It is time to end this war. Let us bring our troops home and restore U.S. credibility in the world community. This war was based on fiction. That is a fact that is no longer disputed. There were no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to al Qaeda. There was no imminent threat. This administration, with the acquiescence of Congress, rushed into a war that, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson, has made our country more vulnerable, not less, to future crisis. The Bush administration has stubbornly refused to reassess the situation. They have refused to listen to the words of military and diplomatic leaders who have warned that a continuing U.S. presence in Iraq will not calm the violence or lead to a more stable Iraq. The U.S. presence in Iraq is now a major part of the problem. Al Qaeda is in Iraq today because we are there. The abuse and torture by U.S. forces of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and the near 3-year occupation by U.S. troops have made us an unpopular force in Iraq even among those who originally supported the U.S. invasion. We have spent over $300 billion on the war with no end in sight. It is estimated that another 2 years of war will boost that amount to $1 trillion. Our military is stretched to the limit, with much of the burden falling on our Guard and Reserves. There are some politicians in Washington who say that, no matter what, we must ``stay the course.'' I strongly disagree. It is worth pointing out that it is not Congressmen, Senators or members of the Bush administration whose lives are on the line in battle. It takes no courage for anybody in Washington to wave the American flag and send more troops. We owe our brave fighting men and women so much more. Washington made a mistake in going to war. It is time for politicians to admit that mistake and fix it before any more lives are lost. ``In Vietnam, we didn't have the lesson of Vietnam to guide us,'' says David Halberstam, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of that war. He goes on to say, ``In Iraq we did have those lessons. The tragedy is that we didn't pay any attention to them.'' Mr. Speaker, we have now sacrificed the lives of 2,000 members of our Armed Forces in Iraq. Thousands of others are wounded. Tens of thousands of civilians from Iraq and elsewhere have died since the U.S. entered Baghdad and ostensibly took control of the nation. This week I am introducing a resolution to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. This bill, however, will allow funds to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops. It will allow us to support transitional security provided by other countries, including international organizations like NATO and the United Nations. The bill will also allow for continued support for Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq, as well as funding for reconstruction efforts. This is not a cut and run strategy. Rather, it is a way to support efforts that I believe can be more helpful in creating a more stable Iraq. But the bill makes clear, no more U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq. Ultimately, the future of Iraq will depend on whether the various factions in the country genuinely and truly want to live with each other. No constitution or election can fully determine that outcome. This war has cost us dearly in terms of human life and treasure. At a time when we are shortchanging our veterans here at home, our schools, health care and even our homeland security, it makes no sense to throw good money after bad in this quagmire in Iraq. Sometimes great nations misstep, as I believe we have done in this case. It is now time to ask the tough questions and face the hard truths. It is time to end this war.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the exception that he just cited would not cover the example that I just gave. The bottom line is that it was an employee who worked for Kahr Arms that stole these weapons and that sold them to criminals for drug money. As a result, a young man was killed. And it is our understanding, based on my conversations with members of the Judiciary Committee, that in fact this would not be covered. So having said that, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.