Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip who recognizes that curtailing debate is an abuse of power.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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. Speaker, I am pleased to support the fiscal year 2006 National Aeronautics and Space Administration authorization, and I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the ranking member, for their hard work on this bipartisan bill. I welcome a bill that comes to the floor with such unity, and I applaud their efforts. On March 16, 1926 Robert Goddard of Auburn, Massachusetts, which happens to be in my congressional district, successfully launched the first liquid fueled rocket. The first-of-its-kind rocket reached an altitude of only 40 feet, and its flight lasted only 2 seconds; but it inspired generations of future astronauts and scientists. Dr. Goddard, recalling his childhood curiosity for physics wrote: ``I imagined how wonderful it would be to make some device which had even the possibility of ascending to Mars. I was a different boy when I descended the tree from when I ascended, for existence at last seem purposive.'' Robert Goddard would come to be known as the Father of Modern Rocketry. And I know Dr. Goddard would be pleased to know that the exploration of Mars is within our grasp. By prioritizing human space travel, we are trying to maintain the United States as a leader in space exploration and aeronautics. Projects such as the International Space Station encourage worldwide efforts in science, and it is important that the U.S. continue to participate. Through these missions, we will be able to explore the long-term effects of space travel on humans, collect data regarding life on other planets, and gain greater knowledge of the universe. Mr. Speaker, the safety of our astronauts must remain our top priority. So I am pleased that the committee has included funding in this bill for the Crew Exploration Vehicle. This vehicle will serve as a backup should problems arise with the International Space Station. The spirit of Robert Goddard and NASA inspires children of all ages to imagine what is beyond the blue sky above. In my own district, Worcester Polytechnic Institute has received $1.5 million in the last 5 years for aerospace research projects. WPI has also sent 150 undergraduate students to the Goddard Spaceflight Program, where they researched and developed products in gravity studies and contamination prevention. With ongoing partnerships with facilities across the country, WPI has formed a multidecade bond with NASA. The knowledge gained from these undergraduate programs fosters not only a love of learning, but also offers careers at NASA and other leaders in the aeronautics field. NASA has always been a leader in educating young people about the wonders of space and aeronautics. Through outreach programs, NASA is able to engage students and encourage studies in math and science. This bill authorizes NASA to establish two annual Charles ``Pete'' Conrad Astronomy awards for amateur astronomers. The first award would be presented to astronomers who, using amateur equipment only, discover the brightest near-Earth asteroid during the past year. The second award would be presented to the amateur or group who made the greatest contribution to the Minor Planet Center catalog of near- Earth asteroids. Each award amounts to $3,000. By promoting the pursuit of science through such awards, we can engage children and young adults. We can get them more interested in math and science, which is so incredibly important in the 21st century. In the spirit of ingenuity, I am also pleased to mention $6.9 billion has been set aside for science, aeronautics, and education activities. This will allow scientists to research such projects as hydrogen fuel cell-powered aircraft that would have no hydrocarbon or nitrogen oxide emissions, and to study ways to reduce fuel consumption and noise levels of commercial aircraft. Important potential markets could be created from these new technologies, and in a society that is overdependent on fossil fuels, this money is well spent. In fact, the research that NASA is doing can help us make the world more environmentally safe. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the authors of this bill for their hard work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that this is an important bill. It is important because our space program yields many benefits to the people of this country and the world. A lot of times people do not quite understand all that we gain from the space program. It is not just about rockets flying up in the sky. It is about improving aeronautics research. It is about communications, improving our communications systems. It is about protecting our national security. It is about learning more about science and our environment. It is about finding better ways to protect our environment here on Earth. We learn of medical breakthroughs, medical research goes on during these space flights. So it benefits us in multiple ways, and I think it is important for people to appreciate that because oftentimes people will ask, why do we need to spend all this money on the space program? The reason why is there are tangible benefits all around us that have been directly derived from the space program. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me again say I am grateful that this is a bipartisan bill, and I am grateful that there is no controversy on the rule. This is a unique moment because we have not had such a bill like this in a long time. I ask Members to support the bill and support the rule. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule, and I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Protecting our homeland from another terrorist attack is among the most important priorities we face. We must support our law enforcement officials by providing them with the proper resources and modern technologies to combat terrorism. There is a delicate balance that must be maintained between security and liberty. I believe that this bill sacrifices too much of our liberty. I know there is a lot of anguish in the House today about this bill. This morning's incidents on the London subway only serve to heighten that anxiety. But democracy takes courage, Mr. Speaker. It takes the courage not to abandon our most deeply held principles. It takes the courage not to subject our citizens to unwarranted intrusions into their privacy. It takes the courage to say to the terrorists, You will not succeed in changing our way of life. Mr. Speaker, I hear all the time from all types of people that 9/11 has changed everything. I hope not, Mr. Speaker. I hope that those terrible attacks have not served to undermine our Constitution, to weaken our respect for civil liberties, to chip away at the values that not only make this country unique but also make us a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. While the government should be provided with the necessary resources to protect the homeland, it should not be given a free pass to threaten and abuse the rights and liberties of our own citizens. Safeguards are key, and Congress in its vital function of oversight is one of government's most important safeguards. Many of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act were sunsetted back in 2001 so that Congress could evaluate and fix them if necessary. These time limits on certain provisions serve as critical checks on the executive branch. They serve as a reminder that Congress is paying attention and that if the new powers are abused, they will not be renewed. We know from our own history that abuses of law enforcement powers are all too common. We must remember the wiretaps and secret surveillance on leaders in the civil rights and antiwar movements, and we must vow to never let those abuses happen again. Some of the powers granted to the executive branch in this bill are simply too broad: secret surveillance of library and bookstore records; roving wiretaps; sneak-and-peek searches; and overly broad subpoena power. However, I realize there is little chance of removing the majority of these dangerous provisions from this bill. At the very least, I urge my colleagues to fulfill their responsibilities and vote to sunset all of these provisions again for a short period of time. Further, since the PATRIOT Act was adopted, Congress has received far too little information about its uses. How can we make these provisions permanent when the Department of Justice, FBI, and other government agencies will not report to Congress or the American people how these provisions are being implemented? Mr. Speaker, privacy is not a convenient luxury. It is a fundamental right. We need a bill that achieves the appropriate balance between liberty and security, a bill that combats terrorism vigilantly, but that is also consistent with the rights and liberties provided in the Constitution of the United States. In my opinion, this bill is not it. I fear that if this bill becomes law, a part of our tree of liberty will die. I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlewoman from Florida's amendment. This war in Iraq was based on false or falsified information. This war was a mistake. It has been mismanaged with incredible incompetence by the Bush administration. Everything we have been told about this war has been wrong. It has created even more terrorists in the region. It has not made us more secure. It has made us less secure. It has diminished our standing in the world. It has even compromised our credibility as a defender of human rights. Mr. Chairman, I believe we must begin an orderly withdrawal of our troops now. It takes no particular amount of patriotism or courage for anyone in this Congress to stand up and wrap themselves in the American flag and say, stay the course; nor is it patriotic or courageous to be silent or indifferent when we believe and when we know what is happening is wrong. It is not our lives on the line. We owe our troops who are serving with great courage much better than we are giving them. And to suggest, as this resolution does, that those of us who oppose this war are somehow ``emboldening terrorists,'' is, to say the least, grotesque. Let me state clearly, Mr. Chairman, and for the record, I believe it is time for George Bush to end this war. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the gentleman that when the Committee on International Relations marked up the provisions on the Colombia issues, this new law in Colombia had not been passed yet. This is since the markup in the committee. So we are dealing with a new law that may very well let go terrorists, killers, paramilitary leaders who have done harm not only to Colombian citizens, but to our citizens. So we need a debate on Colombia.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Last night, the Republican leadership decided to refuse this House the right to debate U.S. policy towards Colombia. Out of 70 amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee, only two dealt substantively with U.S. Colombia policy. I offered an amendment to match language approved by the Senate that would strengthen the accountability over U.S. funds for Colombia's demobilization of right- wing paramilitary forces. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) offered another amendment to ensure that 40 percent of U.S. aid to Colombia would be used for alternative economic development, human rights, rule of law and strengthening democratic institutions. Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to strengthening democratic institutions, the Republican leadership certainly does not believe in teaching the Colombians by example. At the end of June, I stood here on the House floor during debate on military aid to Colombia and was criticized by Republicans for not talking about what kind of policy I stood for. But here we are today taking up a bill that only comes to the House floor every 2 years and is one of the only bills where an amendment on U.S. Colombia policy can actually be offered, and both the Lee and the McGovern amendments are banned from the debate. Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican leadership has rejected any attempt to bring some kind of accountability to our policy on Colombia. Once again, the Republican leadership is serving as the chief apologist for the Colombian government. When it comes to Colombia, the Republican leadership continues to engage in a policy of see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Once again, the House is being asked to look the other way, to sit down and to shut up, as Colombia moves towards carrying out what appears to be a deeply flawed plan for demobilizing the right-wing paramilitary forces, forces that are on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. The State Department estimates it will cost about $80 million to carry out the demobilization. Who do you think the Colombian government is going to ask to bankroll this process? The American taxpayer, that is who. Well, before we spend one more single solitary U.S. tax dollar on this demobilization process, I for one want to make sure that my tax dollars are not paying for some sweetheart deal for Colombian drug lords, terrorists and killers to escape extradition to the United States or serve a couple of years under house arrest at their country estate. These are the paramilitary masterminds and commanders who have flooded our streets and our neighborhoods with cocaine and heroin. Yet on July 1, President Uribe told the Voice of America that their extradition warrants would have to be suspended. If Colombia wants to stand in the way of these drug lords facing U.S. justice, then that is Colombia's decision. They can just do it without U.S. tax dollar support. I want to make sure that my constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are not paying for a process that will allow paramilitary money laundering and organizational structures to remain intact so that they can transform themselves into Mafia-like political, social and criminal networks. The OAS has denounced the Colombian law on the paramilitary demobilization. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have denounced it. The U.N. High Commissioner For Human Rights in Colombia has raised grave concerns about it. So why, then, Mr. Speaker, is it so hard for this House to even have a debate over having some accountability if the Colombian government asks us to fund this process? That is all I want, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit of accountability. Quite frankly, the majority on the Rules Committee and the Republican leadership should be ashamed of themselves for running away from this debate and for being complicit in a policy that will very likely end up protecting drug lords, terrorists, killers and their profits from facing any kind of genuine justice. Oppose this rule. Demand that the House be allowed to debate the Lee and McGovern amendments on Colombia. [From the New York Times, July 4, 2005] Colombia's Capitulation Colombia has just passed a law to demobilize paramilitary fighters that the government calls the ``Justice and Peace Law.'' It should be called the ``Impunity for Mass Murderers, Terrorists and Major Cocaine Traffickers Law.'' Colombia's right-wing paramilitary armies, one party in a 40-year civil war, have massacred thousands of people. They control 40 percent of Colombia's cocaine exports, and many paramilitary leaders are wanted for extradition to the United States. The State Department considers the paramilitaries terrorists. The new law, which reflects the paramilitaries' considerable political power, will block the extradition of paramilitary leaders wanted for trafficking to the United States and allow them to continue their drug dealing, extortion, land theft and other criminal activities undisturbed. Even those responsible for the most heinous crimes against humanity may go free because of strict time limits for prosecutions. The few who are convicted will likely serve sentences of only 22 months. Several members of Colombia's Congress proposed a good law that would have given reduced jail time to paramilitaries who confessed in full, paid reparations, turned over their illegal assets and provided authorities with the information necessary to take apart their criminal gangs. The government opposed the bill; it didn't pass. The current law will bring neither justice nor peace. No confession is required to get the shortened sentences offered by the law. Paramilitary leaders are supposed to disclose their illegal assets and describe their criminal organizations. But there is no credible penalty for lying or hiding their wealth. The Bush administration could have pushed President Alvaro Uribe to pass a good bill. Instead, Ambassador William Wood enthusiastically backed the new law, giving Washington's endorsement to Colombia's capitulation to a terrorist mafia.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment because I simply do not believe we have enough accountability for current U.S. funding, training and equipment provided to Colombia, let alone for providing additional military aircraft. Mr. Chairman, the Colombian Government has received over $4 billion in U.S. aid since 2000; $3.2 billion of that aid has been provided to Colombia's military and police. A significant amount of funding and equipment has been provided to Colombia's Navy in the Pentagon's budget and paid for by defense appropriations. This includes counterdrug funding, equipment, training, aircraft and patrol boats under sections 1004 and 1033 through the transfer of excess defense equipment, and through the DOD Anti-Terrorism Assistance account. But $169 million in these defense accounts alone is going to be appropriate for Colombia in the FY 2006 defense appropriations bill. For funds provided through the State Department, the House just approved $332 million in military aid for Colombia as part of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative and an additional $90 million in military aid under the Foreign Military Financing accounts. These funds provide military equipment, training and services for Colombia's antidrug programs, including interdiction, in the FY 2006 foreign operations bill which the House passed on June 28. In addition, the foreign operations bill included another $21 million for the aircraft and technical assistance for the Air Bridge Denial Program, which the State Department describes as the cornerstone of our deterrence in narcotrafficking efforts in Colombia. I find it hard to believe that these two marine patrol aircraft for the Colombian Navy cannot already be provided for under some of the existing Pentagon and State Department programs. Mr. Chairman, there is precious little accountability for the U.S. tax dollars, equipment, and training that we already have provided to Colombia. I do not see why we should add to this lack of accountability additional aircraft, no matter what its purpose may be. Before we send good money down after bad, let us demand a little accountability for the equipment, the training, the aircraft, the boats, the funding that we have already provided. Colombia is awash with U.S. military assistance, and there is no accountability. There are some bad things happening in Colombia, not the least of which is the flawed demobilization process for right-wing paramilitaries that may very well let killers and narcotraffickers go unpunished. There is a new law in Colombia that may make null and void extradition warrants that the United States has out against narcotraffickers and killers and people who have done great harm to our people. Today we should be having a comprehensive debate on U.S. policy in Colombia. Sadly, the Republican leadership denied us that opportunity. In light of the fact that there is no accountability, that we are having no real debate on Colombia, that the situation down there continues to be of great concern, I have no choice but to reluctantly vote ``no'' on the Burton amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, when news broke early this week that Karl Rove was involved in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, it was clear that either Karl Rove had been withholding his involvement from the White House, or that the White House knew of his involvement and falsely allowed the public to believe he had no role in the scandal. This Congress should be outraged by Mr. Rove's involvement and should be demanding answers from both him and the White House. I would like to know when exactly, if ever, President Bush was told of Mr. Rove's involvement. If the President did indeed know, that means that the White House is involved in a coverup which should be investigated by this House. Mr. Rove's actions are a major abuse of power. Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent stationed in many hot spots around the world. When someone in the White House decided to leak her name to reporters, they were not only jeopardizing Plame's life, but also the lives of other covert agents she has been in contact with. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans should be concerned about whether or not this White House has been spreading this information. The only way we can get answers is by conducting a congressional investigation. It is time that this Congress do its job.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Capps motion to instruct. Though this administration and the Republican majority often stress the need for an energy bill, citing rising gas prices, this bill will not do anything to lower energy prices in this country. Gas prices continue to rise, and this bill does nothing to lower them. The Republican energy bill does nothing to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil. It harms our environment, and in the end it is nothing more than a big fat giveaway to the oil and gas industries at a time when they do not need these giveaways. If that were not bad enough, oil companies have knowingly contaminated our Nation's water systems with the fuel additive MTBE, polluting the same drinking water that serves 45 million Americans. These companies were fully aware of MTBE's ability to seep in the water supply, and they understood the impact that this potential human carcinogen could have on public health. Yet they still chose to use MTBE for nearly 20 years. And now the Republican leadership wants to protect these same oil companies from any liability for the damages they have caused. Instead, they want to leave it up to our State and local governments to pick up the tab. This is unconscionable. This motion to instruct is based on common sense. These companies should be held responsible for the damages they caused. Now, we all know the arguments. This is an unfunded mandate passed on to our State and local governments. Many communities have filed legitimate suits to recover the costs of MTBE cleanup estimated to exceed $29 billion. Yet this bill essentially blocks these suits and could preempt hundreds more, leaving communities with a multibillion dollar unfunded mandate at the hands of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, the party of States' rights has become the party of Big Business. This bill is another handout to the oil, gas, and MTBE producers. Support the Capps motion to instruct and strike this lousy provision.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, these cruel anti-family restrictions need to be reversed. They have already caused too much human pain and suffering. Nelson Diaz arrived in the U.S. in 1981, leaving his father, brothers and extended family in Cuba. He visited his family in May 2004--and is now not eligible to return until May 2007. His father is 87 years old and in failing health. If he is forced to wait the full three years, Diaz will not see his father alive again. Waldo Parravicini left his family behind in 1958 when he came to the U.S. Until last June, he saw them on a regular basis, delivering vital medicines to his aging father. Under the new restrictions, Waldo has missed the deaths of his father and grandfather, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends, as well as the births and baptisms of nieces and nephews. If Waldo and his 93-year-old mother have to wait two more years, she may never see her oldest daughter and grandchildren again. Regarding the new limits on family travel, Waldo says they are ``not worthy of any nation that truly values family and God.'' Ana Karim, a pastor with the Richmond Mennonite Fellowship in Richmond, Virginia, has family throughout Cuba, who she visited regularly until last year. She brought medicine, clothing and food to her two uncles, one suffering from cancer and the other from Parkinson's disease. Now Ana cannot visit any of her family in Cuba because the new law declares that her uncles, aunts and cousins are not immediate family. Mr. Chairman, who in this Chamber can possibly, in good conscience, support a policy that deliberately creates such family pain and suffering? We're supposed to be the good guys. Stop punishing these innocent families. Support the Davis amendment. Profiles of Cuban-Americans Harmed by the New Family Travel Restrictions on Cuba Marisela Romero Marisela Romero is a 56-year-old Cuban-American woman who lives in Miami. Her only sister and her mother had died in Cuba several years ago, leaving her to manage the care of her elderly and demented father who lived in a small coastal town on the island. Prior to last summer she had traveled every two to three months to visit him. She sent him medicines, diapers, and other supplies to make his life easier, and hired several Cubans who provided him with the round-the- clock care that allowed him to stay in his own home. Then, in 2004 our government dramatically restricted Cuban-Americans in terms of both traveling to Cuba and sending material aid. She was forbidden to send money to those who were caring for him. She was forbidden to visit him more often than once every three years. She was even forbidden to send him the diapers he needed because they were not deemed to be ``medicine.'' After several months of not seeing his only living child, he died. Both he and his daughter suffered irreparable harm because of the new regulations. It is unacceptable to treat either American families or Cuban families with such cruelty.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States misled this Nation to justify his invasion of Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction; there were no ties to al Qaeda. Our men and women are now engulfed in a violent quagmire and endless war. There is no strategy, only spin. Last night, in his speech to the Nation, the President shamelessly, in my opinion, invoked the terrible tragedy of September 11 to justify our continued occupation. Mr. Speaker, the fact that Iraq has become a haven for terrorists is due to this President's failed policy in that country. Our continued massive presence fuels the insurgency and is a magnet for foreign fighters. It takes no courage for a President or a Congressman to stand up and say ``stay the course.'' It is not our lives that are on the line. We owe our soldiers better. It is time for the President to admit that this war was a mistake. It is time for us to begin an orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is time for President Bush to end his war.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman I have been to Colombia several times and have gone well beyond the areas that the embassy has recommended me to go, and I assure the gentleman things are quite bad. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just respond to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, if I can, by saying, if the Colombian people support this policy so much, then why is it that only 740,000 Colombians pay income tax in a country of 42 million people? That is a fact. That was stated in the Council on Foreign Relations report that came out last year. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman. I believe we need a balanced policy. And some of us tried in the Committee on International Relations and in the Committee on Appropriations to make some modest changes in support of increased alternative development aid, but we were shut down on even those modest changes. Maybe the gentleman did not listen to my statistics. Also, we have a critique of the letter of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) that he sent to Members of Congress, and I think the gentleman would be interested to know that some of the figures that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has cited we believe are totally inaccurate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not cripple our military support for Colombia. Currently, there is $332 million in the Andean Counterdrug Initiative for Colombia. This amendment reduces that amount by $100 million. There is an additional $152 million for alternative development, human rights, and rule of law programs for Colombia in the ACI. We are not touching that money. There is another $90 million in military aid for Colombia in the FMF account in this bill. We are not touching that money. In the defense appropriations bill that we passed just a few weeks ago, there was another $165 million in military aid for Colombia. And should this amendment prevail, I will be happy to work with the chairman, a gentleman I greatly admire, and the distinguished ranking member to ensure that the intent of this amendment is made clear in the final foreign operations conference report. Mr. Chairman, we have heard some talk today about the new law passed in Colombia last week to demobilize the paramilitary forces. Maybe we should call the law up here what they are calling it in Colombia: the Impunity and Immunity law. It fails to establish any mechanisms that will ensure the dismantling of the paramilitaries' organizational structures or financial structures. Commanders who are major narco- traffickers and have committed crimes against humanity will get off with very limited, if any, sentences, probably spent under house arrest at their local hacienda, profits in hand. Mr. Chairman, 6 years, over $4 billion. We are paying for Colombia's war. As I pointed out over and over in this debate, there are 42 million people who live in Colombia. Only 720,000 of them actually pay taxes. We are bankrolling this war. Maybe the elites in Colombia should put up some of their own money. We need to send a strong message: We are not Colombia's piggy-bank. We cannot just keep writing blank checks. This policy has failed. It has failed. The availability of cocaine on the streets of the United States of America has never been more plentiful. The price has never been lower. This policy has not made a difference to any of the people in this country. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the McGovern-McCollum-Moore amendment. Enough is enough. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, if this policy is succeeding, why does cocaine remain readily available on U.S. streets at lower prices than ever, and the levels of use are stable if not rising? There is increased availability. If this policy is such a success, why are there increased abuses by the army? Why are trade union murders on the rise? Murders of trade union leaders increased in 2004 over 2003. Let us look at the facts here. The bottom line is that this policy has not succeeded. It is time for us to take a fresh look at it and to change course.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, let us look at the facts. The facts are that illegal drugs are cheaper today than they were 6 years ago and $4 billion ago when we began Plan Colombia. The facts are that the elites in Colombia want us to bankroll this war. It remains an embarrassing fact that only 740,000 Colombians pay income tax in a country of 42 million. They are relying on us to bankroll this war. Mr. Chairman, the other fact is that widespread impunity for human rights abusers is getting worse. It has been widely publicized in our newspapers about the new law that the Colombian Government has passed to grant immunity and to grant amnesty, for the most part, to individuals in the paramilitaries who are guilty of crimes again humanity, many of them involved in the drug trade, and they are doing that right before our eyes. The facts are that the human rights situation is so bad that our own State Department has yet to certify human rights progress in Colombia. We are being drawn into a quagmire. The legal limit on the number of military and contractor personnel had to be increased in 2004 from 400 to 800 military, from 400 to 600 contractors. Let us try to solve the problem of drug abuse, not just throw money at failing strategies. We need to invest in drug treatment and prevention here at home and in the Andes, in alternative development programs to help small farmers transition permanently from growing illicit drugs. But this policy has failed. Mr. Chairman, the question was raised before what are we for. I include for the Record a statement of what we are for. Rethinking Plan Colombia Low-cost: use U.S. leverage far more vigorously in support of human rights and the rule of law; support the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for Colombia; insist upon the complete dismantlement of paramilitary forces and structures, within an effective legal framework for justice, truth, and reparations; make trade consistent with sustainable drug policy and human rights; encourage negotiations with the guerrillas for a just and lasting peace; encourage Colombia's elite to use more of its own resources to improve governance. Fund by reducing security assistance: support a strong judiciary and an independent human rights sector; expand alternative development within a comprehensive rural development strategy, and end aerial spraying; encourage the strengthening of civilian governance in rural areas, including local peace-building initiatives; increase and improve humanitarian assistance, and expand protection, to displaced persons and refugees; reduce U.S. demand for drugs through evidence-based prevention strategies and improved access to high-quality treatment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for one simple reason: it shortchanges our Nation's veterans. I would say to my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, with all due respect, our veterans do not need more hearings. They do not need your sympathy. They need your action. They need this Congress to act, and they need this Congress to act now. The Department of Veterans Affairs recently admitted they are $1 billion short. Last night in the Rules Committee, Democrats offered an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to correct this shortfall and to make sure that our veterans get the health care that they deserve. As the gentleman from Texas noted in his testimony before the committee, ``There are three basic reasons why VA health funding must be increased above present levels. ``First, health care inflation is approximately 7 percent a year. Second, 86,000 Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans have needed VA care. Third, health care and prescription drug costs have caused a net increase of 250,000 veterans per year using the VA health care system.'' Mr. Speaker, despite this glaring need for more veterans health care funding, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules refused to provide it on a partisan vote. What are our priorities? Yesterday in The Washington Post, it was reported that senior VA officials are spending their time making sure that every VA facility has a framed portrait of the VA Secretary prominently displayed. One senior VA official said that facilities should make the portrait their ``highest priority.'' I have a suggestion for the VA. Maybe their highest priority should be providing adequate health care for our veterans. Maybe their highest priority should be spending American tax dollars wisely. There is a quote from Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural etched into the VA building downtown. It says, ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' Lincoln did not say anything about the framed portrait of government officials. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so that we can provide adequate funding for veterans health care. During this time of war, our veterans deserve more than nice words. They deserve the health care that they have earned. I realize that this is not a tax cut for millionaires, something that you on the other side of the aisle embrace with urgency, but how can you turn your backs on the brave men and women fighting in the wars that you voted for? Mr. Speaker, this is an outrageous situation that must be fixed today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month. We do not need any more hearings. We need to fix it today. We owe the men and women who have worn the uniform of this country nothing less.