Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the gentleman who just spoke. Maybe he has not been reading the newspapers but the Colombian government just passed an amnesty law that gives narco-traffickers and the paramilitaries and people who have been guilty of crimes against humanity a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is one of the reasons why I am here today expressing my outrage. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-McCollum-Moore amendment to cut military aid to Colombia by $100 million. For the past several years, we have debated Colombia policy here in the House. We are always being told that things are getting better; but they are not getting better, Mr. Chairman. This policy has failed as an antidrug policy. It has failed as a human rights policy, and it has failed to have any impact whatsoever in reducing the availability, price or purity of drugs in the streets of America. In fact, illegal drugs are cheaper today than they were 6 years ago and $4 billion ago. And yet we will hear again today from supporters of Plan Colombia that everything is just rosy in Colombia, that we are winning the drug war, and respect for human rights is flourishing. Not true, Mr. Chairman. It makes no difference whether you are looking at the United Nations numbers, the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy numbers, the Colombian National Police, or the CIA's. It all adds up to the same picture. Compared to where we were in 1999, right before the start of Plan Colombia, coca cultivation in Colombia has declined by only 7 percent and in the Andean region by only 9 percent. And the growing of coca did not decrease at all in the year 2004. On top of that, the U.N. and the Colombian National Police agree that opium growing in Colombia did not decrease at all in 2004. You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make something good out of these numbers. You do that by deliberately ignoring where we were 6 years ago before Plan Colombia and picking and choosing bits and pieces of statistics, like starting your comparisons in 2003. Well, that only works because you ignore the huge increases in coca production in 2000, 2001, and 2002. But, ultimately, the most damning numbers come from our own Department of Justice, which states that cocaine remains readily available on the streets of America, with wholesale and retail prices for cocaine and heroin at an all-time low and purity at or near historic highs. Congress was told that we had to support Plan Colombia. We had to pour billions and billions of U.S. tax dollars into the Colombian military to stop the surge of drugs in America. Well, what a waste of money it has been. Six years ago, the Rand Corporation told us that every dollar we spent trying to wipe out coca in remote areas of Colombia would be 23 times more effective if we spent it right here at home on drug treatment, prevention, and education and on local law enforcement. But Congress chose to ignore that good advice; and here we are, 6 years and $4 billion later. Now, we may have thought our policy was tough on drugs, but it sure was not very smart. So how about human rights? Is Colombia's human rights situation any better today? Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world to be a trade union leader. It is the second most dangerous place to be a religious pastor or lay leader. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees calls the issue of Colombia's internally displaced a great humanitarian crisis second only to Sudan. Death threats against human rights defenders have increased significantly over the past 18 months. Abuses by the Colombian military are on the rise and the armed forces commit crimes with impunity, with no high-level Colombian military officer ever having been successfully prosecuted for human rights crimes. Even our own State Department has not been able to certify any human rights progress in Colombia since March because the situation is so untenable. But has Colombia tried to improve their human rights situation at all so that the State Department could have something, anything that will allow it to certify? Not at all. But so much pressure from the Pentagon and the Colombian Government and even from some members of Congress is building on the State Department to go ahead and certify anyway that I hear that the State Department is likely to certify right after this Congress breaks for the Fourth of July recess. But the most galling thing of all is this: while U.S. taxpayers have sent over $4 billion of their hard-earned money to Colombia over the past 6 years, the wealthy elites of Colombia have hardly contributed a dime. Out of a population of 42 million people, only 740,000 Colombians pay any income tax at all, and even that is a pitiful amount. So Colombians are not paying to fight their own war, and they are not paying to improve the conditions that keep so many of their own people in poverty. It is time that this House stood up and decided to stop sending a blank check to Colombia, year after year. It is time that we demand real progress on human rights as a condition to our aid. It is time that we stop being a cheap date. We are not walking away from Colombia. We are just sending a long overdue message that it is time to take a cold hard look at our current course and change it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the bill. Simply put, this bill significantly and irresponsibly shortchanges key funding for Amtrak and several programs in the Housing and Urban Development Department. While this bill provides slight funding increases for highways, transit and aviation programs, it slashes Amtrak to the point of extinction and eliminates important HUD programs like Brown-fnl;fields and Youthbuild. This bill provides $550 million for Amtrak, an amount that places the future of national passenger rail in jeopardy. This $657 million cut will not only terminate all intercity passenger rail service, but will also cause a massive disruption of the commuter and freight rail system across the country. Quite literally, this allocation is a death sentence for Amtrak. Ironically, the amount provided in this bill is a whopping $1.25 billion below the level that President Bush's appointed Amtrak Board of Directors recommended. President Bush and the Republican leadership believe that starving Amtrak will save it. The administration and the Republican leadership believe that a forced bankruptcy upon Amtrak will bring about a change for the better, that it will create a more efficient system. Mr. Speaker, this just does not make any sense. You do not save starving children by denying them food, and I cannot understand how the President believes Amtrak can be saved by slashing its funding. I guess by ``better,'' Amtrak opponents mean no intercity rail service anywhere, and by ``more efficient,'' apparently these same opponents mean costs of upwards of $900 million for severance payments and mandatory debt service and labor payments. All in all, the closure of routes will result in layoffs of thousands of workers, which in turn creates hundreds of millions of dollars of immediate debt. Mr. Speaker, this backward argument that squeezing the life out of Amtrak will save it is unacceptable and irresponsible. The only thing that starving Amtrak will do is destroy it. On top of making Amtrak extinct, this bill eliminates several critical programs within HUD. Programs like brownfield cleanup, Empowerment Zones, section 108 loan guarantees and La Raza activities have all been eliminated. Every single one of these programs has contributed to the overall improvement of our communities, and it is shameful that Congress is turning its back on our neediest communities. In my home State of Massachusetts, brownfields cleanup has proven to be a highly successful, efficient tool for cleaning up the environment and revitalizing a community. In the 2005 annual report of the Massachusetts Brownfields Redevelopment Fund, it is noted that 4,500 new housing units and 3,250 new jobs have been created by the Brownfields program. Because redevelopment is concentrated in areas that are already in use, brownfield cleanup preserves open space, bringing opportunity to economically distressed parts of a community. Zeroing out Brownfields is a bad move, and I encourage my colleagues to offer any amendments that could provide for its funding. Another important program that has been placed on the chopping board is Youthbuild. Youthbuild is a nonprofit program which pays at-risk youth to build houses in low-income neighborhoods. This community development program offers job training, education, counseling, and leadership opportunities to unemployed and out-of-school young adults ages 16 through 24. These at-risk youth build and rehabilitate affordable housing in their own communities, garnering life skills and adding to revitalization in their own backyards. Mr. Speaker, how can such a thoughtful program that is full of incentives be eliminated? There are 226 Youthbuild programs in 44 States across the country, attracting 7,000 young adults. In 2004 alone, 10,000 young men and women had to be turned down for the program due solely to the lack of funding. The demand is high and the need is even greater for programs like Youthbuild. We should not turn our backs on the youth of America. It is clear that the Republican leadership is doing its best to protect tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country while eliminating programs that benefit the neediest. At the same time, the Republican leadership hides behind a veil of fiscal discipline. Well, Mr. Speaker, that argument just does not cut it, and the American people know it. These programs are being starved simply because the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate refuse to acknowledge their mistakes. Their tax cuts have drained the Federal surplus. Their policies continue to drive this Nation further into debt. This is an important bill. We have a responsibility to fund Amtrak, to fund Brownfields and Youthbuild, and we have the means to do it if the Republican leadership would just acknowledge their mistakes. My friend from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules yesterday that would have restored $1.2 billion of funding to Amtrak, as well as funding to Brownfields and Youthbuild. This funding would have been paid for by a slight reduction in the tax breaks given to millionaires. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership once again proved that protecting millionaires' tax breaks is more important than keeping Amtrak trains running, and they denied the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) the opportunity to have his amendment voted on. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a fully funded, nationwide intercity rail system that services the entire country. They deserve effective housing programs. They deserve Brownfields funding and Youthbuild, which revitalize our communities and improves the quality of life. I will vote ``no'' on the rule and vote against this bill because the American people deserve better than this.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend. Mr. Speaker, those on the other side keep on talking about the tough decisions that have to be made. My question is, why do always the tough decisions fall on the backs of middle income families and those who are most vulnerable? Why can not, for example, some of the sacrifice be made by those who are earning over $1 million? That is what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) tried to do yesterday in the Committee on Rules. We disagree with your budget priorities. We disagree that all of this money should be going for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. We think that protecting programs like Youthbuild, that protecting Amtrak is important. This bill, if it passes and the funding for Amtrak is not adjusted, is the death knell for Amtrak. It is that simple. There is no way to spin your way out of it. For those of us who support a vibrant, strong, intercity rail system, this bill, with these numbers right now, is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had asked who would have the chutzpah to come on the House floor and to object to his provision regarding credit cards. I should tell you that last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to protect this language, the language that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) championed, the language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has said he agrees with. I offered an amendment to protect this from a point of order, and every single Republican on the Rules Committee that was present last night had the chutzpah to not protect it, which I think is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me clear up one fact for my colleagues who are listening to this debate. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) just said that the rules of the House prohibit us from adding legislation to appropriations bills; that is the rules of the House. Well, the majority does that all the time. We routinely waive points of order on these appropriations bills. And this bill is no exception. We had a supplemental appropriations bill where you added the REAL ID legislation to that bill. We had just recently a legislative branch appropriations bill where you added the continuity of Congress legislation. The gentleman talks about how great this economy is. I want to tell you, there are a lot of people suffering out there. Poverty has increased since you guys took over here, since George Bush became President. There are more people that are hungry in this country. These jobs that you are talking about being created, a lot of them are jobs that provide people with less pay than they were making before. Our problem here, and the reason why we want to amend this bill, is we think your priorities are wrong. We think it is more important to save Amtrak than to give a millionaire or billionaire a tax cut. In fact, we are even willing to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut. What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) was trying to do was to reduce the amount of tax cut a millionaire would get from $140,000 a year to $131,000 a year. That money saved by doing that could have funded Amtrak, could have funded the Hope VI program for the revitalization of severely distressed public housing. It could have funded more money for community development block grants. It could have funded Youthbuild. It could have funded the Help America Vote Act. But your priorities are different. You come on to the floor and you debate passionately about the need to give those with the most even more while you neglect what is happening to those who have the least. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The recession began in March 2001 under the watch of President Bush. Secondly, poverty in this country has increased dramatically, and for anybody to get up here and to try to boast about this President's job creation record when he is dead last amongst all Presidents is pretty outrageous. Go outside the Beltway and talk to some people about how they think this economy is going right now. I will tell you, people feel it is not going as rosy as you think it is. This President has also accumulated the largest debt of any President in history. That is not something we should be proud of. That is passing on a credit card bill to our kids and our grandkids. That is something you should be ashamed about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I urge my colleagues to support any amendment that will be offered today to relax the travel restrictions on Americans to Cuba. I have met with Sergeant Lazo, who is a veteran who served in Iraq who, as a result of the U.S. law, is unable to visit his own parents in Cuba. That is wrong. This man served our country. We should be able to adjust that. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the Labor-HHS Education appropriations bill. My reason is simple: This bill shortchanges the American people in so many ways that it is difficult to keep track of them all. Just last month, when the House was considering H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, I raised the question of where the Appropriations Committee was going to find the $1.3 billion to fund these programs without making deep cuts in other critical programs. I raised this question, because the Republican majority had just passed a budget resolution in lock step with the President's request to zero out vocational education programs. So while I am pleased that the committee has restored $1.3 billion for vocational education, my worse fears have come to pass. This bill eliminates half a billion dollars' worth of other education programs. It eliminates half a billion dollars' worth of important health programs. It eliminates $56 million of Labor Department programs. These critical programs include early learning opportunities for early childhood development, the Community Food and Nutrition program, comprehensive school reform, student alcohol abuse reduction, and dozens of others. This bill practically eliminates funding for health professions training and professional development programs at a time when our Nation is facing a severe shortage of health care professionals. Primary care physician training programs in Massachusetts would be cut by $12 million. These programs stand to be cut by over $2 million alone at the University of Massachusetts Health Care Center, the largest employer in my district. These cuts will further strain an already fragile health care system in my home State and around the country. And I have not even begun to touch upon programs that have seen their funding sharply reduced or frozen for the second, third, or fourth year in a row. My colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), talked about the senseless cuts to PBS. Essential programs such as community service block grants, the child block grant, after-school programs, the investment and professional training and development of our teachers have all been cut or level funded. In the end, thousands and thousands of families, children and elderly, the sick and the poor in our communities will lose the help and services that are critical to reducing the vulnerability of their daily lives. Hospitals, health care centers, schools, and community centers will lose the ability to provide quality classes, programs and services. Mr. Speaker, I was not sent to Washington to hurt the poor and the elderly. I was not sent here to shortchange our schools and health care providers or to undercut State and local efforts by starving them of needed resources. As I have said on many occasions, and it is important to repeat today as we move on this legislation, the Republican majority is fast creating a government, that lacks compassion and has no conscience. My friends on the other side of the aisle fought ferociously for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They had to have those tax cuts, and guess what, they have diverted billions and billions of dollars from programs that benefit our kids, our senior citizens, and the most vulnerable in our society. I suppose that highlights the real difference between the two political parties. But, Mr. Speaker, what they are doing is wrong, it is so wrong and it is why I oppose this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, on June 8, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform, came before the Committee on Rules asking that two amendments be made in order. One amendment calls for a select committee to be established in Congress to investigate abuses of detainees held under U.S. military custody. The other amendment establishes an independent commission for the same purpose. Mr. Speaker, these are matters that merit the attention of this House and deserve to be debated and voted upon by the Members of this body. But the majority party on the Rules Committee feels otherwise. The Republican leadership believes it is better to sweep these matters under the rug, hide them, forget about them, but certainly not investigate them. It makes no difference whether such an inquiry takes place inside the Congress or outside the Congress, any form of independent investigation is out of the question. But questions about the abuse and torture of detainees simply will not go away, whether it is Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or the countless other prisons, jails and detention facilities under U.S. control in Afghanistan and Iraq. Every week brings new revelations of abuses. Mr. Speaker, I do not blame our soldiers for these abuses. It is their leaders who have failed. It is the leaders up and down the chain of command whose incompetence and arrogance have led to a systemic breakdown of standards and codes of conduct that our military has lived by since its creation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a few lines from the June 13 edition of Newsweek. The article is entitled ``Good Intentions Gone Bad.'' In it, Rod Nordland, Newsweek's Baghdad bureau chief, who is departing after 2 years in Iraq, shares a few final thoughts. He writes: ``Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits. WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004, the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced actionable intelligence. The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops but the incompetence of their leaders.'' Mr. Speaker, this is why we should be debating the Waxman amendments. We cannot run and hide from this abuse. It haunts us, Mr. Speaker. It haunts us. If ever a matter needed the light of day, it is this one. Oppose this rule. Support debate on the Waxman amendments. Restore America's credibility on human rights and military conduct. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record articles from Newsweek and from the Baltimore Sun. [From Newsweek, Jun. 13, 2005] Good Intentions Gone Bad (By Rod Norland) Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced ``actionable intelligence.'' The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders. Against the conduct of the Lynndie Englands and the Charles Graners, I'll gladly set the honesty and courage of Specialist Joseph Darby, the young MP who reported the abuse. A few soldiers will always do bad things. that's why you need competent officers, who know what the men and women under their command are capable of--and make sure it doesn't happen. Living and working in Iraq, it's hard not to succumb to despair. At last count America has pumped at least $7 billion into reconstruction projects, with little to show for it but the hostility of ordinary Iraqis, who still have an 18 percent unemployment rate. Most of the cash goes to U.S. contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up to prewar levels. Electricity is especially vital in a country where summer temperatures commonly reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet only 15 percent of Iraqis have reliable electrical service. In the capital, where it counts most, it's only 4 percent. The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safe. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self- defense at any cost--which only deepens Iraqis' resentment. The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers--to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the distant end of their tours--and in most cases, another tour soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, often face the wreckage of careers and family. I can't say how it will end. Iraq now has an elected government, popular at least among Shiites and Kurds, who give it strong approval ratings. There's even some hope that the Sunni minority will join the constitutional process. Iraqi security forces continue to get better trained and equipped. But Iraqis have such along way to go, and there are so many ways for things to get even worse. I'm not one of those who think America should pull out immediately. There's no real choice but to stay, probably for many years to come. The question isn't ``When will America pull out?''; it's ``How bad a mess can we afford to leave behind?'' All I can say is this: last one out, please turn on the lights.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) pointed out, this is about human rights, but it is more about our long-term national security interests, and it seems to me that we need to take a different approach here.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is absolutely right, and that is why Members should support the Doggett amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I wanted to rise in strong support of the Doggett amendment. Members understand why in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the United States was preparing to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, countries like Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were considered important allies in the war on terrorism. But even then, Members expressed caution about tying U.S. interests too closely to these government which have consistently poor human rights records. This is especially true in the case of Uzbekistan where the Karimov government, in the past few months, has wielded power with a particularly bloody hand. According to the International Crisis Group, on May 13 and 14, the government brutally suppressed a popular uprising in the eastern city of Andijan, ostensibly to quell a revolt of Islamic extremists. But instead, over 750 unarmed civilians, many of them children, were massacred. More recently, on June 16, Human Rights Watch reported that a four- person delegation from the International Helsinki Federation visiting the eastern region were detained and forced to leave the region. This is just the latest attack against human rights defenders in Uzbekistan. In the wake of the Andijan massacre, the Uzbek government has been targeting human rights defenders and opposition leaders for arrest, beatings, intimidation and other brutal acts. This House cannot stand by silently and support such brutality. We cannot continue with business as usual and issue another blank check for Uzbekistan. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a copy of the Human Rights Watch report titled ``Uzbekistan: Rights Defenders Targeted After Massacre.'' Uzbekistan: Rights Defenders Targeted After Massacre In the wake of the Andijan massacre, the Uzbek government is targeting human rights defenders and opposition activists for arrest, beatings and intimidation, Human Rights Watch said today. ``The government harassment of human rights defenders is a transparent attempt to hide the truth about what happened in Andijan,'' said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch has documented evidence of a government cover up in Andijan following the government's use of excessive force against demonstrators there on May 13. Human Rights Watch has labeled the incident a massacre. The Uzbek government has a longstanding record of harsh treatment of human rights activists and political opponents. In just the past two weeks, Uzbek authorities have arrested at least 10 human rights defenders and opposition activists in Andijan and other cities on trumped up charges. Others have been beaten by unknown assailants, threatened by local authorities, and placed under house arrest. Officials involved in these incidents made specific reference to the defenders' human rights activities, including their work documenting the killings in Andijan. In Tashkent and Jizzakh, numerous human rights activists have been questioned about the events in Andijan and threatened with arrest or criminal charges should they engage in demonstrations or other public activities. On May 31, a coalition of Uzbek rights defenders issued a plea for help. The group wrote to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Parliament stating that persecution of Uzbek rights activists and opposition members has increased since the Andijan killings. ``We are deeply troubled by this growing crackdown on human rights defenders,'' Cartner said. ``The international community must intervene to stop this campaign and ensure the safety of human rights activists in Uzbekistan.'' Human Rights Watch has gathered information, including firsthand testimony, concerning 16 separate incidents of arrests, beatings, preventative detention and other intimidation of activists and opposition party members during the past three weeks, including many in Andjian province. On Tuesday, June 7, Andijan police detained Hamdam Sulaimonov, deputy chairman of the Fergana Valley branch of the opposition party Birlik (``Unity''). After searching Sulaimonov's home, police seized his computer. He was interrogated about the distribution of a statement about the Andijan events by Birlik party chairman Abdurakhim Polat during a U.S. Helsinki Commission briefing on Uzbekistan in Washington on May 19. Sulaimonov was released on bail, but yesterday was summoned for additional interrogation. On June 3, police arrested Mizaffarmizo Iskhakov, a longtime human rights defender and head of the Andijan branch of the human rights group Ezgulik (``Goodness''). Police seized human rights publications and a computer during a search of Iskhakov's home on June 2. Iskhakov was released on bail on Monday, but police retained his passport and ordered him not to leave the city. On June 2, Andijan police also arrested Nurmukhammad Azizov and Akbar Oripov of the Andijan branch of Birlik. During searches of the men's homes, police confiscated human rights publications and computers containing a copy of the Birlik statement about the events in Andijan. Azizov and Oripov remain in custody. On May 28, authorities in Andjian arrested two members of the Markhamat district branch of Ezgulik: the chairman, Dilmurod Muhiddinov, and Musozhon Bobozhonov. They also arrested Muhammadqodir Otakhonov, of the Uzbek branch of the International Human Rights Society. Police seized human rights materials and copies of the Birlik statement about the events in Andijan from the men's homes. The men are being charged with ``infringement of the constitutional order,'' ``forming a criminal group,'' and ``preparation and distribution of materials containing threats to public order and security.'' They remain in custody and are being questioned without the presence of a lawyer. Saidjahon Zainabitdinov, an outspoken human rights defender and chairman of the Andijan human rights group Appelliatsia (``Appeal''), was detained on May 21. Zainabitdinov's description of the killings in Andijan was widely reported in the media. He remains in custody. The government campaign against human rights defenders has also spread to other Uzbek cities. On Sunday, June 5, according to the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU), Uzbek security agents arrested Norboy Kholjigitov, a member of the HRSU, in the village of Bobur near Samarkand on charges of corruption. Kholijigitov's whereabouts remain unknown. On June 4, police in Karshi arrested Tulkin Karaev, a human rights activist and journalist, and sentenced him to 10 days of administrative arrest. Karaev is one of the few independent Uzbek journalists who has covered the events in Andijan. The HRSU reported that pretext for the arrest was provided when an unknown woman accosted Karaev at a bus stop and then claimed that Karaev had threatened her. Karaev has been denied contact with his lawyer. On May 30, two unknown men in civilian clothing beat Sotvoldi Abdullaev of the Uzbek branch of the International Human Rights Society outside his house in Tashkent. The assailants had been monitoring the house from a parked car for several days in attempt to prevent Abdullaev from leaving his house. Abdullaev suffered a severe concussion as a result of the beating and was hospitalized. On May 29, 30 armed policemen beat and detained approximately 17 members of Ezgulik from the Fergana Valley area who were participating in a seminar in Tashkent, calling them ``Andijani terrorists.'' The activists were forcibly transported back to the Fergana Valley. The event's organizer, Vasila Inoyatova, head of Ezgulik and a senior member of the Birlik opposition party, was detained by police together with her family. They were released the next day. On May 28, Samarkand police arrested Kholiqnazar Ganiyev, head of the Samarkand province offices of both Ezgulik and the Birlik, on charges of ``hooliganism'' and sentenced him to 15 days of administrative arrest. A group of women, apparently government provocateurs, attacked Ganiyev's house and then brought charges against him when he asked them to leave. On May 26, a police official in Jizzakh came to the home of Tatiana Dovlatova, an activist with the Society for Human Rights and Freedoms of the Citizens of Uzbekistan, and aggressively demanded that she go with him to the prosecutor's office. She refused to go unless provided with an official summons. The official then placed her under armed house arrest for the day and threatened to send her to a psychiatric hospital if she attempted to leave. On May 22, 70 people, including representatives of various government agencies, forcibly entered the Jizzakh home of Bakhtior Kamroev, chairman of the Jizzakh province branch of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan. The crowd conducted a Soviet-style hate rally against Khamroev right in his home. They accused him of being a traitor for passing information to Western organizations, including human rights groups, and of being a ``Wahabbist'' and a ``terrorist.'' The authorities also pressured Kamroev to leave Jizzakh and made threats against his life and against his family.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an opportunity to vote on the Pelosi amendment. It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to ask tough questions, to demand answers, to do the oversight, to make sure that we are getting this right. We have not been doing that. This is an opportunity for us to demand that the administration give us answers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the Appropriations Committee chairman and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), Defense Subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member, for their continuing bipartisan work in drafting the annual defense appropriations bill. I will not take time to detail the programs funded under this bill. However, I would like to express concern and my deep unease with a few aspects of this spending bill. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2863 appropriates $408.9 billion for the Department of Defense. That is $3.3 billion below what the administration requested. This total also includes $45.3 billion in unrequested funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total defense spending now accounts for nearly 55 percent of the entire Federal discretionary budget for fiscal year 2006. Now, while the Committee has trimmed somewhat the administration's budget request, overall defense spending, in real terms, is currently about 20 percent greater than the average Cold War budget. Mr. Speaker, this is spending of historic proportions. Since the spring of 2003, Congress has appropriated approximately $250 billion-plus for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, largely through three huge supplemental appropriations bills. U.S. spending in Iraq alone will be at least 75 to 80 billion this year alone. And it could approach a $400 billion total by 2006, making the Iraq war one of the costliest in U.S. history. Everyone in this House expects the President to ask for additional funds later this year, an expectation that I guess led the Committee to appropriate the $45.3 billion in as- yet-unrequested funds for operations in Iraq. This so-called ``bridge fund'' means, Mr. Speaker, that we are, in essence, passing two appropriations bills for Iraq and Afghanistan. One is called the Iraq supplemental, which Congress takes up at the beginning of each year, and the other is this bridge fund. Remember we had one last year too, and it is attached to the annual defense appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, it is no longer breaking news that we are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is critical for the economic and fiscal health of our Nation that the now-predictable spending for continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan be included in the regular budget process so we can plan for it, make the necessary budgetary trade-offs, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, so we can pay for it. We should be paying for this war now, Mr. Speaker, not handing the cost off to our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, just this week the death toll of American troops killed in Iraq exceeded 1,700. Last month was one of the deadliest months in Iraq in the 2 years since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations. In May of 2005, 67 U.S. soldiers and Marines were killed by hostile fire, the fourth highest tally since the war began. In a June 12 Knight-Ridder article entitled ``Military Action Won't End Insurgency, Growing Number of U.S. Officers Believe,'' Lieutenant Colonel Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new recruits. ``We can't kill them all,'' Wellman said. ``When I kill one, I create three.'' Mr. Speaker, I personally believe there is no military solution in Iraq, immediate or long term. General George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has expressed similar sentiments. He has called the U.S. military efforts ``the Pillsbury Doughboy idea,'' meaning that if you press the insurgency in one area, it only causes it to rise somewhere else. Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that an amendment offered by the Democratic minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), was not made in order by the Rules Committee. This amendment is quite simple. It calls on the President to transmit to congressional leaders a report on what is our strategy for success in Iraq, one that identifies criteria to determine when it is appropriate to begin the withdrawal of our military from Iraq. The gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Pelosi) amendment is a reasonable, thoughtful approach. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Rules Committee would not make it in order. Mr. Speaker, we need that kind of clarity in our policy. We need a change, of course, and at the end of this debate, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that the Pelosi amendment may be considered. Mr. Speaker, there are some who believe that our only responsibility in this time of war is to automatically approve appropriations bills, no questions asked. Let me remind my colleagues that we also have a responsibility to do proper oversight, to conduct thoughtful debate, and to ensure that there is a clearly defined mission, which includes when our men and women can come home. That is what the Pelosi amendment seeks to accomplish, but for some reason the Republican leadership does not want to talk about it. To be honest, I do not think this administration has a clue about what they are doing in Iraq, and, Mr. Speaker, that is a tragedy. Clearly the current situation is not what the administration predicted, but instead of giving us a truthful assessment, instead of candor and clarity, we are given spin. We are told that things are going great. That is simply not credible. Mr. Speaker, it takes no courage for a politician to stand before a microphone and say, we must stay the course. It is not our lives that are on the line. We must recognize that the Members of this House have a responsibility that has for too long been neglected. We owe our troops, indeed we owe our country, some answers. I know that this is not a comfortable topic, but I would plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to start worrying less about saving face and more about doing what is right. At the end of this debate, Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleagues I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida, whom that I have a great deal of respect for, that all these terrible terrorist acts that he has cited were committed by al Qaeda. And, unfortunately, most of those masterminds are still at large because our forces have been diverted into this war in Iraq, and they are not focused in on where they should be, on bringing to justice those members of al Qaeda who are the masterminds of these crimes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If the gentleman from Oklahoma has a strategy on Iraq or knows that the Bush administration has written down such a strategy, would he please share with us a copy because I have yet to see one? Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).