Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the Pelosi amendment that was offered in the Committee on Rules Tuesday night, but rejected on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, the Pelosi amendment would require the President to submit to Congress within 30 days a report on a strategy for success in Iraq. That is it. Mr. Speaker, whatever one's position is on the war in Iraq, I think most of us realize that it is past time for the administration to assess the situation in Iraq and to address the matter of an eventual withdrawal from that country. I hope Members will agree to at least consider this amendment today. The House has a responsibility to ask tough questions and to demand straight answers. I am tired of the spin, as so many other Members are. It is time for candor. The people of this country deserve that. A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the defense appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Pelosi amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block the House from considering and voting on the need for a success strategy in the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we need a strategy, not just slogans. Mr. Speaker, at this time I will enter into the Record two articles cited in my opening statement. I also had a very moving meeting yesterday with members of the Gold Star Families for Peace who have lost sons and daughters in the war in Iraq. These families have experienced the tragedy of this war firsthand, and they believe we should set a very different course. I will enter into the Record the personal statements by these family members regarding the continuing U.S. presence in Iraq. [From Knight Ridder Newspapers, June 12, 2005.] Military Action Won't End Insurgency, Growing Number of U.S. Officers Believe (By Tom Lasseter) Baghdad, Iraq.--A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops during the past two years. Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerilla war is through Iraqi politics--an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency. ``I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations,'' Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. ``It's going to be settled in the political process.'' Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts ``the Pillsbury Doughboy idea''--pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere. ``Like in Baghdad,'' Casey said during an interview with two newspaper reporters, including one from Knight Ridder, last week. ``We push in Baghdad--they're down to about less than a car bomb a day in Baghdad over the last week--but in north-center (Iraq) . . . they've gone up,'' he said. ``The political process will be the decisive element.'' The recognition that a military solution is not in the offing has led U.S. and Iraqi officials to signal they are willing to negotiate with insurgent groups, or their intermediaries. ``It has evolved in the course of normal business,'' said a senior U.S. diplomatic official in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of U.S. policy to defer to the Iraqi government on Iraqi political matters. ``We have now encountered people who at least claim to have some form of a relationship with the insurgency.'' The message is markedly different from previous statements by U.S. officials who spoke of quashing the insurgency by rounding up or killing ``dead enders'' loyal to former dictator Saddam Hussein. As recently as two weeks ago, in a Memorial Day interview on CNN's ``Larry King Live,'' Vice President Dick Cheney said he believed the insurgency was in its ``last throes.'' But the violence has continued unabated, even though 44 of the 55 Iraqis portrayed in the military's famous ``deck of cards'' have been killed or captured, including Saddam. Lt. Col. 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, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge for relatives killed in fighting. ``We can't kill them all,'' Wellman said. ``When I kill one I create three.'' Last month was one of the deadliest since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in May 2003, a month that saw six American troops killed by hostile fire. In May 2005, 67 U.S. soldiers and Marines were killed by hostile fire, the fourth-highest tally since the war began, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an Internet site that uses official casualty reports to organize deaths by a variety of criteria. At least 26 troops have been killed by insurgents so far in June, bringing to 1,311 the number of U.S. soldiers killed by hostile action. Another 391 service members have died as a result of accidents or illness. The Iraqi interior minister said last week that the insurgency has killed 12,000 Iraqis during the past two years. He did not say how he arrived at the figure. American officials had hoped that January's national elections would blunt the insurgency by giving the population hope for their political future. But so far, the political process has not in any meaningful way included Iraq's Sunni Muslim population. Most of Iraq's Sunnis Muslims, motivated either by fear or boycott, did not vote, and they hold a scant 17 seats in the 275-member parliament. There was a post-election lull in bloodshed, a period that saw daily attack figures dip into the 30s. But with the seating of the interim government on April 28, attacks spiked back to 70 a day. More than 700 Iraqis have been killed since then. The former Iraqi minister of electricity, Ayham al-Samarie, has said he's consulted with U.S. diplomatic officials about his negotiations with two major insurgent groups to form a political front of sorts. There has been similar talk in the past--notably by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's administration, which spoke of inclusion through amnesty--but nothing has come of it. At the heart of the problem is the continued failure of U.S. and Iraqi officials to bring the nation's Sunni minority, with more than five million people, to the political table. Sunnis now find themselves in a country ruled by the Shiite and Kurdish political parties once brutally oppressed by Saddam, a Sunni. With Shiites and Kurds stocking the nation's security forces with members of their militias, Sunnis have been marginalized and, according to some analysts in Iraq, have become more willing to join armed groups. Since September of last year, some 85 percent of the violence in Iraq has taken place in just four of Iraq's 18 provinces: the Sunni heartland of al Anbar, Baghdad, Ninevah and Salah al Din. U.S. officials prefer not to talk about the situation along religious lines, but they acknowledge that one of the key obstacles to resolving Iraq's problems is the difference between Sunni and Shiite religious institutions. Shiites are organized around their marja'iya, a council of clerics--led in Iraq by Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani--that issues religious edicts that Shiite faithful follow as law. Sunnis, on the other hand, have no such unifying structure. The difference was made clear in January when one list formed under the guidance of Sistani was the choice of almost all Shiites voting. Those Sunnis who did go to the polls split their votes among a myriad of organizations including those backed by a presumptive monarch, a group of communists and a religious group that mayor may not have been boycotting the election. Sunni Muslims near downtown Baghdad have only to drive down the street to see how precarious their position in Iraqi politics and society is these days. On roads near the party headquarters for the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is in large part shaping the policy of the nation, Kurdish militia members patrol the streets. The troops are ostensibly part of the nation's army, but they still wear militia uniforms and, as is the case with some in Kurdistan, many either can't or won't speak Arabic. One of the roads they patrol has been named Badr Street, for the armed wing of the Supreme Council. There is a large billboard with the looming face of Abdul Aziz al Hakim, the Supreme Council's leader. Unless Sunnis develop confidence that the government will represent them, few here see the insurgency fading. Asked about the success in suppressing the insurgency in Baghdad recently--the result of a series of large-scale raids that in targeted primarily Sunni neighborhoods--Brig. Gen. Alston said that he expects the violence to return. ``We have taken down factories, major cells, we have made good progress in (stopping) the production of (car bombs) in Baghdad,'' Alston said. ``Now, do I think that there will be more (bombs) in Baghdad? Yes, I do.'' [From the Washington Post, June 8, 2005.] Pentagon Wasted Supplies, GAO Finds (By Griff Witte) The Defense Department spent at least $400 million in recent years buying boots, tents, bandages and other goods at he same time it was getting rid of identical items it had paid for but never used, government investigators told House members yesterday. That finding came as part of a broader inquiry by the Government Accountability Office that uncovered deep flaws in the Pentagon's system for determining when it needs to buy new supplies and how it disposes of supposedly excess inventory. Investigators discovered that out of $33 billion of goods the Defense Department marked as excess from 2002 through 2004, $4 billion was in excellent condition. Only about 12 percent of that was reused by the department. The other $3.5 billion ``includes significant waste and inefficiency,'' the GAO said, because new or good-as-new items were ``transferred and donated outside of DOD, sold for pennies on the dollar, or destroyed.'' Investigators brought some of that equipment with them to the hearing of a House Government Reform Committee subcommittee yesterday. Among the items on display were unused military uniforms and medals that GAO had purchased off of a publicly available Web site intended for disposing of unwanted government property. The GAO also obtained the power-supply system for a component of a nuclear submarine that was on the Pentagon's ``critical shortage'' list at the time. ``We're not sure why DOD would be letting GAO have that. We don't have any nuclear submarines at GAO,'' said Gregory D. Kutz, the GAO's managing director for special investigations. Subcommittee members reacted angrily to the findings. ``Waste on this scale affects our ability to meet the immediate needs of men and women in uniform,'' said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who chaired the hearing. ``The $400 million spent on unneeded equipment could have bought body armor, medical supplies or more than 1,700 fully armed Humvees to protect coalition forces against deadly improvised explosive devices.'' Rep. Henry A Waxman (D-Calif.) said the only beneficiaries of the Pentagon's mismanagement are the companies that sell equipment to the government. ``Federal contractors are reaping a bonanza while taxpayers are being gouged,'' Waxman said. Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) said the GAO's findings involved the waste of ``an unbelievably staggering amount of money.'' ``Anybody who's not horrified by this does not deserve to be called a conservative,'' he said. Pentagon officials testified that they generally agreed with the GAO's findings, saying new items had been accidentally labeled in some cases as excess inventory. The officials said they have made improvements, however, and plan to have a computer system up and running by January that would prevent Pentagon officials from buying new equipment that is already available internally. ``We do have a fix on the horizon,'' said Maj. Gen. Daniel G. Mongeon, director of logistics operations at the Defense Logistics Agency. Yesterday's report followed GAO inquiries that uncovered evidence the Defense Department was selling unused biological- and chemical-weapons-resistant suits for $3 each. At the same time it was buying hundreds of thousands more for $200 apiece. Investigators found that example typified a broader problem. For instance, they paid $2,898 for $79,649 worth of tires, badges, circuit cards and medical supplies. In some cases, the goods had been marked as junk but were delivered in their original packaging. At the same time, the Pentagon continued to order more of the same items from its suppliers. The GAO concluded that the Pentagon could have saved $400 million in fiscal 2002 and 2003 had it used what it already owned, rather than buying more. GAO investigators also found that at contractor-operated facilities where excess equipment was supposed to be liquidated, items were left exposed to rain and wind. Much of it ended up damaged beyond repair. In addition, the Defense Department said that between 2002 and 2004, $466 million of equipment marked as excess-- including sensitive equipment such as missile warheads--had been lost, stolen or damaged. Kutz, who said he believes the total of unaccounted-for equipment could be far higher, said the GAO will continue to investigate where those items ended up. Statements From Members of Gold Star Families for Peace Iraq has been the tragic Lie of Historic Proportions of Washington, DC since before the first gulf war. For years, Saddam was one of our government's propped up and militarily supported puppets. Many people have seen the famous footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. I suppose the two are smiling so big for the cameras because they are kindred spirits. After all of the hand-shaking and weapon brokering, when did Saddam become such a bad guy to Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and Co.? (Insert your favorite reason here). During the Clinton regime the US-UN led sanctions against Iraq and the weekly bombing raids killed tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. Many of them were children, but since one of her children didn't have to be sacrificed to the homicidal war machine, Madeline Albright, thinks the slaughter during the ``halcyon'' Clinton years was ``worth it.'' More lies. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of current events understands that this invasion/occupation of Iraq was not about Saddam being a ``bad guy.'' If that logic is used, then how many innocent Iraqi people have to die before the citizens of America wake up and know that our government is a ``bad guy?'' We also know that Iraq was not about WMD's. They weren't there and they weren't going to be there for at least a decade, by all reports. Another reason, so wispy and more difficult to disprove, is that America invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. When one tries to dispute this particular deception, one is accused of being unpatriotic or hating freedom. Even though correct, the statement ``Freedom isn't Free'' is very insulting to me. False freedom is very expensive. Fake freedom costs over one billion of our tax dollars a week; phony freedom has cost the Iraqi people tens of thousands of innocent lives; fanciful freedom has meant the destruction of a country and its infrastructure. Tragically, this fabricated notion of freedom and democracy cost me far more than I was willing to pay: the life of my son, Casey. The Lie of Historic Proportions also cost me my peace of mind, I do not feel free and I do not feel like I live in a democracy. One of the other great deceits that is being perpetuated on the American public and the world is that this occupation is to fight terrorism: If we don't fight terrorism in Iraq then we will have to fight it ``on our streets.'' In fact, terrorist attacks have skyrocketed in Iraq and all over the world. So much so, that the State Department has stopped compiling the statistics and quit issuing the yearly terrorism report. I guess if one doesn't write a report, then terrorism doesn't exist? All of Casey's commendations say that he was killed in the ``GWOT'' the Global War on Terrorism. I agree with most of GWOT, except that Casey was killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal. The evidence is overwhelming, compelling, and alarming that George and his indecent bandits traitorously had intelligence fabricated to fit their goal of invading Iraq. The criminals foisted a Lie of Historic Proportions on the world. It was clear to many of us more aware people that George, Condi, Rummy, the two Dicks: Cheney and Perle, Wolfie, and most effectively and treacherously, Colin Powell, lied their brains out before the invasion. The world was even shown where the WMD'S were on the map. We were told that the ``smoking gun'' could come at any time in the form of a ``mushroom cloud'' or a cloud of toxic biological or chemical weapons. Does anyone remember duct tape and plastic sheeting? Finally, the side of peace, truth and justice has our own smoking gun and it is burning our hands. It is the so-called Downing Street Memo dated 23, July 2002, (almost 8 months before the invasion) that states that military action (against Iraq) is now seen as ``inevitable.'' The memo further states that: ``Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action'', justified by the conjunction of ``terrorism and WMD's.'' The most damning thing to George in the memo is where the British intelligence officer who wrote the memo claims that the intelligence to base Great Britain and the U.S. staging a devastating invasion on Iraq was being ``fixed around the policy.'' Now, after over three years of relentless propaganda, it is difficult to distinguish the proven lies from the new ``truth:'' that this occupation is bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. Casey took an oath to protect the U.S. from all enemies ``foreign and domestic.'' He was sent to occupy and die in a foreign country that was no threat to the USA. However, the biggest threat to our safety, humanity, and our way of life in America are George and his cronies. Congress made a Mistake of Historic Proportions and waived its Constitutional responsibility to declare war. It is time for the House to make up for that mistake and introduce Articles of Impeachment against the murderous thugs who have caused so much mindless mayhem. It is time for Congress to revalidate itself by holding a hearing about the Downing Street Memo. The reader can help by going onto www.AfterDowningStreet.org and signing a petition to Rep. John Conyers so he will know that the American people are behind him to convene an investigation in the House Judiciary Committee. You can also write your Congressional Representative to help push the inquiry. It is time to put partisan politics behind us to do what is correct for once and reclaim America's humanity. It is time for Congress and the American people to work together in peace and justice to rid our country of the stench of greed, hypocrisy, and unnecessary suffering that permeates our White House and our halls of Congress. It is time to hold someone accountable for the carnage and devastation that has been caused. As a matter of fact, it is past time, but it is not too late--Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan, KIA Apr. 4, 2004. My son Sherwood Baker, only 30 years old, a fine man, father, husband, social worker, musician, entertainer, friend, protector, patriot, national guard soldier lost his precious life on April 26, 2004 in Baghdad. He had been in Iraq for six weeks. He was assigned to protect the Iraq Survey Group the very people looking for the weapons of mass destruction. He was guarding that group as they entered a munitions factory, it exploded, something hit my son in his head as he raised himself from his humvee. He died two hours later, half a World away from all of us who love him so much. Two years before this happened, people in the Administration of George Bush had decided they wanted a war with Iraq. They were determined to have one, though the facts about any real dangers were ``thin'', though so many disagreed, though the American people rejected a capricious war. So these people who took their oath before God to be honorable leaders, betrayed the public trust and committed themselves and our Country to finding a way to have a war. Some of us suspected all this then, many of us know it now, the Downing Street memo and other revealing documents bring the light of truth everyday to these horrendous betrayals. Now it is the duty of congress to stand up and face these truths, investigate the documents, follow them where ever they lead. Hold those accountable who betrayed my son, my family and this Country I love. If we are ever to reach Peace in Iraq we must confront the lies and deceptions that got us there, just as we could not wage a war successfully on lies, there can be no Peace based on lies. It is very simple in some ways, 1706 Americans have given up their lives, they stand just beyond us now, tied forever by grief and longing to those who loved them. Tied to the history of this Country, tied to its honor, now they wait on us to honor the fallen and honor the truth. I pray YOU will support the Downing Street memo hearings-- and stand with honor for the truth--Celeste Zappala, mother of Sgt Sherwood Baker, KIA Apr. 26, 2004. Silence in the Face of Truth: The Downing Street Memo (By Dante Zappala) For the first 30 years of my brother Sherwood Baker's life, his mission was to be a responsible citizen. He made oaths and he honored those oaths. This made him a loving father and husband. This also made him a noble and committed soldier. He courageously deployed with his National Guard unit to Iraq in 2004. For the last six weeks of his life, Sherwood's mission was to provide convoy security for the Iraq Survey Group. He was killed in action, providing site security for the group that was looking for weapons of mass destruction. Mounting evidence indicates that the weapons' non-existence wasn't a mistake. It was a ruse. The clouds surrounding Sherwood's death became even darker recently when I read the contents of a memo from the upper echelons of the British government. The memo reiterates the fact that our administration had every intention of invading Iraq in the summer of 2002. The White House needed only to sell the idea to the American people. Prior to Congressional approval, prior to saying, ``War is the last resort,'' the decision had been made to go to war regardless of legal justification or the problems associated with the aftermath of an invasion. The most telling quote in this memo reads, ``The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'' Read the memo: http:// www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html. My brother died scouring the Iraqi countryside not to protect his country, but to satisfy the Bush administration's public relations agenda. The leaders of our country politicized intelligence to satisfy an ideology. My brother and more than 1,650 other soldiers have been killed as a result. Yet I have to sift through the papers and the news channels to find even a pulse of concern. In the wake of such disturbing revelations, a majority of our press and populace resoundingly choose to be silent. Overwhelmingly, Americans have ceased to care about how and why we went war. Apathy, in the face of our soldiers' sacrifice, seems more convenient. We cannot allow our government to simply replace the motivations for war midstream and expect an entire nation and all its allies to succumb to selective memory. Yet that is exactly what has happened. The poet Archibald MacLish, who also lost a brother in war, wrote: They say We leave you our deaths Give them their meaning. If we are to give meaning to the deaths in Iraq, we must be willing to engage in truthful dialogue about the pretenses of war. Acquiescing to the lure of silence and ignorance is an affront to the families and memories of all who have fallen. It is a prescription for unending violence and suffering. Are we so ashamed of what our soldiers have and continue to do in Iraq that we can't even talk about how they got there? Or, are we simply ashamed of ourselves for letting it happen? We must each confront ourselves over the failures in Iraq. For that failure is not simply the fault of our leaders misusing suspect intelligence. Our course as a country, ultimately, stems from the individual conclusion of all of us to be either complicit or resistant to war. The government's failure in Iraq becomes our own failure when we substitute political rhetoric or blanket ideology for reason. It becomes our fault when we are recklessly arrogant and willfully deaf. Our responsibility as citizens is to acknowledge and embrace the whole truth about the Iraq War. We must look past partisanship and hold ourselves and our leaders to the high standards of integrity that citizenship demands. When we fail to honor that responsibility, we fail to honor the sacrifices of our soldiers. The world as I knew it ended when Neil was killed. Many years ago someone gave us a beautiful vase and somehow I knocked it over and it broke into two pieces. I glued it together, it still holds water, but it lost its beauty. We are like that vase. For a while I lost my ability to pray. That has come back, thank God and all those who prayed for us. Many people go to work with coffee or tea in their cupholder. I go with tissues in my cupholder, because I cry to and from work. I am able to function at work because I work with children. Daily activities are no longer the same. I can speak to a large group of people, yet I have trouble going into stores. I cannot be in crowded stores. One of my dearest friends just retired and I did not go to her retirement party, because I was worried that I would start sobbing. I love the theater, but do not go. My son was an honorable man killed by the actions of dishonorable men-- Dianne Santoriello, mother of 1st Lt. Neil Anthony Santoriello, KIA Aug. 13, 2004. My son, Sgt. Mike Mitchell, was killed in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, the first day of the Shiite uprising. He had been in Iraq for 11 months, had turned in all of his equipment on April 3, as he was headed to Kuwait the next week then back to Germany and his fiancee and wedding--Bill Mitchell, father of Sgt. Mike Mitchell, KIA Apr. 4, 2004. Jeff was sent to Kuwait on a 6 month rotation tour with his Battery, C/1-39 FA (MLRS) in August 2002. He was due back to the states in February 2003, until orders to returned were halted in December 2002 because of the build-up. He was caught in this melee of horror with no other recourse to be a true soldier and fight for the cause. You can imagine my horror listening to the propaganda and lies our government leaderships so vehemently declared to the nation as the truth. It was out of my control to tell my baby he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I felt absolutely helpless. He died 4 weeks into the invasion. He was just commissioned as a second lieutenant, he married the love of his life, he acquired his mustang muscle car, and he was living on his own in Ft. Stewart, Georgia. He had the world ahead of him and eager to be part of life. He didn't expect to lose his life. He died from a shrapnel metal that pierced his right eye and traveled through his brain knocking out all the vital parts to sustain life. He was a victim to an explosion a football field away. Back then, his unit (FA) was not equipped with protective gear nor properly trained to handle infantry, engineers, and explosive specialist jobs. Jeff was 24 yrs old when he died and my only son. He was the love of my life and such a cuddly baby to raise. He always had kisses for me even into his adult life. I miss him so! This war shouldn't happen and I want the truth. I want someone to gather all the casualty families and tell them the truth--why it was necessary to fabricate intelligence information to make a case for war. We have the right to know even if its classified--Roxanne Kaylor, mother of LT. Jeff Kaylor, KIA Apr. 7, 2003. The Department of Defense announced today the death of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They died April 19 in Baghdad, Iraq, when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated near their dismounted patrol. Both Soldiers were assigned 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, and Fort Stewart, Ga. The soldiers are: Spc. Jacob M. Pfister, 27, of Buffalo, N.Y., Spc. Kevin S.K. Wessel, 20, of Newport, Ore--Lori Wessel, mother of Spc Kevin S.K. Wessel, KIA Apr. 19, 2005. Let me tell you why I think, no demand that Congress investigate Bush's Iraq War lies. It starts with a conversation that I remember as if it were yesterday. It was a conversation between my son and me. He had called me from Ft. Lewis, Wa.; his duty station. He was assuring me that there was no way that we were going to invade Iraq. I replied that I wasn't so sure; after all I kept hearing those war drums. He told me with all confidence that there were two reasons. First Saddam was not a threat to the U.S., that we had him contained. Second, even though Saddam was a bad guy he was OUR bad guy and if we removed him we would be creating a political vacuum in Iraq that we would not be able to control. How very confident he was. Needless to say, that when we did invade he was more than a little disillusioned. Of course his two reasons have both proved to be true. Unfortunately, his Commander and Chief had decided on this war possibly even before 9/11. In my son's name I demand that Congress investigate. I demand it in my son's name because he is unable to demand it himself. Cpl. Jonathan Castro, my only child, was killed December 21, 2004, when a suicide bomber was allowed into a military base mess tent in Mosul. I also demand the investigation in the name of all those still serving. Many of them would demand it themselves if they didn't fear military retribution--Vickie Castro, mother of Spc. Jonathan Castro, KIA Dec. 21, 2004. As you meet today and discuss the additional evidence of the lies that were used to launch this illegal, immoral invasion and occupation of a recognized, sovereign nation, I would humbly like to put before you yet a few more numbers, reasons to stay the course and continue to reveal these crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice. That number is 538. My nephew, PFC William Ramirez, was American soldier number 538 to die in this horrific travesty committed on the people of Iraq in the name of the Congress of the United States, our citizens and our allies. Think then of the 537 who came before and the 1100+ who have died since. Think also of the 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians whose lives have been lost and blown to rubble by American munitions and their aftermath. Here's another number--19. That is how many years William spent on this earth. Two of those in the U.S. Army. He was anxious to serve and defend. He was promised a chance to learn architecture or engineering, to create and build. Instead, he was sent to destroy, kill and die. And for what? How many of you, knowing what you know about this war, would willingly allow a child, a grandchild, a nephew or niece or even your dog to be sacrificed for it? Can you wrap your minds around the suffering, pain and grief that lies behind each number in the newspaper, in your briefings, on the TV? Multiply those numbers 10 times or so and envision the lives shattered by injury, physical and mental, and the military families who must support those victims. It is horrible and wrong for a life to be cut off violently and short. The greater horror is the senselessness of it, in knowing that William's death was in vain. There is no comfort in thinking the world is a better place because of it. His heroism was squandered by liars, cheats and profiteers. His courage was used to attack a nation that was not a threat. His youth and inexperience was stolen by conniving draft dodgers waving flags of patriotism and fear who never answered the call to serve. His life was manipulated to achieve the ends chosen by a handful of people and his death means nothing to them. Congress was lied to, but Congress is still culpable. Our entire country will continue to pay for this. It is your job and duty now to investigate without stopping until truth and justice are rooted out. Number 538 is just one in a sea of numbers that don't look like much on a piece of paper. It really isn't that large of a number relative to so many others in the news. To our family, however it is a fatal number. It is the difference between a hope-filled future for a loving, intelligent boy and a silent headstone in a military cemetery. How many more families will receive a number like that? How many more? William may have wanted to defend our country and its democracy, but the truth is that battle must be waged on these shores, in these very buildings. And you are the soldiers. Yes, you have position, influence, money and power at stake and you might feel that you have much to lose on the front lines of this conflict. The United States has much to lose if you do not fight. Please be inspired by our heroic and selfless troops and by the memory of our fallen. Take up their cause and restore our nation to one they would be proud of, to the one they thought they suffered and died for. You can give meaning to their deaths if only you will--Annette Pritchard, aunt of PFC William Ramirez, KIA Feb. 11, 2004. My son, Spc. Joseph Blickenstaff, lost his life in the line of duty for our country. Yes, we were and are proud of him as a man and thrilled at his accomplishments. Today is the l8- month anniversary of his death. One day, at the age of 20, Joe came to see me and was very excited. He had enlisted in the Army. I was not happy. He convinced me it was something he really wanted to do and thought he would be good at it. I finally agreed it might be good for him. He left for Basic Training May 1, 2001. He arrived home from Basic on September 6, 2001. The party to celebrate this achievement was September 9, 2001. You know what happened next. All the rules changed. He married his Sweetheart, Angela, shortly after Basic Training. They moved to Washington near the Base. Joe continued to prepare in the Stryker Brigade at Fort Lewis, Washington for the next 25 months. He achieved the Expert Infantryman designation, which few managed to do. He told me he wanted to be the ``one'' to bring down Osama Bin Laden. He was full of the righteous anger that flowed through most Americans after 9-11. He did not, however, believe we had the right to invade Iraq. He decided he wanted to go to Iraq to protect his comrades. He was a gunner. He wanted to take good care of them. He also wanted to see what he could do to help the Iraqi people. He hated bullies and spent his life looking out for the underdogs. He literally would walk down the street and give his money and his clothes away. As parents, we thought that maybe the experience of mastering the many skills and participating in helping other people would turn out to be Joe's reward for all the hard work he put in as we watched him become a proud and capable soldier. So, we met him for dinner and kissed him goodbye in the parking lot of the restaurant on November 13, 2003. He assured us he would be home in a few months in order to be discharged on time. The last words I heard him speak were on my answering machine about 2 weeks later; ``Mom, they're keeping me for the year, they're not letting me out.'' My heart broke for him. He had signed a contract with the United States Government that said he would serve 3 years. This was to be his last disillusionment with the Army. In the early hours of December 9, 2003, we got that most- dreaded knock on our door. When four uniformed Army officers face you at 1:30 a.m., there is little to ask except ``How did it happen?'' As everyone will acknowledge, there are no words to describe the pain of losing a child. In our case, we held each other and assured one another that he died doing what he believed was right. We proudly displayed his Casket Flag and Bronze Star. We went through the motions of living, though we felt detached from ourselves. We did not even know who would answer all the questions we had. The ticking clock seemed like a relentless tyrant as it clicked away all the time he would be gone from us. We had an invitation to meet President Bush at Fort Lewis. We went to that meeting. I wanted and needed for our Commander-In-Chief to look into my eyes and tell me he was sorry for this terrible loss. I was sure I would know if he was sincere. We had pictures taken with President Bush looking at the picture of me pinning on Joe's boutonniere at his wedding. The President asked me if he could keep the words to the last song Joe wrote while in Iraq. The song ``Worthy'', expressed Joe's deep conviction that he was loved by his Lord. In the year since that meeting I have been very disturbed to learn how many things were wrong with our decision to declare war on Iraq. I say ``our decision'' because I supported it in the beginning. I tried to rationalize that mistakes happen and that ``Freedom Isn't Free'' and on and on. Nothing really helped us except to keep saying to each other that Joe died doing something he believed in. Joe died knowing we all loved him and that he was a precious child of his Creator. Joe died among friends who had watched him overcome so many obstacles as the unsure boy, Joe, became the capable and assured man and soldier, Joe. But now, to learn how many ways the American people were deceived into believing our leaders had our best interest at heart, after believing we had the kind of responsible leadership that would only put our bravest young people in danger if absolutely necessary, after believing that we could trust them with our very lives--it's just a horror beyond the thinkable. Surely this misuse and loss of our precious young people constitutes murder. My Sweet Joe, my brave and independent Joe, my kind and loving and giving Joe was taken from us through a series of lies and deception. My heart is breaking--for us, for this country, for this world. I know there are hundreds of thousands of people who have paid the ultimate price and each one of those people leaves a family as stricken and changed as my own. I think the only thing this Nation can do now to save any honor we might have had in the eyes of the World would be to lay bare the lies and do whatever we need in order to restore the things we took from the Iraqi people when we decided to ``shock and awe'' them over 2 years ago. America has not lost nearly as many people as the Iraqis over this insane approach to ``helping'' these people, but we have had tens of thousands of families changed, crippled, and denied their rights as we are told over and over that our loved ones offered themselves up to a higher cause. My son would never have offered himself for the kind of abuse of power that now exists because of this evilly- conceived war. And the abuses aren't just happening in Iraq, as we read daily now. Besides all of the prisoner abuse, the American people have been abused, our society has been abused, our financial future has been abused. Every man, woman and child without food and medical care right here in America has been abused. It took an incredible amount of ``fixing'' to make sure this war happened as planned. We will never regain our own dignity until we stop this insanity and become responsible members of our Global Community. We can do it! Let's start now--Georgia Shilz, proud mother of Spc. Joseph Michael Blickenstaff, KIA, Dec. 8, 2003. They just drove away. Your new world is black and white; it's upside down and inside out. You scream and do not recognize the pain coming from a place you never knew existed. You scream again and the sound is your soul leaving your body. You might not have even heard the words, ``I regret to inform you'', because all you needed was to see who was at your door and you knew. Every nightmare you had about your loved one being killed in Iraq has just come true. Every prayer for their safety on this earth will never be answered. Every deal you made was off. You cannot possibly know, but you are not alone. 1699 other hearts broke again as we saw the number tick one more to 1700 and then 1701 and 1702. We know your pain, we know the hellish journey that you have just begun and there is nothing to say except ``I'm sorry''. We have hugs to offer and maybe some advice, but as the moon rises, you will be alone, knowing that your son or daughter, your husband or wife, your nephew or niece, your best friend is never coming home. The sun will come up in the morning and you may be grateful that you survived another night of your new life, not knowing how. You may be angry that you survived another night without your loved one and wonder why you live and they don't. If only you could trade places. Some sleep easily, some with medication, some not at all. You want to sleep to fend off exhaustion, but know if you do the nightmares might enter the quiet place that once meant solace. The exhaustion just finds a deeper place inside you, another place unfamiliar to you. If you cry, and some cannot or will not, you will wonder if the crying will ever stop. You don't ever want to stop crying--how will you ever, ever, ever get your arms around this new life? You will never want to cry again; it's just so excruciating. You will wonder how one body can cry so many tears and for so many hours, days and months. There will be phone calls, cards, flowers and food. But all you want is your old life back, knowing that your loved one will be coming home alive and well. There will be prayers and religious services. Prayers for you, prayers for your loved one, prayers for peace, prayers for strength. Some will seek comfort in their faith, some will be interminably angry at God. You never imagined signing a document called ``Disposition of Remains'' but there it is, your loved one's name, in black and white. That name doesn't belong there. It belongs on a letter with love from Iraq, it belongs on an email, but it doesn't belong there. You will see their name again in headlines, on TV, on letters of condolence and on other legal documents and it never feels right. His or her name doesn't belong there! There will be questions, there will be details. You want to know all the details; you want to know none--at the same time. You have questions--so many questions and so do they. How could this be happening? What kind of funeral service, cremation or burial? Who will speak? When is the body coming home? Why is the body coming home? My son or daughter is supposed to be coming home--not their body! The flags will fly at half staff, an indication that one young friend described as ``someone is sad''. The flag will cover the coffin, soon to be handed to you, with the words ``On behalf of a grateful nation . . .'' Flags will arrive in the mail having flown over the state capitol or the nation's capitol. They all mean the same thing--your loved one is never coming home and someone is very, very sad. Maybe you never heard the phrase ``Pain shared is divided''. We share your pain; we live and breathe your pain every single day. While you may have never imagined you would be a part of this group, please know that you are not alone-- Karen Meredith, mother of 1LT Kenneth Ballard, KIA May 30, 2004. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader, whose amendment was not allowed to be made in order by the Committee on Rules last night.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just respond to the gentleman briefly by saying that I do not believe that we are more secure today. We were not told the truth about this war in Iraq. We were not told the truth about WMDs or Iraq's tie to al Qaeda. The justification for this war was based on false or falsified information. Things are getting worse. And this administration does not have a clue. I was in Iraq as well. I saw firsthand what is going on over there. What the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is trying to do is to get some clarity, to get the administration to come out and explain to us what their strategy is, if they have one, and if they do not, to try to get them to come up with one. This is a very serious matter. Those men and women who are serving our country so bravely over there deserve more from us than they have gotten. That is the reason why I hope people will vote ``no'' on the previous question, to give us an opportunity to force this administration to do what it should have done a long time ago and that is define what this mission is all about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for this bill which I think is a good bill despite an unsatisfactory allocation. I think this bill deserves support by all our colleagues. However, I would respectfully suggest that this Congress in the future focus more on alleviating hunger and poverty in this country. Yesterday was National Hunger Awareness Day. There were thousands of people that descended on Capitol Hill from all over the country urging Congress to do more. I hope we will do more. They are right. There is much more for us to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to our next speaker, I would just like to respond to something the gentleman from Florida had said in his comments on hunger. As I should point out to the gentleman, there are 36 million people in the United States of America who are hungry, and every single one of us in this Chamber should be ashamed of that fact. We can do better. He mentioned the problem of obesity. I should point out to the gentleman that there is a relationship, believe it or not, between malnutrition and hunger and obesity. A lot of the cases of obesity are directly related to the fact that a lot of families cannot afford to put a decent meal on the table. So these kids end up eating junk food, and it results in the obesity problem. We have a huge problem here. We should not minimize it, and we have a long way to go. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House to consider the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the subcommittee's new ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for working so well together on this bill which clearly deserves the support of all the membership of this House. This important bill provides the funding for our domestic nutrition and anti-hunger programs, international food aid, the Food and Drug Administration, and food inspection. Although traditionally the bill is not controversial, it is an important appropriations bill because of the vitally important programs that are supported here. I want to express my strong support for the Department of Agriculture programs that fight to end hunger here at home and around the world. Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political problem, one that can be solved if only we have the political will to do so. Regrettably, the Bush administration and the leadership in this House and the Senate have not made the necessary commitments to reduce poverty and end hunger in our country. Indeed, hunger and poverty are once again on the rise in the United States. More children are going to bed hungry at night right here in the United States of America, the richest and most blessed country in the world. Every year six million children in our world die of hunger-related causes. We cannot and should not stand by and watch these tragedies unfold. Mr. Speaker, it is time we raise the bar and pledge to end hunger once and for all. It is time to really tackle the issue of poverty. In the meantime, until we make that commitment and back it up with real action and greater resources, we must at least maintain funding for the domestic and international nutrition and anti-hunger programs in this bill. That is why it is so important that this bill increases funding for mandatory programs like food stamps and other child nutrition programs like the school lunch program. I am also pleased that discretionary programs like WIC also receive increases. These programs are among the most successful of our Federal anti-hunger programs, and they help millions of Americans get the food they could not otherwise afford to buy. Unfortunately, important programs like the summer food service program are not fully funded. This important program provides meals to low-income children during the summer when they can not receive a school lunch because the schools are closed for summer vacation. There is no reason why a child who receives a lunch at school during the school year should be denied a lunch during the summer merely because school is out of session. Another important program that needs to be expanded is the school breakfast program. Too many of our children begin their school days hungry. They cannot concentrate as well as children who have something to eat before class. Those children who are fortunate enough to receive a school breakfast usually have to get to school earlier than the other kids. There is a stigma that gets attached to these children because it is plain for all the students to see who cannot afford to eat breakfast at home. We need to expand the school breakfast program so that it is a truly universal program, and we must provide school breakfast at the start of the school day and not before. These two simple actions will ensure that a nutritious meal is provided to hungry children without attaching any social stigma. The consequences of such basic changes will be measurable increases in learning and test scores, as well as improvements in health. A third program that needs to be fully funded is the effort to end the reduced price meal. Currently, low-income children are eligible for either a free school lunch or a reduced price lunch. The reduced price lunch costs 40 cents per meal. While that may not seem like a lot to you or me, it can put a real strain on the finances of many low-income families who are struggling to make ends meet. Too often, school lunch administrators report seeing children who are able to buy lunch at the beginning of the month stop eating as the month goes on, merely because their families cannot afford to pay for that reduced price lunch as money gets tighter and tighter towards the end of the paycheck. The Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill, a truly bipartisan bill that was signed into law last year, phases out the reduced price meal. Last year, thousands of anti-hunger activists roamed the halls of Capitol Hill with their blue and white ERP buttons on, and Congress responded. Now it is time to back up that promise and fully fund the effort to end the reduced price meal. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2006 bill also provides funding for the International Food Aid Programs administered by the USDA. These programs provide emergency food aid to regions of the world that need help today. I am pleased that President Bush pledged to release $674 million for humanitarian relief on the Horn of Africa. However, while it is important that the United States provide the funding for humanitarian relief around the world, the Committee on Appropriations must ensure that these funds are replenished for the following year. Unfortunately, this bill underfunds the Food for Peace Program, which is one of our most important food aid and development programs. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for restoring $222 million to this program above the President's request. But the program still remains $60 million below last year's level. While emergency funding was included in the tsunami relief package, we should not rely on emergency funding when we can properly fund this important program in the Agriculture Appropriations bill. Nor should we shortchange funding for the ongoing programs that are funded through the Food for Peace and other international food aid programs. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for increasing funding for the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. This program uses American commodities to provide school meals to hungry children around the world. It is named after two men who have led the fight against child hunger while they served in the United States Senate and as private citizens. Senator George McGovern is a dear friend of mine who has worked tirelessly on ending hunger over his decades of public service, and I cannot say enough about Senator Bob Dole's work on combating hunger here and abroad. He is a man of great integrity and someone who I respect immensely. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the opportunity to work with his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, on a number of anti-hunger efforts. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program is based on our own school lunch and breakfast program. It provides a nutritious meal for hungry children in a school setting. It has resulted in not only reducing child hunger abroad but in better schools and stronger community support for education in some of the poorest communities in the world. It is a successful program that is developing the long-term support of the Bush administration, and it deserves to be expanded. I am pleased that the Bush administration and the leadership in the House and Senate agree on the importance of the McGovern-Dole program. The President's budget has included an increase in funding for this program over each of the last 3 years; and, more importantly, the Congress has agreed in increased funding over the past 3 years. Mr. Speaker, while I believe the funding must be restored to $300 million, the original level of the Global Food for Education Initiative, the pilot program that preceded the McGovern-Dole program, I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) have supported the President's request for increased funding of $100 million for fiscal year 2006. I am also encouraged by the level of commitment to the McGovern-Dole program in the Senate, and I am hopeful that funding for this program will be further increased when the Senate considers this bill later this year. Mr. Speaker, in December of 2004, 105 of our House colleagues sent a bipartisan letter to President Bush supporting the McGovern-Dole program. That letter is as follows: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, December 2, 2004. Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to provide $300 million in your Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal for the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. We believe it is urgent to restore funding for this program at levels similar to those of the original pilot program. We strongly believe this funding is critical for sustaining and expanding the McGovern-Dole Program in order to combat terrorism and to help build and consolidate democracy in the Middle East, southern Asia, the Near East, and in other regions critical to U.S. national security. As you are aware, the McGovern-Dole Program provides donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition programs in low-income countries. We note that recommendations made by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in February 2002 on how to strengthen and improve the administration and implementation of school feeding programs were fully integrated into the law establishing the McGovern- Dole Program, enhancements that we believe have contributed to its current success. Both the initial plot program and the current McGovern-Dole Program have a proven track record at reducing the incidence of hunger among school-age children and improving literacy and primary education, especially among girls, in areas devastated by war, hunger, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the mistreatment of women and girls. School meals, teacher training, and related support have helped boost school enrollment and academic performance. McGovern-Dole nutrition and school feeding programs also improve the health and learning capacity of children both before they enter school and during the years of primary and elementary school In February 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture evaluated the McGovern-Dole pilot program and found significant positive results. Specifically-- ``The results to date show measurable improvements in school enrollment, including increased access by girls. In projects involving more than 4,000 participating schools, the WFP reports an overall enrollment increase exceeding 10 percent, with an 11.7 percent increase in enrollment by girls. The PVO's report an overall enrollment increase of 5.75 percent in GFE-participating schools. In some projects, increases in enrollment were as high as 32 percent compared with enrollment rates over the previous three years.'' (USDA, The Global Food for Education Pilot Program: A Review of Project Implementation and Impact, page 2, February 2003) We firmly believe that these programs reduce the risk of terrorism by helping to eliminate the hopelessness and despair that breed terrorism. American products and commodities are directly associated with hunger alleviation and educational opportunity, encouraging support and good will for the United States in these communities and countries. We strongly urge that you restore the capacity of this critically important program by providing $300 million for Fiscal Year 2006. Sincerely, James P. McGovern, Nancy Pelosi, James A. Leach, Hilda L. Solis, Todd Tiahrt, Ike Skelton, Jo Ann Emerson, Frank R. Wolf, Tom Lantos, Donald A. Manzullo, Earl Pomeroy, Marcy Kaptur, John Shimkus, George Miller, Roger F. Wicker, Rosa L. DeLauro, Lynn C. Woolsey, Anthony D. Weiner, Chris Van Hollen. Neil Abercrombie, Ron Kind, Sam Graves, Jose E. Serrano, Albert R. Wynn, Robert Wexler, Maxine Waters, John F. Tierney, Gary L. Ackerman, Robert E. Andrews, Earl Blumenauer, Leonard L. Boswell, Corrine Brown, Michael E. Capuano, Elijah E. Cummings, William D. Delahunt, Bob Etheridge, Tammy Baldwin, Madeleine Z. Bordallo. Rick Boucher, Sherrod Brown, Joseph Crowley, Susan A. Davis, Michael F. Doyle, James L. Oberstar, John W. Olver, David E. Price, Bobby L. Rush, Bernard Sanders, Janice D. Schakowsky, Vic Snyder, Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, Barney Frank, Donald M. Payne, Steven R. Rothman, Martin Olav Sabo, Max Sandlin, Adam Smith, Fortney Pete Stark. Bob Filner, Charles A. Gonzalez, Raul M. Grijalva, Stephanie Herseth, Tim Holden, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Rick Larsen, Stephen Lynch, Karen McCarthy, Jim Marshall, Alcee L. Hastings, Maurice D. Hinchey, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Dale E. Kildee, Barbara Lee, Carolyn McCarthy, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jim Matheson, Betty McCollum. Michael R. McNulty, Gregory W. Meeks, Dennis Moore, Richard E. Neal, Jim McDermott, Sam Farr, Christopher H. Smith, Martin T. Meehan, Juanita Millender-McDonald, James P. Moran, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Major Owens, Linda T. Sanchez, Thomas H. Allen, Doc Hastings, Patrick J. Kennedy, Edward J. Markey, Brad Miller, and Sander M. Levin. Mr. Speaker, the following is a letter from Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns expressing his support for the McGovern-Dole program: Hon. James P. McGovern, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman McGovern: Thank you for the letter of December 2, 2004, from you and your colleagues to President George W. Bush, expressing your support for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (FFE). The White House forwarded your letter to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for reply. We apologize for the delay in responding. This Administration greatly appreciates your support for this very successful program. USDA now has 5 years of experience with FFE and its predecessor, the Global Food for Education Initiative. These programs have reached over 7 million beneficiaries and provided close to 1.3 million tons of agricultural commodities as well as other types of assistance to schools and communities. The positive results include increased school enrollment, especially among girls; declines in absenteeism; improved concentration, energy, and attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure improvements, including classrooms, kitchens, storage facilities, water systems, latrines, and playgrounds. We are especially gratified that FFE has resulted in greater local commitment to school feeding activities. In many cases, FFE activities have been so successful that local support for school feeding is expanding to the point that FFE assistance can shortly be ended. Examples of these ``graduating'' countries are Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Moldova and Vietnam. We will continue to allocate some FFE resources to these countries this year as we expand the benefits of FFE by implementing programs in additional countries. Additionally, the success of FFE has resulted in other donors becoming involved in school feeding programs. These other donors include the European Union, the German Agency for Technical Cooperation, the Japanese Development Agency, Canada, and the World Health Organization. We agree that funding for FFE should be expanded in fiscal year (FY) 2006. While the Administration is making a concerted effort to cut the budget deficit, we have requested $100 million in appropriated funding for FFE in FY 2006, which is double the funding for the program in FY 2004 and an increase of 15 percent compared to FY 2005. Thank you again for writing to support this important program. We look forward to continuing to work with you to improve USDA's overseas food aid programs. A similar letter has been sent to each of your colleagues. Sincerely, Mike Johanns, Secretary. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) has crafted a bill that deserves to be supported today; and while there is room for improvement, I believe that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations did the best they could with the limited resources they were given. Again, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. No, Mr. Speaker. But I support these men and women who are serving our country, and they deserve health care, which it is a disgrace what the Republican majority did.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I should say to the gentleman I respect his service as well. I just wish he would join with us in providing the adequate allocation for our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is inadequate to meet the health care needs of our veterans, plain and simple. Every veterans group in America has recognized that fact. They have all written to all of us. So we can spin this all we want, that somehow this is this incredible bill that is going to take care of all the health care needs of our veterans, but the bottom line is, it is better than what the President requested, but it is not enough. And we have an opportunity to fix it. To the gentleman from California who earlier questioned my patriotism and pointed out I did not serve in the military, let me say to him that I am in awe of those men and women who have served in our military. I am grateful for what they have done. I have two children, and there is not a day that I do not wake up and thank God they live in the freest country in the world. And it is precisely because of the veterans who have served our country over the years that they have that privilege. And it is precisely because of my gratitude to the men and women who serve in our military that I feel so passionately about making sure that we do the right thing here today and we adequately fund our veterans' health care budget. That is what this debate is all about, and that is whether you are a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. I would like to think we could come together on this one issue and make sure that the veterans get what they deserve and have earned. We are at war, and yet, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) pointed out earlier and as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, we are not making any sacrifices. What the Obey amendment would do is simply shave a little bit off of the tax cuts that millionaires are getting and put it towards the veterans budget to make sure we get what we need. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the Obey amendment that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a straight party line vote. Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would add an additional $2.6 billion for VA health care and pay for it by slightly reducing the size of the tax cut for those persons who make more than $1 million a year. Instead of receiving a tax cut of $140,000, they would get $129,000, a reduction of $11,000 for millionaires. I will tell you that I cannot believe anybody in this country would object to that. I think if you did a poll right now, overwhelmingly the American people would say, that makes sense in this time of war. I am sure that the Donald Trumps and the Bill Gates of this country could afford to reduce their tax cut by $11,000 so that our troops can have the best health care possible when they return from Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment will correct one of most serious shortfalls in this bill, quality health care for our Nation's veterans. It is absolutely critical that this funding be increased to meet the growing needs of our country's veterans. This Nation made a promise to those serving in the military that they would receive quality health care in return for their valiant service to this country, and now that wounded soldiers are returning to their homes, they deserve the best medical treatment and care available. We can fix this today. We can fix this today if we allow the Obey amendment to be considered on the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the previous question. I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the military quality of life-VA appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of this amendment to help our Nation's soldiers and our veterans. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am in awe of our Nation's veterans. A few hours from now, Members of this body will get on planes and go to their districts and prepare to attend various Memorial Day events throughout the country, and I know all of us will pay tribute to our veterans. We will thank them, we will pay tribute by using the most wonderful words that we can express to be able to say ``thank you'' adequately. But, Mr. Speaker, words are not enough. We have enough words in this House. They are not enough. Yesterday, the Republican majority turned their backs on so many veterans by defeating the motion by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to provide more health care benefits to our members of the Guard and Reserve. It was shameful. But today you have a chance to redeem yourself. Today, you have a chance to stand up and do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, we need to support our veterans. We need to make sure they have what they need. We need to support them not just with words, but with action. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McGOVERN. No, Mr. Speaker. But I am in awe of those who serve this country.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is the first year that the House will consider a military quality of life-VA appropriations bill. As a result of the subcommittee realignment adopted earlier this year by the Appropriations Committee, military construction, Defense Department health programs and all veterans' programs are now contained in this one appropriations bill. I want to commend Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Edwards for the bill that they have crafted. Both gentlemen are well known for their skill at reaching out and working in a bipartisan manner and this bill reflects that collaboration as well as their deep commitment to our uniformed men and women and their families, both those in current service and those who have honored our Nation with past service. Regrettably, while H.R. 2528 is a significant improvement over the President's shameful budget for veterans' health care, even this bill will not get the job done for the men and women who are depending on the Department of Veterans Affairs to meet their health care needs. I appreciate that this bill is $1 billion more than the President suggested for veterans' medical services, but a significant portion of that increase is offset by cutting the very personnel and equipment necessary for the VA to carry out its mission and provide timely, and quality, service to our veterans. Further, the increases in this bill are simply not enough to keep up with inflation and the rapidly growing number of veterans needing services from the VA. Mr. Speaker, more than 20 percent of soldiers who have left active duty after service in Iraq or Afghanistan have sought health care services from the VA, and with no end of combat in sight, I am sure that that number will continue to rise. Recent studies show that the mental and psychological impact of war is taking its toll on our newest generation of veterans. Through February 11, 2005, according to a study performed by the VA, over 17,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been diagnosed with mental disorders. The New England Journal of Medicine reported last July that nearly one in five soldiers is leaving the war with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems. How can we ensure the successful treatment and rehabilitation of these veterans when we know that the system in place is already insufficient to meet current needs? Mr. Speaker, this bill does not meet the needs of our veterans, old or new, because it simply does not provide the resources for the transition from soldier to veteran. It does not provide the resources needed to update and modernize crumbling facilities. It does not provide the funds to adequately staff and equip veterans' health care problems. You can spin it all you want, but those are the facts. This is an important question of priorities, Mr. Speaker, and the Members of this House should have a chance to debate and vote on these priorities. Last night in the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) presented a very simple amendment to provide an additional $2.6 billion for veterans' health care. To pay for this increase, the amendment proposed reducing the tax cut for people making over $1 million this year in taxable income from $140,000 to $129,000. But the Republicans on the Rules Committee said ``no,'' Mr. Speaker. They voted not to allow the amendment to be debated on the floor today. They voted to deny every Member of this House from expressing what their priorities would be if given a chance to vote on the matter: a slightly smaller tax cut for millionaires? Or $2.6 billion for our veterans? That is the choice. A smaller tax cut for millionaires, or to make sure our veterans get the health care that they need and that they deserve and have earned. Mr. Speaker, it was even suggested in the Rules Committee last night that millionaires need this tax cut more than our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan need the services provided by the veterans' health system. I could not disagree more. If this rule passes, the Members of this House will be denied their right to debate and vote on whether or not it is a priority for them to adequately fund the VA and health care for America's veterans. At the end of this debate today, Mr. Speaker, I will call for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider and vote on the Obey amendment to increase funding for veterans' health services. Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority on this floor voted to deny adequate health care to our National Guard and Reserves. It was shameful what happened on the floor last night. Today, they have a chance to redeem themselves by voting ``no'' on the previous question and allowing the Obey amendment to be voted on on this floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. No, I have not.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just respond to the gentleman. He talks about how the Republican majority has increased the amount of money that we are spending on veterans' issues. But the bottom line is, we are at war and there are more and more veterans coming back. And so you can spin this all you want, but what you are providing in this bill is not nearly enough to take care of the needs of our veterans. That is a fact. It is not just me saying it. The American Legion sent a letter to the Congress saying the same thing, that VA medical care is approximately $2.5 billion short for fiscal year 2006. They write, As Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom veterans continue to seek timely access to the VA health care delivery system, older veterans should not be kicked to the curb to make room for the newest generation of wartime veterans. The coalition of Amvets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars have endorsed the Obey amendment because, they wrote, the Obey amendment would provide the funding needed to meet fixed costs and to care for returning veterans as well as provide the resources the VA needs to meet shortfalls that are affecting veterans today. We are asking you to support this amendment and to provide the dollars needed to care for servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as all veterans who rely upon the VA to provide their health care. Almost every veterans organization in this country is saying that what we are doing here today is not enough. You can say that you have increased it a little bit, but the bottom line is that we are at war. We are in Afghanistan and we are in Iraq, and more and more veterans are coming back, and we do not have the resources in this bill to adequately take care of their needs. Let us be clear. Let us not try to spin to the American people that somehow we are doing our job here. The Republican leadership has made a choice. They would rather spend the money to provide more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires than adequately fund the VA budget. I think at a time of war that that is just absolutely wrong. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui). (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 say just to the gentleman from California who referred to the vote we had yesterday to provide more health care benefits to our Guard and Reserves, he may not think that an important thing to do, but those of us on this side do, especially when we are relying on them more and more to be the soldiers on the frontline in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I also want to point out that currently about 50,000 of our veterans are waiting in line for at least 6 months for veterans health care, and that problem will only gets worse with the growing number of returning soldiers from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. And as of May, 2005, the Department of Veterans Affairs had treated more than 85,000 of the 360,675 veterans from these deployments. In 2006 the Department expects to treat 5.2 million veterans, double the number in 1995. And overall, the medical care inflation rate for 2004 was close to double the inflation rate. So, Mr. Speaker, again, the point here is if we are going to send our young men and women overseas to fight wars, then I think we have an obligation, a moral obligation, to make sure they have the health care and the support when they return home that they not only deserve but they have earned. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it was shameful what happened on the House floor, and they have an opportunity to redeem themselves today.