Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. The Marriage Protection Act of 2004 is quite simply a mean-spirited, discriminatory and misguided distraction. It does not belong on the floor of the House of Representatives, not when there are so many important issues facing Congress and the American people. Nearly 900 American soldiers have now been killed in Iraq, but the House is not talking about that today. Today the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issues its report on what happened and how to prevent it from happening again, but we are not talking about that on the House floor today. This Republican leadership has failed to pass a budget, but we are not talking about that. Today we learn that, according to the GAO, the Pentagon has spent most of the $65 billion that Congress approved for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is trying to find $12.3 billion more from within the Department of Defense to make it through the end of the fiscal year. We should be talking about that. We still do not have a transportation bill. The minimum wage has not been increased in years. Millions of Americans are unemployed and without health insurance. Homeland security needs are going unmet, but we are not talking about any of that in the House of Representatives today. According to the New York Times, conservative activist and Republican adviser Paul Weyrich's solution to the bad news coming out of Iraq was to ``change the subject'' to gay marriage. I quote, ``Ninety-nine percent of the President's base will unite behind him if he pushed the amendment,'' Mr. Weyrich said. ``It will cause Mr. Kerry no end of problems.'' As for gay Republicans whose votes Mr. Bush might lose, Mr. Weyrich wrote, ``Good riddance.'' So instead of addressing the real concerns facing American families, the leadership of this House has decided to throw their political base some red meat because we all know exactly what is going on here. Mr. Speaker, we can at least be honest about it. Last week the Republican leadership got beat badly in the other body. Not only did they not pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, Senate Republicans could not even agree among themselves what to vote on. So the Republican leadership, including the White House, decided they needed a win on something that beats up on gay people and they needed to do it fast, so here we are. They could not amend the Constitution last week so they are trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week. The intent of this bill is quite clear, to close the door to the Federal courthouse for an entire group of American citizens simply because of their sexual orientation. It is enough to take my breath away. One of the most fundamental, sacred principles of our system is that every single American should have access to equal justice under the law, not some Americans, not most Americans, not just straight Americans, but all Americans. But not any more. Not under this bill. Under this bill for the first time in our long history, a person can be denied access to the Federal courts when that person claims that a Federal statute violates the Constitution. Further, this bill takes 200 years of jurisprudence based on the separation of powers and throws it in the trash. Why? Because of the latest craze in Republican fund-raising appeals, the dreaded ``activist judges.'' To all of those listening to the debate today, I would encourage you to count how many times the phrase ``activist judges'' is thrown around. Make sure you have your calculator. The problem is that the Republican leadership only goes after the so- called activist judges they disagree with. They had no problem in activist judges in Bush v. Gore. And make no mistake about it, if this bill passes its proponents will be back for more. Every time there is a court decision they do not like, they will attempt to prohibit the courts from exercising their constitutional oversight. Other issues will be on the table, civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, choice, environmental protection, worker protections, all will be at risk if a political majority in Congress disagrees with a Federal court decision. This bill would set a dangerous, dangerous precedent. Finally, we hear a lot of rhetoric today from supporters of this bill protesting that they are not anti-gay, just pro-marriage. Well, the supporters of this bill have even named it the Marriage Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side, but my marriage does not need protection, and certainly not from the Republican leadership of this House. This bill seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. There is no urgency, no credible court case challenging DOMA. So let us work on the issues that matter most to our constituents. Let us tackle health care and education and homeland security and jobs, let us not change the subject for political reasons, let us not desecrate the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Cast your vote with an eye toward being on the right side of history. Look further than tomorrow's headlines, think about more than 30 minutes from now, think about 30 years from now. Remember that Members of Congress opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Remember that Members of Congress denounced a decision in Brown v. Board of Education in part because of activist judges. History has not been kind to them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no way I can support this rule. Last night, the Republican leadership of this House once again turned its back on military families trying to find a decent place to live. On bill after bill after bill, this Republican majority has chosen to waive all points of order, but on this bill, the Speaker and the majority leader refused to protect the Military Housing Privatization Initiative provision in the Military Construction bill from a point of order, despite the support of the President of the United States and the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. The leadership's decision dooms the important military housing provision, and it is wrong; and it is wrong particularly in a time of war. The housing initiative is a public-private partnership that allows developers and property managers to build or renovate homes for use by military personnel. It is extremely successful. In fact, it has already provided decent housing to more than 60,000 military families, exceeding all expectations. If adequately funded, this initiative will enable the military to eliminate nearly all inadequate units within the U.S. by 2008. Unfortunately, the law establishing the initiative limits total Federal spending on this program. This limit will be reached by this November, effectively sounding the death knell for the expectations of 50,000 military families at 27 military bases in 22 States who are desperately waiting for these homes over the next 2 years. Now, faced with this housing catastrophe, the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), with the bipartisan support of their committee, increased the MHPI cap by $500 million, the amount needed this year to continue upgrading and building military housing under this program. Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the Republican leadership in the Committee on Rules to allow points of order to be raised if the chairman of the authorizing committee objects to the inclusion of any provision legislating on an appropriations bill. The chairman of the Committee on Rules consistently explains this whenever Democrats on the Committee on Rules ask why a rule does not protect a certain provision. Yet in this case, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the authorizing committee, supports raising the MHPI cap in this bill. Not only that, the President of the United States supports the raising of the cap in this bill; but the Republican leadership, despite all their rhetoric about supporting our troops, has once again turned their backs on our troops and their families. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those defining moments. If Members of this House want to support our troops and their families, then they will reject this rule. If Members of this House want their actions to match their rhetoric, then they will reject this rule. Each year I have watched the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) do their best for our military personnel and their families with one of the most inadequate allocations in the budget. This year they tackled the difficult challenge of providing decent housing for our military families around the country. They did the right thing in this bill and in return only ask for protection for this important provision, and what they got from the Republican leadership was a slap in the face. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, support our troops, and support the families of our troops.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on June 7, I had the pleasure of participating in a press conference in Savannah, Georgia, to call upon the leaders of the G-8 nations to get serious and to work to end child hunger and support education for all. The press conference was organized by NetAid and supported by the Basic Education Coalition. David Morrison, the President of NetAid, and Eveline Herfkens, the executive coordinator of the U.N. Secretary general's Millennium Project, joined me at the podium. I was especially impressed by the efforts of the children of Savannah, who, with the support of NetAid, have launched a campaign to raise awareness and funds so that children around the world can have a chance to go to school. Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that central to the American Dream has been the desire by parents to make sure that their children receive a better education and get a chance at having a better life than they did. This was true when our country was founded, and it is still true today. So it is fitting that the United States should lead the world in achieving universal basic education for the world's children. Around the time of World War II, the United States discovered another important key to good education: Food. Many of the soldiers volunteering for the military, who we now refer to as the greatest generation, had problems associated with poor nutrition or hunger. Ultimately, this discovery led to the U.S. establishing a full-fledged universal school lunch program, and today many of our schools also offer breakfast to those in need. The combination of global basic education and school feeding programs contributes not only to achieving the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education by the year 2015, but also to the Goal to cut hunger in half. But it is not going to happen unless donor nations make a significantly greater commitment of funds and resources. Right now, wealthy nations commit an estimated $1.4 billion to basic education. For fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated $326.5 million in foreign aid for basic education and another $37 million provided through the Department of Labor to combat child labor. Sadly, only $125 million was made available for global school feeding programs through all USAID and Department of Agriculture programs combined. At this rate, the world will not be able to achieve universal primary education for another 150 years, or end child hunger for another century. So what should we do? The G-8 leaders need to do much more than issue glowing statements in support of universal education. Photo-ops and juggling the books will not build schools or put more teachers and materials in the classroom or provide meals to students too hungry to learn. Only new money, new resources, and, most important, the political will to turn promises into reality can do that. Developing countries need an additional $5.6 billion to ensure that every child can go to primary school. For the U.S. to exercise genuine leadership, President Bush should make a firm commitment that the United States will provide at least $1 billion by fiscal year 2006 for basic education, and a minimum of $300 million for U.S. funded international school feeding programs. The other G-8 nations should make similar commitments and fulfill them. I am pleased to note that the fiscal year 2005 foreign aid bill that we passed last week includes $400 million for basic education programs, and today we will vote on a resolution in support of global school feeding programs. Our world will not achieve economic prosperity or social and political stability as long as children cannot go to school and continue to die from hunger. And we can only win the war against intolerance and terrorism when the children of the world are no longer hungry and illiterate, and their parents, families, and communities have hope for a better future. On Sea Island, Georgia, the leaders of the world issued another set of glowing proclamations about how to create the better future. We now must wait and see if they have the political will to put their money on the table and make it happen.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for crafting a foreign aid bill that attempts to balance competing priorities for economic development and security funding. In particular, I would like to express my support for the $400 million provided for basic education. Over the past 3 years, increased funding levels for basic education has made it possible for USAID to expand its education programs from 20 to 43 countries. These increases have also had positive effects on other U.S. development priorities, such as preventing HIV/AIDS and promoting agricultural development and maternal and child health. It is my hope that over the next couple of years Congress will increase funding for basic education to $1 billion annually. I believe this is the kind of leadership and funding America must demonstrate to achieve universal education by the year 2015. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), in achieving this goal. I would also like to touch upon one other priority in this bill that continues to trouble me deeply, U.S. policy and aid for Columbia. Yesterday, a representative from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees described the dire situation of the internally displaced inside Colombia and the increasing number of Colombian refugees fleeing to neighboring Ecuador, Venezuela and Panama. I have traveled to Colombia on three occasions over the past 4 years, and each time I have visited communities of the displaced. By most estimates, there are around 3 million internally displaced Colombians, mainly women, children and elderly. This bill makes $5 million available to help displaced Colombians, or approximately $1.66 for each displaced person. This hardly seems adequate to me. Mr. Speaker, I have traveled to nearly every region in Colombia, and everywhere I go, Colombians of all political viewpoints, including mayors and governors, plead for funds to support community-based programs to generate income, provide basic healthcare, education and nutrition, and to bring some measure of economic stability and security to their towns and villages. Now, I do not mean to imply that none of these funds in this bill will serve these purposes, but we all know that precious little of U.S. aid is allocated for these types of programs in Colombia, especially when weighed against the need. The simple fact remains that the majority of U.S. funding for Colombia is military and security assistance for counterinsurgency and counternarcotics programs. Over the past 3 years, along with my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I have offered amendments to cut military aid for Colombia, but the Committee on Rules refuses to consider amendments on their merit and grant some waivers for amendments to appropriations bills so that key foreign policy issues can be more fully explored and debated. For example, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I have never been able to offer an amendment to the foreign operations bill that reflects what many of my House colleagues believe would be a better set of priorities for the hundreds of millions of dollars we send down to Colombia each year; or an amendment that would condition U.S. funding for Colombia's agreement with the paramilitaries to an assurance that paramilitaries with outstanding U.S. extradition warrants will serve prison time in the U.S. or Colombia. I cannot offer an amendment conditioning U.S. funding to ensure that the land paramilitaries took by violence be restored to the original inhabitants, who are now destitute and desperate displaced people or refugees. So I sympathize with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), each of whom went before the Committee on Rules the other evening and were denied waivers to debate their important amendments. We all know that foreign aid authorizing bills come out very rarely and, frankly, the aid for Colombia has never been authorized. It has always been presented to Congress in supplemental spending bills and the Foreign Operations and Defense appropriations bills and hardly ever has a designated line item in the bill. Over $3 billion has gone to Colombia since Plan Colombia was launched, all with very little debate and, in some instances, no debate. Mr. Speaker, in the future, I hope that the leadership of this House will allow Members to have a more comprehensive debate on whether and how to shape our new and different priorities for the military, security, and economic assistance we are sending to Colombia. I, for one, look forward to that day.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Farr-Schakowsky- McGovern amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about America, about us, and about the pressures placed on our uniformed men and women serving in the Armed Forces. In effect, this amendment matches what the House has already approved in the Defense authorization bill. In this sense, it is a conforming amendment. Everyone in this House knows that America's troops are stretched dangerously thin. Every day, there is a story in one of the major papers about the stresses facing American troops as more are deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. We are diverting troops from South Korea to Iraq, and we are placing burdens on our Guard and Reservists just to give some small amount of relief to our regular military units before they are redeployed into combat once again. Faced with these tremendous strains, the administration has come forward and asked Congress to double the number of troops in Colombia, offering no more compelling a rationale than Colombia needs more of our men and women for their civil war. The Farr amendment, like the Taylor provision in the Defense authorization bill, offers a prudent alternative: provide a modest increase of 150 more troops, give the U.S. military in Colombia a bit more flexibility and relief, retain the private contractor cap at 400, and evaluate our global military situation over the next 12 months. I do not want any Member of this House to be fooled. This latest bid to raise the military troop cap will not be the last. The administration has assured Congress repeatedly that no increase to the troop cap would be necessary; yet, now their story has changed. Will it change again in another year or two? Let us refresh our memories on what the administration has told Congress about the current troop cap. On April 4, 2001, General Peter Pace, commander of the U.S. Southern Command said, ``That troop cap, sir, is well within the limits that I need to do the job that I have been given, and I support it.'' On October 4, 2002, Brigadier General Galen Jackman, J-3 Chief of Operations at the U.S. Southern Command testified, ``We have a 400- person military cap in Colombia. We do not envision that that is going to change. Typically, we have maybe a couple of hundred people in the country at any given time.'' On March 7, 2003, Mark Grossman, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs stated, ``There are caps on the number of people who can be in Colombia at any one time, and there is no one who is advocating the breaking of those caps.'' And on August 19, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared, ``I think it would be unlikely to be anything that would break that cap.'' Mr. Chairman, when Plan Colombia was first launched and American troops first sent down to Colombia, Congress was told we were only going to fight the drug trade. Then we were asked to commit our troops to fight not only a drug war, but to join the campaign in a counterterrorist, a counterinsurgency civil war. Now we are being asked to double the number of our soldiers, boots on the ground in Colombia. There is a term for what is happening in Colombia. It is called ``mission creep.'' Mr. Chairman, Congress was right 4 years ago to impose military personnel caps in Colombia. It was a smart and prudent safeguard against any rapid escalation of U.S. involvement in Colombia's internal armed conflict. We did the right thing then. The Farr-Schakowsky- McGovern amendment is the right thing to do now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment on U.S. troop caps in Colombia.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is the third Free Trade Agreement the Bush administration has sent to Congress under the Fast Track Authority granted in 2002, and it is the first trade agreement made between two affluent industrialized nations. The United States and Australia have many similarities in terms of our economic development. This is particularly true in the manufacturing sector, and this agreement lifts 99 percent of the manufacturing tariffs between our two nations, which should provide many mutual benefits and comparable advantages. The U.S. currently has an $8 billion trade surplus with Australia in the area of manufactured goods and also in several key agricultural exports. In these areas this agreement should continue to promote our economic interest, contribute to job creation here at home, and further strengthen our long-standing alliance in economic partnerships. These are all hallmarks of a Free Trade Agreement made among equals. In the area of internationally recognized labor standards and rights, this trade agreement adopts the standard for each nation to effectively enforce its own laws. I want to be clear that I do not support this model, and I am disappointed that the Bush administration chose not to build on the model established in the U.S.-Jordan agreement and include enforceable labor standards in the core of the agreement. Australia has very strong labor rights, an effective enforcement regime, and a strong independent judiciary. So I am not concerned that the labor provisions will prove detrimental to Australian or U.S. workers, but I do believe that, once again, we have squandered an opportunity to set a higher benchmark for future trade agreements, one that commits our trading partners to achieving the five core international labor standards and not just the mere enforcement of existing domestic labor laws, which can change at any time and are subject to the political whims of whatever government is in power. We cannot and should not continue to pursue this one-size-fits-all approach to trade agreements, particularly in the area of labor standards, environmental standards, and the settlement of disputes and especially as we pursue trade agreements with countries in very different stages of economic development from our own. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that in general I have heard nothing but good things about the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. So imagine my surprise when I woke up Monday morning to read on the front page of the New York Times that this trade agreement may undercut the importing of inexpensive drugs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include this article in the Record.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) indicated earlier, a number of Democrats support the Australia trade agreement and feel it is fine as far as it goes, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) made the same comments as well. However, I think it is important to note that this agreement covers less than 1 percent of U.S. trade, and it cannot make up for the Bush administration record of failing to vigorously enforce trade laws and trade agreements. It cannot make up for a failure to invest in research and development and in training American workers in cutting-edge skills and technologies to improve America's ability to compete in the global economy. Our trading partners consistently violate the terms of their trade agreements with us; and the administration has failed to stop China, Japan, and other nations from manipulating their currencies. The administration has failed to break down barriers for American workers and American companies in key export markets such as Japan and Korea. The Bush administration has failed to invest in the innovative technologies of the 21st century. The Bush budget has tried to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program and slashed the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and proposed cutting job-training programs by more than $1.5 billion over the past 3 years. Republican policies have led to the loss of 1.8 million private sector jobs, and the average length of unemployment is at its highest level in 20 years, and the overall job picture is the worst in almost 40 years. So as we take up consideration of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, we also need to change direction and pursue policies in tax policy and job training and supporting our small and medium-sized manufacturers and R&D that will create jobs right here at home right now. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say for the record once again that I regret very much the prescription drug provisions that are in this agreement. It is bad precedent. To my knowledge, this is the first time a prescription drug provision has been included in a trade agreement, and hopefully it will be the last time. I know that the big drug companies want to view this as what will be the norm in future trade agreements, but I will point out to my colleagues that there are millions and millions of Americans who deserve and who expect more from this administration or whatever administration is in power and from this Congress. To the extent that there is bipartisanship on this agreement, let the record reflect that that bipartisanship will not be there. If in the future there are these prescription drug provisions included in future trade agreements, that is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 107.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for yielding me the time and for his very heartfelt words. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Hyde, as well as Ranking Member Lantos, for their leadership and their commitment to ending hunger and for their support of U.S. food aid programs. I also want to extend my gratitude to Chairman Smith and to my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the ranking Democrat on the agricultural appropriations committee, for all of their incredible efforts to combat hunger here in the United States and around the world. It was through their bipartisan leadership that the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food For Education and Child Nutrition Program came to be established in the farm bill reauthorization. Over the past few years, I have learned a great deal about global child hunger from my House colleagues, from former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole, from our hardworking officers at USDA and USAID, from the staff of the U.N. World Food Program, and from the many organizations that carry out U.S.-funded school feeding and development projects around the world, groups like Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Save the Children, CARE, Land O'Lakes, Counterpart International and Mercy Corps, to name but a few. I now know there are over 800 million people around the world for whom chronic hunger is a way of life, and, too often, a way of death. Over 300 million of these people are children and over half of these children do not attend school, mainly girls. Every year, 6 million children in our world die of hunger-related causes. As David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, has stated so eloquently, ``Even one child starving to death is a tragedy. Six million is a global catastrophe and a preventable one.'' Last November, the U.N. food and agriculture organization released its 2003 report on hunger. It found that after falling steadily during the 1990s, hunger is again on the rise. In the developing world, the number of malnourished people grew by an average of 4.5 million a year for the past 3 years. The report also found that hunger exacerbates the AIDS crisis, drives rural people into the cities, and forces women and children to trade sex for food and money. But we can help break that cycle. We have learned from projects carried out around the world that school feeding programs are one of the most effective strategies to combat hunger and poverty and convince poor families to send their children to school. When programs are offered, enrollment and attendance rates increase significantly, particularly for girls. Instead of working or searching for food to combat hunger, children have the chance to go to school. Providing food at school is a simple, but effective, means to improve literacy and help poor children break out of poverty. With the support of President Clinton and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, the McGovern-Dole program began as a $300 million pilot program in 2001, providing nutritious meals in school settings to nearly 7 million children in 38 countries. Wheat from Illinois, Minnesota, and Oregon went to feed children at schools in Bolivia and Lebanon. Corn, milk, and soybeans from farmers in Kansas and Wisconsin fed children in Nicaragua and Guatemala. Lentils from Idaho and Washington helped children return to school in Afghanistan. Beans from Colorado, rice from Texas and Louisiana, cooking oil from Florida and Tennessee, the bounty of America's farmers found its way to children attending humble schools around the world. Mr. Speaker, global hunger, ignorance, and poverty are threats to our national security, and they are threats to our national spirit. How can our world be secure if hunger drives desperate people to ideological extremes? I firmly believe the McGovern-Dole program serves our national interests by attacking the breeding grounds of terrorism: hunger, poverty, ignorance, and despair, while at the same time ensuring that children receive meals in settings where they receive a quality education, not hate-filled indoctrination. At the end of the day, it will be programs like McGovern-Dole that ultimately triumph over poverty and terror. S. Con. Resolution 114 commends the important role these programs play in the fight against hunger and in promoting basic education. It supports the expansion of the McGovern-Dole program and urges the President to work with the U.N. and other nations to increase international support for school feeding programs. By expanding the McGovern-Dole program, we can reach even more school-age children. We can help stabilize communities devastated by HIV/AIDS, and we can help developing nations achieve self-sufficiency and prosperity. Mr. Speaker, international school feeding programs work. I commend this bill to my colleagues, and I urge them to support it. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from California, the Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee Mr. Lantos, for yielding me time. And I especially want to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their leadership and commitment to ending hunger and for their support of U.S. food aid programs. It was through their bipartisan leadership that the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program came to be established in the farm bill reauthorization. Over the past few years, I have learned a great deal about global child hunger from my House colleagues; from former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole; from our hard-working officers at USDA and USAID; from the staff of the UN World Food Program; and from the many organizations that carry out US-funded school feeding and development projects around the world--groups like Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Save the Children, CARE, Land O' Lakes, Counterpart International, and Mercy Corps, to name but a few. I now know there are more than 800 million people around the world for whom chronic hunger is a way of life, and too often, a way of death. Over 300 million of these people are children, and over half of these children do not attend school, mainly the girls. Every year, 6 million children in our world die of hunger-related causes. As David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, has stated so eloquently: ``Even one child starving to death is a tragedy. Six million is a global catastrophe--and a preventable one.'' Last November, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization released its 2003 report on hunger. It found that after falling steadily during the 1990s, hunger is again on the rise. In the developing world, the number of malnourished people grew by an average of 4.5 million a year for the past three years. The report also found that hunger exacerbates the AIDS crisis, drives rural people into the cities, and forces women and children to trade sex for food and money. But we can help break that cycle. We have learned from projects carried out around the world that school feeding programs are one of the most effective strategies to combat hunger and poverty, and convince poor families to send their children to school. When programs are offered, enrollment and attendance rates increase significantly, particularly for girls. Instead of working or searching for food to combat hunger, children have the chance to go to school. Providing food at school is a simple but effective means to improve literacy and help poor children break out of poverty. With the support of President Clinton and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, the McGovern-Dole program began as a $300 million pilot program in 2001, providing nutritious meals in school settings to nearly 7 million children in 38 countries. Wheat from Illinois, Minnesota, and Oregon went to feed children at schools in Bolivia and Lebanon. Corn, milk and soy beans from farmers in Kansas and Wisconsin fed children in Nicaragua and Guatemala. Lentils from Idaho and Washington helped children return to school in Afghanistan. Beans from Colorado, rice from Texas and Louisiana, cooking oil from Florida and Tennessee--the bounty of America's farmers found its way to children attending humble schools around the world. Mr. Speaker, global hunger, ignorance and poverty are threats to our national security, and they are threats to our national spirit. How can our world be secure if hunger drives desperate people to ideological extremes? I firmly believe the McGovern-Dole program serves our national security interests by attacking the breeding grounds of terrorism--hunger, poverty, ignorance and despair--while at the same time ensuring that children receive meals in settings where they receive a quality education, not hate-filled indoctrination. At the end of the day, it will be programs like McGovern-Dole that ultimately triumph over poverty and terror. S. Con. Res. 114 commends the important role these programs play in the fight against hunger and in promoting basic education. It supports the expansion of the McGovern-Dole program, and urges the president to work with the UN and other nations to increase international support for school feeding programs. By expanding the McGovern-Dole program we can reach even more school- age children; we can help stabilize communities devastated by HIV/AIDS; and we can help developing nations achieve self-sufficiency and prosperity. Mr. Speaker, many individuals and organizations deserve mention for the role they played in launching the Global Food for Education Initiative (GFEI) pilot program and for establishing the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. First and foremost are the two gentlemen who are the namesakes of this program, former Senators McGovern and Dole. They have dedicated their lives to ending hunger and continue to be an inspiration to me and all my congressional colleagues on these issues. Another leader in this effort is former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, who had seen first hand the benefits of basic school feeding programs funded through USDA under its 416(b) Commodity Credit Corporation commodity surplus program. He knew these programs needed to expand and reach even more children, schools and communities, and he embraced the vision presented to him by Senators McGovern, Dole and myself. Secretary Glickman helped to organize a meeting at the White House with the President and his foreign policy and national security staff, as well as representatives from USAID and USDA. I remember President Clinton, upon conclusion of the formal presentation of the plan for expanded school feeding programs, looking up and saying, ``This is a simple concept that could have a great impact. Let's make it happen.'' And that is how the White House came to launch the $300 million pilot program just a few months later. The GFEI pilot program was actually implemented under the Bush Administration and Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman. I would be remiss in my remarks should I fail in offering my praise to Mary Chambliss, Deputy Administrator of USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service/ Export Credit Department. She and her staff took the description of an initiative formally announced by President Clinton at the July 2000 G-8 Summit in Okinawa, Japan, and turned it into a living and breathing reality, one which has benefited more than 7 million children world- wide. Many Members of Congress in this House and in the other body have been true leaders in helping to build a genuinely broad, bipartisan coalition in support of the McGovern-Dole program. In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to Representatives Jo Ann Emerson, Marcy Kaptur, Doug Bereuter, Jim Leach, Don Manzullo, George Nethercutt, Leonard Boswell, Tim Johnson and Mark Green, who along with former Members of Congress Tony Hall, John Thune and Eva Clayton, were the original cosponsors of legislation to create the McGovern-Dole school feeding program. In the other body, leadership was provided by Senators, Dick Durbin, Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy, Mike DeWine, Tom Harkin, Tom Daschle, Byron Dorgan, Edward Kennedy and Herbert Kohl. Since the establishment of the McGovern-Dole program, especially in efforts to increase funding to maintain and establish these global school feeding programs, additional Members of Congress have stepped forward and taken leadership roles, including Representatives Frank Wolf and Tom Lantos and Senators Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, Elizabeth Dole, and Hillary Clinton. Mr. Speaker, the McGovern-Dole program and the initial pilot program would not have been successful were it not for the dedication and experience of the U.S. private voluntary organizations that implement these programs around the world--many of which I noted earlier in my remarks--and the United Nations World Food Program. My staff and I have visited several of these programs in Indonesia, Colombia and elsewhere, and we all owe them our gratitude and admiration for their work. In addition, I would like to thank several other groups that helped me understand the needs and requirements of high-quality school feeding programs and how such programs might effectively reduce hunger among the world's children and attract them to enrolling and staying in school. These organizations include Friends of the World Food Program, Bread for the World, and Food Aid Coalition, Land O'Lakes, the American Soybean Association, the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Association, and the American School Food Service Association. No individual program can end hunger, not here at home and certainly not around the world. But I believe that it is possible to end hunger, especially hunger among children, if we simply have the political will to make it happen. The McGovern-Dole school feeding program and other U.S.-funded school feeding and food security programs are vital components in this effort, and I am grateful to be part of the bipartisan congressional coalition in support of these programs. Mr. Speaker, international school feeding programs work. I commend this bill to my colleagues and I urge them to vote in support of S. Con. Res. 114.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow for the consideration of H.R. 4766, the fiscal year 2005 agriculture appropriations bill. This important bill provides funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, select programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, and other agriculture and nutrition-related programs at various Federal agencies. Like the other fiscal year 2005 appropriations bills, this bill is grossly underfunded. The allocation for these important programs continues to be reduced each year. Even though this bill is 1 percent more than the amount requested by President Bush, it is still below last year's funding level; and, unfortunately, it is the farmers, children, pregnant mothers, and seniors who rely on these programs who are hurt by these low allocations. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the members of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies have made the best out of a bad situation. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) did the best he could by stretching the limited funds he was allocated to fund many of the programs that are important to the American people. While I am disappointed that the allocation is low, and I will urges the conferees, once appointed, to do what they can to increase the funding for these important programs, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla); the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur); and the members of this subcommittee for doing the best they could with this bill. Specifically, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the entire committee for providing $75 million for the George McGovern-Robert Dole Food For Education and Child Nutrition Program. This important and successful program provides nutritious meals to hungry children around the world in a school setting. The McGovern-Dole Program received only $50 million last year, and I am very pleased that President Bush requested an increase for fiscal year 2005. This program began as the Global Food For Education Initiative, a pilot program to use surplus American commodities to feed hungry children around the world. The pilot program received $300 million and provided school breakfasts, school lunches, and other supplemental food to 7 million children in 38 countries. The McGovern-Dole program, authorized in the farm bill, made this program permanent and subject to appropriations. While I support providing $300 million for this program, which would restore funding for this program to the original level of the pilot program, I am pleased that this bill increases funding for the McGovern-Dole program over last year's level. Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in supporting $300 million for this program. In December, 102 members of this body sent a bipartisan letter to President Bush requesting that $300 million be allocated for the McGovern-Dole program in fiscal year 2005. Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, December 11, 2003. 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 2005 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 contribute to its success. Both the initial pilot 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 or marginalization 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 opportunities, 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 2005. Sincerely, James P. McGovern, Frank Wolf, Jo Ann Emerson, Marcy Kaptur, Doug Bereuter, Tom Lantos, Earl Pomeroy, Amo Houghton, Barbara Lee, Sam Graves, Edolphus Towns, Don Manzullo, Vic Snyder, Jim Leach, Tammy Baldwin, Christopher Smith (NJ), Marty Meehan, Doc Hastings (WA), Dennis Moore, George Nethercutt, John Olver, Jerry Moran (KS), Bennie G. Thompson (MS), Todd Tiahrt, Adam Schiff, David Price, Maurice Hinchey, James Oberstar, Betty McCollum, William Delahunt, Bob Filner. Jan Schakowsky, Sheila Jackson Lee, Leonard Boswell, Gary Ackerman, George Miller, Dale Kildee, Julia Carson (IN), Albert Wynn, Carolyn Maloney, Bobby Rush, Diana Christensen, Raul M. Grijalva, Bob Etheridge, Pete Stark, Jim McDermott, Jim Matheson, Jerry Costello, Mike Capuano, Joseph Crowley, Susan Davis (CA), Rosa DeLauro, Martin Frost, Rick Larsen (WA), Sander Levin, Ed Markey, John Tierney, Lynn Woolsey, Donald Payne, Hilda Solis, Mike McNulty, Elijah Cummings, Mike Doyle, Joseph Hoeffel. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Bernie Sanders, Sam Farr, Neil Abercrombie, Jim Marshall, Charles Gonzalez, Ruben Hinojosa, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Earl Blumenauer, Robert Wexler, Rob Andrews, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Jose Serrano, Maxine Waters, Lane Evans, Barney Frank, Ron Kind, Sanford Bishop, Jr., Sherrod Brown (OH), Henry Waxman, Steve Rothman, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Allen, Jim Moran (VA), Rick Boucher, Brad Sherman, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Lois Capps, Karen McCarthy, Patrick Kennedy (RI), Jane Harman, Alcee Hastings (FL), William Jefferson, Chris Van Hollen, Chaka Fattah, Stephen Lynch, Charles Rangel. Mr. Speaker, I urge the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and others to work with the other body to further increase these funds as this bill moves into and through the conference committee. This program is important, I believe, not only to helping feed hungry children around the world. I also believe it is important in combating terrorism because it gets to some of the root causes where terrorist groups go to recruit people to be involved in some of the terrible events that we have seen unfold over the last several years. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the fiscal year 2005 agriculture appropriations bill includes language blocking the FDA from spending money to enforce its ban on prescription drug reimportation. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that a bipartisan majority of our colleagues supports the reimportation of prescription drugs. It is even clearer that the American people support reimportation. They are being gouged by the high cost of prescription drugs, and they deserve access to these lower-cost prescription drugs. The current Medicare drug card and prescription drug plan are hardly a panacea for the high cost of prescription drugs. It is vital that we provide access, especially for our seniors, to these low-cost prescription drugs. Until we can repeal this misguided law and pass a genuine and real prescription drug benefit that will provide genuine and real relief for seniors who rely on these import medicines, reimportation in many respects is our only option; but it is also our best option. Mr. Speaker, this bill is underfunded. There is no doubt about that. It is underfunded because of misguided tax cuts for rich people and wasteful spending adopted by this administration and I would say by those who are running this House of Representatives. It is underfunded because in 3 short years they turned record surpluses into record deficits. Now the programs that require Federal funds and especially the people who rely on these programs are paying the price for these misguided policies. The low allocation for this bill means that WIC, our most important nutrition and health program for pregnant mothers and newborn children, will not be fully funded. It means homeland security activities at USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service are underfunded. And it means rural water and waste programs and the rural single family housing direct loan program are funded below even last year's levels. The policies enacted over the past few years, the tax cuts for rich people and the wasteful spending, are taking their toll on these programs. However, Mr. Speaker, having noted these concerns and reservations, I believe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), have done the best they could with such an inadequate allocation. I commend them for this bill. I look forward to voting for it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just close by again saying I want to commend the work of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ranking Member Kaptur) for doing the best they could with the low allocation. It is not their fault they had a low allocation. The fault lies with the President and the White House and the leadership of this Congress. I think that during this debate I think we will hear a number of Members question their sense of priorities when, in fact, the need, especially in this area of agriculture, is so great, and yet we do not have the resources to be able to address all those challenges. They have done a good job with not a lot of resources. They deserve to be commended. We have no problem with this rule, and I would urge adoption of the rule, and I also will vote for this bill and hope that in conference that Members will be able to get the allocation up to a more reasonable level. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.