Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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, reclaiming my time, I guess that answer means, no, we do not have assurance from the other body that they will move on this; and, no, we cannot give assurances to the family farmers who are watching us here today that in fact the relief that they seek will be enacted anytime soon. My follow-up question will be if the gentleman gets his way and his leadership gets its way and this bill moves forward with the House- passed bankruptcy reform bill attached to it, it goes over to the other body and they decide to filibuster it, is there agreement on how long we are going to wait until we help our family farmers, or will this go on indefinitely?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response; but it is not satisfactory, not only to those of us on this side of the aisle, but to those who may be watching this who are hopeful that we will actually do something of substance and that we will help family farmers looking for relief. Mr. Speaker, the problem here is that we have an opportunity to do something good, to actually help some people; and we are turning this into political theatrics. I think that is unfortunate. I oppose the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's spin; but we passed this bankruptcy reform bill last March, and the other body has not moved on our version because they have some problems with it. If I am interpreting the statements in the press from the other body correctly, there are Members who will filibuster this. For the bill to move forward in the face of the filibuster, the other body needs to muster 60 votes, which I am told from reliable sources they do not have. That is why I ask the question if those on the gentleman's side of the aisle know something that we do not know. If those press accounts are true, what we are doing here is not helping small family farmers, we are just going through the motions. This is a big waste of time for everybody. My suggestion would be that we should move forward with relief for family farmers. We know that will pass here easily and will pass the other body swiftly. We could send it to the President today and we have done something good rather than engage in this type of politics.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, if I can restate one of the frustrations that many of us on this side of the aisle have, we are all very concerned about our small family farmers, and we are worried that the relief they seek will be delayed indefinitely because this new version of the bill, which includes the very controversial and, in my opinion, flawed bankruptcy overhaul bill which this House passed, will go nowhere in the other body, and this is all show business that we are doing here right now. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman or any Member on the other side of the aisle, given the fact that the Republicans control the House and the Senate, has Republican leadership here in the House been given assurances by the Republican leadership in the other body that they have the necessary votes to move this conference forward? I am looking for an assurance or an answer to that question.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003, as well as the rule providing for its consideration. As the majority member of the committee previously mentioned, the underlying legislation will provide NASA with greater personnel management flexibilities to provide bonuses, hiring and other management tools in order to enhance the agency's ability to recruit and retain qualified employees. I have always been a friend and supporter of NASA and the U.S. program. I, like so many other Americans, have relished in the Earth- shaking rumbling of powerful shuttle engines launched from the Kennedy Space Center. The instant illumination of the night sky still sends a rush of excitement throughout the United States. Children and adults alike dream of the day when they will have an opportunity to see our Earth from beyond its atmosphere. The U.S. space program has done so much for Americans, not just inspiring and educating us on space exploration, but constantly improving our quality of life. The returns on those investments are accrued all around us. Technologies of NASA's space program have had and continue to have a profound effect on the U.S. and its people. Many products utilized in our homes and workplaces and used for health, fitness and recreation are the direct result of space technology spin- offs. It is important for Congress to be aware of the issues facing NASA when it comes to hiring and retaining the best and brightest minds of the scientific community. NASA's workforce differs significantly from other Federal agencies in that more than 60 percent of its makeup is scientists and engineers. These statistics place NASA in a difficult position as the number of graduates in the physical sciences, both under- and post-graduate, continues to decrease. The NASA Workforce Flexibility Act allows NASA to suit up and engage in the fierce competition with the private sector for the most qualified candidates, thus allowing it to become more competitive in recruiting and retaining the kind of workforce NASA will need in the 21st century. But while NASA suits up, so must Congress. We must provide guidance to this important Federal agency to ensure that it is recruiting and signing up the most qualified candidates from all colleges, universities and the private sector. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), offered an amendment to the underlying bill in committee that would have reinstated the Minority University and Research Programs as a division after NASA demoted it to program status. The amendment was, unfortunately, defeated. While I have been told that this program has not been stripped of any of its abilities to carry out its mission, I certainly hope that the defeat of this amendment is not the beginning of a striptease. NASA scholarship opportunities should be equally distributed among institutions of higher education, including minority-serving institutions. Programs such as the one the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) sought to reinstate provide the necessary outreach needed to bring the most qualified and diverse candidates to the table. Mr. Speaker, despite the progress that has been made, it is critical that we continue to move forward in diversifying the workplace. Lags have been particularly visible for minorities in the math and physical sciences. Democrats stand united and prepared to work with the majority to further ensure that Federal agencies, NASA included, are held accountable for their recruiting and hiring practices. Agencies must not only make good-faith efforts to recruit, employ, train, promote and retain members of underrepresented groups, but they must also show us results. Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the members of the Committee on Science, in particular the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), for their incredible work. I also want to thank the members of the Committee on Government Reform, particularly the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for all of their good work. As I mentioned previously, I support the underlying legislation and I will not oppose the rule. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on December 11, 102 Members of Congress sent a bipartisan letter to President Bush asking him to restore the original funding level for the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education Program when he submits his fiscal year 2005 budget next week. The McGovern-Dole program began as a $300 million pilot program in 2001. It provided at least one nutritious meal each day to nearly 7 million children in 38 countries. The catch? These children had to attend school in order to get the meals. Providing food to malnourished children in schools is one of the most effective strategies to fight hunger and poverty. Where 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. The McGovern-Dole program helps us to achieve many of our foreign policy goals and communicates America's compassion to those around the world. And at the end of the day, it will be programs like McGovern- Dole that will ultimately triumph over poverty and terror. One year ago, in February 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture evaluated this program, and the conclusions were overwhelmingly positive. In addition to significantly reducing the incidence of hunger among school-age children, the program was also found to promote educational opportunity, especially for girls, among some of the poorest populations in the world. Sadly, in fiscal year 2003, McGovern-Dole received only $100 million in funding, reducing the number of children served to scarcely more than 2 million worldwide in just 28 countries. In fiscal year 2004, President Bush only asked for $50 million, and acting under severe budget constraints, this is what Congress provided. In brief, for fiscal year 2004, the United States will literally be taking food out of the mouths of yet another 1 million hungry children and forcing many of their families to remove them from school. The senior Senator from Kansas and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, has stated on a number of occasions his belief that 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 are fed in settings where they receive a quality education rather than hate-filled indoctrination. But rather than expanding this program to reach even more school-age children, to help stabilize communities devastated by HIV/AIDS, and to support HIV/AIDS orphans so that they might contribute to the future of their nations rather than burden them, we cut this program once again. On November 26, the United Nations 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. Yet over the past 3 years, we have cut funding for the McGovern-Dole school feeding program so that it is now one-sixth of what it once was. This means that 84 out of every 100 children we were feeding and schooling under this program in 2001 have been cut off from this food source. They now either go to school hungry or have once again dropped out of school. Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace, plain and simple. Mr. Speaker, we are going in the wrong direction, not just for the children of the world, but for the security of our Nation. If as a nation we are committed to defeating terrorism, then we must increase and fully fund programs like McGovern-Dole, along with other food aid and development programs. If as a nation we are committed to addressing hunger, poverty, illiteracy, and ignorance, then we must increase and restore full funding to the McGovern-Dole program and our other food aid and development programs. And if we, as a nation, are committed to helping educate the children of the world, especially girls, then we must increase and restore full funding to the McGovern-Dole program. Mr. Speaker, I call on President Bush and the congressional leadership to restore full funding in fiscal year 2005 to the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education Program. It is truly a matter of life or death. 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 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 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. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Carol Brill, Ph.D., an exceptional woman who is retiring after serving as Executive Director of the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) for 32 years. I am proud of Dr. Brill's many accomplishments and would like to recognize her contribution to the field of social work and her community. The overall mission of the Massachusetts Chapter of NASW, the professional organization in the field of social work, is to provide human rights, social and economic justice, and unimpeded access to services for everyone. Under Dr. Brill's leadership, the membership of the Massachusetts Chapter grew from 1,800 individuals to 8,200, its budget increased, and it established regional councils. Additionally, the Massachusetts chapter was the first in the nation to start a committee on Ethnic and Racial Affairs and a committee on lesbian/gay/bi-sexual/transgender issues. The Massachusetts Chapter was also the first to launch a Social Work Therapy Referral Service, a free clinical consultation service, and a member-to-member supervision program. Dr. Brill's belief in the importance of social workers' active involvement in civic affairs led to the growth of social work's visibility in the advocacy world, the State Legislature, and the State administration. Dr. Brill was a founder of the Massachusetts Human Services Coalition, a major advocacy organization for more funding for human services, and she currently serves as its vice president. Dr. Brill also serves as treasurer of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, an organization which fights for fairer taxation in Massachusetts, and is co-chair of the Committee to Save the Department of Social Services and Our Children. Dr. Brill's expertise in social work ethics made her a national expert on the subject. She has been a keynote presenter, workshop leader, or panelist around the country. Dr. Brill has also provided consultation and organized in-service training courses on a variety of issues for several agencies in New England such as the Salvation Army and the Boston Public Schools. Dr. Brill's commitment to the field of social work and the people of Massachusetts has been remarkable. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the entire House of Representatives joins me in congratulating Dr. Brill for all that she has accomplished and in wishing her the best during retirement.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night in his State of the Union address to the Nation, President Bush attempted to deride critics who have called upon him to broaden the coalition and internationalize the effort to provide security to Iraq and rebuild that war-torn nation. The President said, ``This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain.'' And then he named 15 other countries and cited 17 others. I respect the contributions that these other nations have made in Iraq, some of which like Spain, Italy and Japan have also lost sons to the war in Iraq. But let us not be disingenuous on the subject of our allies in Iraq. With the exception of the United Kingdom, none are engaged in the arduous combat-related work that confronts the 130,000 American troops in Iraq who have endured over 500 dead and thousands of wounded among their ranks. And none carry the financial burden that the American taxpayer provides for the security of Iraq. President Bush should not trivialize the need to create a genuine international coalition capable of sharing the burdens of building a safe, secure and democratic Iraq. I would like to have heard President Bush talk about how the United States needs the help, support and expertise of the United Nations, which has also paid in blood for our Iraq policy to ensure that the democracy-building and election process in Iraq are inclusive and successful. I would have liked to have heard President Bush talk about how the international community could help in the prosecution of Saddam Hussein so that his trial has credibility both inside and outside Iraq. I would have liked to have heard just one word from President Bush that indicates that he gets it, that he understands the United States must work with allies, NATO and the United Nations in order to secure the manpower and money necessary for a secure and stable Iraq. Certainly those of us concerned about the resources of our Federal budget understand this as we prepare to receive another supplemental spending request for at least $50 billion sometime later this year. That is $50 billion in addition to the more than $120 billion we have already spent so far on Iraq over the last year. And, most of all, our troops on the ground understand this, including the members and families of our National Guard and Reserves who have served so valiantly, despite open-ended deployments and equipment shortages. But President Bush simply does not get it and last night he outlined how he will stay on the same go-it-alone course that has so alienated the rest of the world, diminished the credibility of U.S. foreign policy and intelligence, undermined international institutions, and left us resented rather than respected. I do not believe the United States needs a permission slip to act when our security is genuinely threatened, but we now know that with Iraq, our security was never in imminent danger. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Instead, last night the President talked about ``weapons of mass destruction-related program activities,'' whatever that means. There were no ties to Osama bin Laden, whose name the President never even mentioned last night. There was only a driving hunger to overthrow the Iraqi regime from the moment this administration entered the White House. The unilateral and arrogant way in which the Bush administration has handled the Iraq war and its aftermath has resulted in a U.S. occupation that has cost us dearly in terms of human life and precious resources. It would have been nice if the President had even acknowledged last night the 500 American soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in Iraq and the thousands more who have been wounded. Mr. Speaker, the exaggeration and the manipulation of intelligence and our changing rationales for our involvement have diminished the credibility and standing of the United States around the globe in ways that I truly believe undermine our security. Now we have a moral obligation to rebuild Iraq and to safeguard the Iraqi people, and we can only do that successfully with the help and support of the United Nations and the broader international community. It would have been nice if President Bush had taken just a few seconds in an hour-long speech to acknowledge that reality last night. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 19, 2004] Arms Issue Seen as Hurting U.S. Credibility Abroad (By Glenn Kessler) The Bush administration's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq--after public statements declaring an imminent threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein--has begun to harm the credibility abroad of the United States and of American intelligence, according to foreign policy experts in both parties. In last year's State of the Union address, President Bush used stark imagery to make the case that military action was necessary. Among other claims, Bush said that Hussein had enough anthrax to ``kill several million people,'' enough botulinum toxin to ``subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure'' and enough chemical agents to ``kill untold thousands.'' Now, as the president prepared for this State of the Union address Tuesday, those frightening images of death and destruction have been replaced by a different reality: Few of the many claims made by the administration have been confirmed after months of searching by weapons inspectors. Within the United States, Bush does not appear to have suffered much political damage from the failure to find weapons, with polls showing high ratings for his handling of the war and little concern that he misrepresented the threat. But a range of foreign policy experts, including supporters of the war, said the long-term consequences of the administration's rhetoric could be severe overseas-- especially because the war was waged without the backing of the United Nations and was opposed by large majorities, even in countries run by leaders that supported the invasion. ``The foreign policy blow-back is pretty serious,'' said Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Board and a supporter of the war. He said the gaps between the administration's rhetoric and the postwar findings threaten Bush's doctrine of ``preemption,'' which envisions attacking a nation because it is an imminent threat. The doctrine ``rests not just on solid intelligence,'' Adelman said, but ``also on the credibility that the intelligence is solid.'' Already, in the crisis over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, China has rejected U.S. intelligence that North Korea has a secret program to enrich uranium for use in weapons. China is a key player in resolving the North Korean standoff, but its refusal to embrace the U.S. intelligence has disappointed U.S. official and could complicate negotiations to eliminate North Korea's weapons programs. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the same problem could occur if the United States presses for action against alleged weapons programs in Iran and Syria. The solution, he said, is to let international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency take the lead in making the case, as has happened thus far in Iran, and also to be willing to share more of the intelligence with other countries. The inability to find suspected weapons ``has to make it more difficult on some future occasion if the United States argues the intelligence warrants something controversial, like a preventive attack,'' said Haass, a Republican who was head of policy planning for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell when the war started. ``The result is we've made the bar higher for ourselves and we have to expect greater skepticism in the future.'' James Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration who believed there were legitimate concerns about Iraq's weapons programs, said the failure of the prewar claims to match the postwar reality ``add to the general sense of criticism about the U.S., that we will do anything, say anything'' to prevail. Indeed, whenever Powell grants interviews to foreign news organizations, he is often hit with a question about the search for weapons of mass destruction. Last Friday, a British TV reporter asked whether in retirement he would ``admit that you had concerns about invading Iraq,'' and a Dutch reporter asked whether he ever had doubts about the Iraq policy. ``There's no doubt in my mind that he had the intention, he had the capability,'' Powell responded. ``How many weapons he had or didn't have, that will be determined.'' Some on Capitol Hill believe the issue is so important that they are pressing the president to address the apparent intelligence failure in the State of the Union address and propose ways to fix it. ``I believe that unanswered questions regarding the accuracy and reliability of U.S. intelligence have created a credibility gap and left the nation in a precarious position,'' Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a speech last week. ``The intelligence community seems to be in a state of denial, and the administration seems to have moved on.'' Since last year's State of the Union, the White House has established procedures for handling intelligence in presidential speeches by including a CIA officer in the speechwriting process. The CIA is also conducting an internal review, comparing prewar estimates with postwar findings, and the final report will be finished after inspectors in Iraq complete their work. But Bush and his aides have largely sought to divert attention from the issue. White House aides have said they expect this year's State of the Union speech to look ahead-- to the democracy the administration hopes to establish in Iraq--rather than look back. Officials also have turned the focus to celebrating Hussein's capture last month and repeatedly drawing attention to Hussein's mistreatment of his people. Officials have argued that if Iraq's stocks of weapons are still unclear, Hussein's intentions to again possess such weapons are not. Thirteen years ago, when the United States was a backer of Hussein, Iraq used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. The administration ``rid the Iraqi people of a murderous dictator, and rid the world of a menace to our future peace and security,'' Vice President Cheney said in a speech last week. Cheney--and other U.S. officials--increasingly point to Libya's decision last month to give up its weapons of mass destruction as a direct consequence of challenging Iraq. Bush, when asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer why he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when intelligence pointed more to the possibility Hussein would obtain such weapons, dismissed the question: ``So, what's the difference?'' The U.S. team searching for Iraq's weapons has not issued a report since October, but in recent weeks the gap between administration claims and Iraq's actual weapons holdings has become increasingly clear. The Washington Post reported earlier this month that U.S. investigators have found no evidence that Iraq had a hidden cache of old chemical or biological weapons, and that its nuclear program had been shattered after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A lengthy study issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also concluded the administration shifted the intelligence consensus on Iraq's weapons in 2002 as officials prepared for war, making it appear more imminent and threatening than was warranted by the evidence. The report further said that the administration ``systematically misrepresented the threat'' posed by Iraq, often on purpose, in four ways: one, treating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as a single threat, although each posed different dangers and evidence was particularly thin on Iraq's nuclear and chemical programs; two, insisting without evidence that Hussein would give his weapons to terrorists; three, often dropping caveats and uncertainties contained in the intelligence assessments when making public statements; and four, misrepresenting inspectors' findings so that minor threats were depicted as emergencies. Jessica T. Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment and co-author of the report, pointed to one example in a speech delivered by Bush in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002. U.N. inspectors had noted that Iraq had failed to account for bacterial growth media that, if used, ``could have produced about three times as much'' anthrax as Iraq had admitted. But Bush, in his speech, turned a theoretical possibility into a fact. ``The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount,'' Bush said. ``This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and is capable of killing millions.'' Mathews said her research showed the administration repeatedly and frequently took such liberties with the intelligence and inspectors' findings to bolster its cases for immediate action. In the Cincinnati example, ``in 35 words, you go from probably to a likelihood to a fact,'' she said. ``With a few little changes in wording, you turn an `if' into a dire biological weapons stockpile. Anyone hearing that must be thinking, `My God, this is an imminent threat.' '' Steinberg, who was privy to the intelligence before President Bill Clinton left office, said that while at the National Security Council he saw no evidence Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, but that there were unresolved questions about Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs. ``Given his reluctance to address these questions, you had to conclude he was hiding something,'' he said, adding that given the intelligence he saw, ``I certainly expected something would have turned up.'' ``I think there are [diplomatic] consequences as a result of the president asking these questions [about Iraq's weapons holdings] and the answer being no'' weapons, said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, who believes the ouster of Hussein justified the war. ``The intelligence could have been better.'' Richard Perle, another member of the Defense Advisory Board, said the criticism of the Bush administration is unfair. ``Intelligence is not an audit,'' he said. ``It's the best information you can get in circumstances of uncertainty, and you use it to make the best prudent judgment you can.'' He added that presidents in particular tend not to place qualifiers on their statements, especially when they are advocating a particular policy. ``Public officials tend to avoid hedging,'' he said. Given the stakes involved--going to war--Mathews said the standards must be higher for such statements. ``The most important call a president can make by a mile is whether to take a country to war,'' she argued, making the consequences of unwise decisions or misleading statements even greater. Indeed, she said, the reverberations are still being felt, even as the administration tries to put the problem behind it. A recent CBS poll found that only 16 percent of those surveyed believed the administration lied about Iraq's weapons. But she said there is intense interest in the report's findings, with 35,000 copies downloaded from the think tank's Web site in just five days. ``It is too soon to say there was no cost'' to the failure to find weapons, she said. ``I think there is a huge appetite for learning about this.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to talk about one small program in the omnibus appropriations bill which I believe is a reflection of America's commitment to defeat terrorism, or rather its lack of commitment. It is a reflection of America's commitment to address hunger, poverty, illiteracy and ignorance; or rather, its lack of commitment; and that reflects America's commitment to help educate the children of the world, especially girls; or rather, its lack of commitment. Tucked away inside the agriculture appropriations section of the omnibus bill is $50 million for the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education Program. McGovern-Dole began as a $300 million pilot program in 2001, providing nutritious meals to nearly 7 million children in 38 countries. The catch, these children had to attend school in order to get the meals. The McGovern-Dole program sends wheat from Illinois, Minnesota and Oregon to feed children at schools in Bolivia and Lebanon. It sends corn, milk and soybeans from Kansas and Wisconsin to feed school children in Nicaragua and Guatemala. And it sends lentils from Idaho and Washington to children we have helped return to school in Afghanistan. Beans from Colorado, rice from Texas and Louisiana, cooking oil from Florida and Tennessee, the blood, sweet and tears of America's farmers find their way to children attending humble schools around the world. Providing food to malnourished children in schools is one of the most effective strategies to fight hunger and poverty. Where 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. The McGovern-Dole program helps us achieve many of our foreign policy goals, and communicates America's compassion to those around the world. At the end of the day, it will be programs like McGovern-Dole that will ultimately triumph over poverty and terror. Earlier this year, in February 2003, the United States Department of Agriculture evaluated this program, and the conclusions were overwhelmingly positive. In addition to significantly reducing the incidence of hunger among school-age children, the program was also found to promote educational opportunity, especially for girls, among some of the poorest populations in the world. Sadly, in fiscal year 2003, McGovern-Dole received only $100 million in funding, reducing the number of children served to scarcely more than 2 million world-wide in just 28 countries. In fiscal year 2004, President Bush only asked for $50 million, and if this allocation remains unaltered, the United States will literally be taking food out of the mouths of yet another one million hungry children and forcing their families to remove them from school. The senior Senator from Kansas and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, a leading proponent of the McGovern-Dole program in the other body, has stated on a number of occasions his belief that this 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, rather than hate-filled indoctrination. I could not agree more. But rather than expanding this program to reach even more school-aged children, to help stabilize communities devastated by HIV-AIDS, and to support HIV-AIDS orphans so they might contribute to the future of their nations rather than burden them, we are cutting it again. On November 26, the United Nations 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. Yet over the past 3 years, we have cut funding for the McGovern-Dole school feeding program so it is now one-sixth of what it once was. This is a disgrace, plain and simple. Mr. Speaker, we are going in the wrong direction, not just for the children of the world, but for the security of our own Nation. I call on President Bush and congressional leadership to restore full funding in fiscal year 2005 to the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education Program.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law rule. This rule will allow us to consider a seriously flawed omnibus appropriations bill and nothing else. After today, the House will not come back to work for legislative business until January 20. The time between now and January 20 that Congress will be out of session might not seen seem that important to some, but for hundreds of thousands of Americans it will be a terrible time indeed; that is because their Federal unemployment assistance is due to expire. Mr. Speaker, even with the modest job gains made over the past few months, the U.S. economy has 2.4 million fewer jobs today compared to 2\1/2\ years ago. There are more than 2 million workers who have been unemployed for more than 6 months; and to make a bad situation worse, over 400,000 jobless American will not be eligible for unemployment compensation after the first of the year. Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. Just last week, we saw job numbers that fell well below expectations. And the percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached its highest level on record. Mr. Speaker, jobless Americans need help and they need it now. But while unemployed Americans continue to struggle to find work, this Republican-controlled Congress is preparing to leave town for the year. Like last year, Members of Congress will be free to go home to their families and constituents. Like last year, Members will have a nice holiday. And just like last year, the Republican-controlled Congress is letting unemployment insurance expire during the Christmas season. For hundreds of thousands of Americans, this Republican Congress will be their Grinch who stole Christmas. And I have little hope that Congress's heart will grow any time soon; that is, unless we act today. The facts are clear. It is clear we will not be back in session until late January; and it is clear that during that time, hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans will lose their unemployment insurance. We should not turn our backs on these people and their families in our rush to adjourn. Now, I am sure that there is a bipartisan consensus to extend unemployment benefits. I am sure that if we brought up a bill to do that, a majority would support it; and if not, we could just hold the vote open for 3 hours or 4 hours until a majority appeared. That seems to be the new precedent around here. But the leadership does not want it. And in today's House of Representatives, what the leadership wants, the leadership gets. To heck with democracy. Unemployed Americans deserve better than this. Mr. Speaker, since this may be our last opportunity to speak this year, let me conclude with a few words about the process that has dominated during this session. I have worked in this House for 20 years, both as a staffer and as a Member. Never have I seen so much disregard for the rules, the traditions, and the well-being of this House. We have seen huge pieces of legislation come to this floor for consideration without allowing Members the time to read what they are voting on. We have seen conference reports appear without a conference committee ever having met. We have seen conference committees that meet, but shut Democrats out. We have seen conference reports come to the floor, like the one that we are going to deal with today, that undo the work of the both the full House and Senate. These bills drop provisions that were supported by both bodies and add things that we never voted on. And we have seen rollcall votes held open for hours and hours until the leadership gets the result they want by any means necessary. I am honored to hold the seat on the Committee on Rules that my old boss, Joe Moakley, had; and it saddens me that the Committee on Rules has become a place not to manage debate, but to stifle it. It has been used as a weapon against Members of both parties. I have been approached many times by Republican colleagues expressing their sympathy and their outrage with the action of their Republican leadership, and I appreciate their kind words. But I say to my friends on the other side, I do not need your sympathy. I need your vote. Until Members on the other side stand up to their leadership, stand up for democracy in this House, stand up for the precedents and the traditions of this body, things will get worse, not better. This House is broken. And I urge my colleagues to think long and hard during this holiday season about how we can fix it. Vote no on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this rule which would allow for this House to consider suspension bills today. We are not going to ask for a vote. There is no controversy over this and there is no reason to debate this. But I do want to just take a couple of minutes to alert my colleagues to something that I think is quite serious, and that is the fact that we probably some time today will consider the so-called Medicare prescription drug bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill, if I understand correctly, was filed at about 1:20 a.m. this morning and under House rules, Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans, are supposed to have 3 days, 3 days to review any conference report so they can actually read what is in it so that they will know what, in fact, that they are voting on. It is obvious, as has been the case so many times over and over, that the Republican majority is choosing to ignore the rules of this House and it is particularly disturbing that they have chosen to do so once again with regard to a bill that I think is so very important. This is a bill, in my opinion, that is going to end Medicare as we know it. It is going to privatize Medicare and is not going to provide our senior citizens with the prescription drug benefits that they expect. But yet we are rushing it to the floor with very little consideration and with almost no opportunity for Members to know what is in it. Mr. Speaker, let me read today the lead paragraph in an editorial that appeared in today's Washington Post. ``Before we say anything else about the Medicare bill that the House-Senate conference committee approved yesterday, it is important to point out that the process by which this bill was created hardly reflects well on our political culture. This is an extremely expensive, 1,100-page bill that will have a profound effect on the Nation's fiscal and physical health and although it was not finished until yesterday afternoon after several months of a largely secret conference, last night House leaders were planning to bring it up for a vote tomorrow. If they do, most Members will have no real idea of what they are voting for or against.'' Now, my colleagues on the other side will say, gee, we are coming up to Thanksgiving and we all need to go home and we need to get everything done before Thanksgiving. Well, most Americans have a couple of days off at Thanksgiving and then they go back to work the following week. There is no reason why this House cannot go to work the following week and do the people's business and do it right. One of the problems with not being able to read bills before they come to the floor is that oftentimes days later, weeks later, sometimes months later we find out that there are little goodies, special interest provisions that are hidden in these bills that are very expensive, that help one particular special interest, but do great harm to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone to have an excuse that they do not know what is in this bill. And there are people on the other side of the aisle who also had requested early on that we have at least 3 days to review this important piece of legislation. I think it is unfortunate that we are moving today on a very important piece of legislation, a bill, as I said before, that in my mind undermines one of the most important and successful social programs in the history of this country, and is being rushed to the floor without giving Members or their staff the opportunity to read the bill or to go home and check with their constituents. In case my colleagues forgot, constituents are the people who elect us. We are supposed to be serving constituents who have elected us to this high office, and I think we are doing a great disservice to those by allowing this Medicare bill to come to the floor without at least respecting the rules. Mr. Speaker, let me finally say if my Republican colleagues want to continue to waive these rules and not report rules, why do they not just repeal all the rules? There is no sense to have rules of this House if they are not going to follow them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas' comments, but he missed the whole point of what I was trying to say. On substance, we will debate that later. This bill is a lousy bill. It privatizes Medicare. It does not provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit that they believe they are going to get, and that they expect and deserve. This is a lousy bill. But what I was talking about was the process. We will talk about the substance later. This process stinks, and the bottom line is that you and the majority continually ignore the rules of this House or waive the rules of this House. The rules are that when you file a conference report, you are supposed to have 3 days to review it. This was filed, this important historical legislation that you talk about, was filed at 1:20 a.m. in the morning. All right. I do not know whether you read the whole thing, but I am going to tell you, most Members on both sides did not. Let me read you a letter that was sent to the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert); to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay), the majority leader; and to the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). Dear gentleman: We write to request that if the conferees on the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 report to the House a conference report, that copies of the text of the conference report, the text of the explanatory statement and the text of the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for the conference report be made available to all Members at least 3 calendar days after filing, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, unless the House is in session on those days, and prior to consideration of the conference report or to any measure reported from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of the conference report. ``The general public will evaluate not only what Congress does regarding Medicare and prescription drugs, but the way in which it does it. A bill proposing such substantive changes to its Medicare system and costing an estimated $400 billion over the next decade deserves the careful and thoughtful consideration of all Members.'' It goes on and on. I will include this letter for the Record, Mr. Speaker. October 29, 2003. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Roy Blunt, Majority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Tom DeLay, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Gentlemen: We write to request that if the Conferees on the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 report to the House a Conference Report, copies of the text of the Conference Report, the text of the explanatory statement, and the text of Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for the Conference report be made available to all Members at least three calendar days after filing (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, unless the House is in session on those days) and prior to consideration of the Conference Report or to any measure reported from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of the Conference Report. The general public will evaluate not only what Congress does regarding Medicare and prescription drugs, but the way in which it does it. A bill proposing such substantive changes to the Medicare system and costing an estimated $400 billion over the next decade deserves the careful and thoughtful consideration of all Members. Allowing Members adequate time to properly evaluate the Conference Report will avoid a needless and difficult internal fight on the Rule, and allow Leadership to concentrate its efforts on final passage of the Conference Report. It will also lead to more public confidence in the legislative process and greater acceptance of that process' final product. Therefore, while some of us are likely to support and others to oppose the Conference Report on H.R. 1, each of us strongly urges you to abide by regular order and provide at least three calendar days for Members to review the Conference Report and materials necessary to properly evaluate the Conference Report. Sincerely, Mr. John Kline, Mr. C. Michael Burgess, Mr. Randy Neugebauer, Mr. Johnny Isakson, Mr. Tom Tancredo, Mr. Dave Weldon, Mr. Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Mr. Donald Manzullo, Mr. Jim Ryun, Mr. Todd Akin, Mr. Gil Gutknecht, Mr. Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Mr. Jeff Flake, Mrs. Sue Myrick, Mr. Jeff Miller, Mr. Phil Crane, Mr. Trent Franks, Mr. Mike Pence, Mrs. Marilyn Musgrave, Mr. Pete Hoekstra, Mr. Joseph R. Pitts, Mr. Scott Garrett, Mr. Tom Feeney, Mr. Kevin Brady, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, Mr. William ``Mac'' Thornberry, Mr. Tim Murphy, Mr. Steve King, Mr. Ron Paul, Mr. Johnson Boozman, Mr. John Culberson, Mr. J. Gresham Barrett, Mr. John Carter, Mr. John N. Hostettler, Mr. Devin Nunes, Mr. J. Randy Forbes, Mr. Mark E. Souder, Mr. Jim DeMint, Mr. Mark Kennedy, Mr. Charlie Norwood, Mr. Chris Chocola. This was signed by 41 Republican Members of this House, and it is clear by the fact that we are moving in the fashion that we are today that not only do you not care that those of us on the Democrat side feel it is important, but you do not even care what your Republican Members think with regard to being able to read this bill. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague from Texas, what I am complaining about right now is the process, and on a bill this important, Members, staff and our constituents deserve to know what is in this bill. Quite frankly, the sound bites and the press releases from the leadership of this House, from the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and others, that does not cut it. We have been there, we have done that before. What we need to do is read the fine print to find out what other special interest goodies are tucked in there for the pharmaceutical industry or the HMOs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas keeps on talking about the Committee on Rules and the action we are about to take, as if something important is going to happen. What is going to happen in the Committee on Rules is we are going to waive all the rules. We are going to waive the rule that says Members have a right to read this bill. So I guess it is historic in the fact that once again we are going to trample on the rights of Members of both parties. I should say to the gentleman from Texas, it is not just Democrats that are complaining about the need to read the bill. I just cited to him a letter that was signed by 41 of some of the most conservative Republicans in this House who said, we should read the bill. One of the reasons why, I suspect, is if you read the Washington Post today, there is a headline, ``Drug Makers Protect Their Turf.'' I will insert this article in the Record. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 21, 2003] Drugmakers Protect Their Turf medicare bill represents success for pharmaceutical lobby (By Ceci Connolly) No industry in negotiations over the $400 billion Medicare prescription drug bill headed to the House floor today outpaced the pharmaceutical lobby in securing a favorable program design and defeating proposals most likely to cut into its profits, according to analysts in and out of the industry. If the legislation passes as Republican leaders predict, it will generate millions of new customers who currently lack drug coverage. At the same time, drug-manufacturing lobbyists overcame efforts to legalize the importation of lower-cost medicines from Canada and Europe and instead inserted language that explicitly prohibits the federal government from negotiating prices on behalf of Medicare recipients. ``It couldn't be clearer there is going to be a positive effect overall,'' said Dan Mendelson, president of Health Strategies Consultancy, which bills itself as a think tank and consulting firm. ``The volume will definitely go up. There will be a lot of people who didn't have coverage before who will have it now and a lot of people getting an upgrade in terms of coverage.'' Democrats and consumer advocates complain that the Republican-crafted compromise does little to contain soaring drug costs. They say that by handing the Medicare drug program's administration to private insurers, Congress missed a chance to exert pressure on pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices. But Republicans and some industry analysts say that adopting a drug-purchasing mechanism similar to those in corporate health plans is the best way to extract discounts from drugmakers. If Medicare negotiated on behalf of its 40 million beneficiaries, ``I wouldn't be negotiating; I'd just be fixing the price,'' said Thomas Scully, the program's administrator. ``Let's get seniors organized into big purchasing pools and get bulk discounts and see how they fare.'' Representatives of the industry's main lobbying arm, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), declined yesterday to discuss the legislation. But the clearest indication that the bill offers a brighter future for the industry came from Wall Street, where pharmaceutical stock prices have steadily risen over the past week as the legislation's prospects for passage improved. Analysts at Goldman Sachs & Co. project the new Medicare benefit could increase industry revenue by 9 percent, or about $13 billion a year. After objecting for years to proposals to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare, the pharmaceutical lobby recently shifted positions and poured enormous resources into shaping the legislation. Since the 2000 election cycle, the industry has contributed $60 million in political donations and spent $37.7 million in lobbying in the first six months of this year. The lobbying continued in earnest this week with a television and print advertising campaign urging passage of the bill. In one series of witty commercials sponsored by the industry-backed Alliance to Improve Medicare, elderly citizens look into the camera and demand: ``When ya gonna get it done?'' One Republican with ties to the industry said drugmakers eluded the three things they feared most: legalized importation of lower-cost medicines, many of them patented or made in the United States; government price controls; and easier market access for generic drugs that cost considerably less than brand-name drugs. ``In their view, by improving access for all seniors, we will ameliorate any pressure on the industry toward price controls or reimportation,'' the source said. About 24 percent of Medicare beneficiaries--nearly 10 million senior citizens--do not have any prescription benefits. some of them buy medicine at the highest retail prices. Academic studies and anecdotal evidence suggest, however, they many go without prescription medicines and would become new customers for drugmakers if the bill becomes law. The remaining 30 million Medicare recipients but some supplemental drug coverage, according to the most recent government figures. Even those with some drug coverage are expected to spend more with the new benefit, said Fredric E. Russell, whose investment management company owns several drug stocks. Whenever a new health benefit is offered, he said, patients and doctors jump at the chance to take advantage of it. Under the bill, beginning in 2006, all Medicare beneficiaries would have the option of buying a drug plan for about $35 a month, plus a $275 annual deductible. Insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) would administer the programs for the government. The great unknown is what sort of prices those insurers will ultimately negotiate on behalf of their Medicare clients, said Kristine Bryan, senior health care analyst at Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. ``Generally, when you have a large purchaser, you have the ability to demand better pricing,'' she said. Republican congressional staffers also point out that because the bill waives a requirement that state Medicaid programs receive the ``best price'' available, the new private insurers could save Medicare $18 billion. It would, however, likely increase states' drug costs. Many Democrats say private purchases have not been as successful at bargaining as have government programs such as the Veterans Administration and Medicaid, which secure some of the steepest drug discounts available. ``We've been going through PBMs for 10 years and nothing's happened except the price of drugs has gone up,'' said Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, a physician. Perhaps the most striking political victory for the pharmaceutical industry was the decision to reject provisions that would have allowed Americans to legally import drugs from Canada and Europe, where medications retail for as much as 75 percent less than in the United States. Polls show that an overwhelming majority supports the change, and the House approved the provision, 243 to 186. But the Bush administration and pharmaceutical lobby said the move was dangerous and would cut into future research and development. The provision was dropped from the bill's final version. Mr. Speaker, it talks about all the special sweetheart deals that are in this bill for the pharmaceutical industry. I do not know whether the gentleman was aware of all these little deals that were cut. I suspected they were there, but now I want to find out who is getting what and how much. I want to connect all the dots here. That is why we want to read the bill. So, again, what we are saying here is not anything radical, quite frankly. We are saying follow the House rules. We have rules of this House. If you do not want to follow the House rules, if you keep on ignoring them, then do away with the rules. Do not have any rules. But we do have rules to protect not only the rights of the minority, but your Members, so they know what you are voting on. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Texas, he knows very well what is going on here. The administration already decided they are not going to allow citizens to be able to get their drugs from Canada, even though they are cheaper. They already made their decision. What we have in this bill basically is to protect the status quo, which means our senior citizens get gouged and gouged and gouged and gouged. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just conclude by saying that on the substance of the bill that we are talking about, the Medicare prescription drug bill, there is a fundamental disagreement between me and some of my friends on the other side of the aisle because to me protecting Medicare is nonnegotiable. I think we are going down a very dangerous road here with this bill. But what my frustration is at this particular moment is that we are going down that road when most Members of this House have no idea exactly what is in this bill. We get little bits and pieces and some of what we are finding out, quite frankly, I think most Americans do not like, little special interest deals for pharmaceutical companies, for HMOs, a not-so-generous prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, something that does not kick in for another 2 years. I think the American people and the Members of this Congress deserve having all of us go into this with our eyes wide open. I read to you before, I say to my colleague from Texas, a letter signed by 41 of some of the most conservative Republicans in this House who asked your leadership, made one simple request of your leadership, and that is that they respect the rules of this House and give them and the entire House 3 days to review the contents of this bill. That is not too much to ask for. I think people on both sides of the aisle, even those who are going to support this bill, want to know exactly what is in it. They do not. The fact of the matter is we are about to go up to the Committee on Rules, we are going to waive all the rules, disregard them once again as has become a habit in this place, and I think it is sad, especially on a bill this important. Our constituents deserve better. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that maybe between the time the gentleman from Texas and I leave the House floor to go up to the Committee on Rules that there might be a change of mind and the leadership might actually respect the rules of this House, but I doubt it. Having said that, I think it is unfortunate. I think the losers are the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is one of the most important successful social programs in the history of this country. For nearly 40 years, Medicare has been a lifeline for our senior citizens. I certainly do not argue that Medicare is perfect. Thanks to extraordinary advances in medical science, it is clear that Medicare needs a real prescription drug benefit. The program should be strengthened so that future generations have access to high quality, affordable health care, but I believe that Medicare is a sacred trust between the United States government and the seniors of this country. The Republican majority in this House clearly does not believe what I believe, because if they did, this bill would not be before us. This is a bill that fails to give seniors the drug benefit they need and deserve and expect. This bill forces millions of seniors to pay more for their prescription drugs. This bill is a huge give-away to the HMOs and the drug companies. This bill does nothing to control the exploding costs of medicine. And worst of all, this bill shoves Medicare down the path to privatization. It ends Medicare as we know it. This is a defining issue. You can put all the bells and whistles and spin on it that you want. You can add a little money here or a tweak there to buy off a few interest groups or to make the bill more appealing to certain geographic areas. You can try to claw your way to a majority vote, and you might succeed. But your success will not mask the fact that this bill is bad for senior citizens. So much of what people think is good about the Federal Government the supporters of this bill are ripping apart. And let me say just a word, actually two words, about the processing used here. It is lousy. No one has had the time to properly review this. There are rules of this House, and we should follow them, especially with regard to giving Members of both parties the chance to actually see what they are voting on. But the Committee on Rules, once again, decided that the rules of this House do not matter. Maybe we should rename it the ``Break the Rules Committee.'' I guarantee you that for weeks to come we will be discovering lots of goods for special interests tucked into the dark corners of this legislation. The leadership of this House is more concerned with doing this bill fast than doing it right. If we take our time and do this right, it would give every Member the chance to read the fine print. Unless, of course, that is exactly what scares the leadership most. Now, I have heard the argument out there that, well, this bill is not perfect. It is not even very good, but we have to pass something. Mr. Speaker, not if that something is a windfall for HMOs and drug companies. Not if that something is the privatization and dismantling of Medicare. Not if that something is a sound bite rather than a meaningful drug benefit. There is a fundamental disagreement here because, to me, protecting Medicare is non-negotiable. If I voted for this bill I could not look at the people who sent me here and claim that I was representing their interests. I believe our seniors deserve a defined, guaranteed, affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare and that is what I am for. This bill does not even come close. Vote no on the rule. Vote no on the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in honoring Sargent Shriver for his years of outstanding service to our country. As a lawyer, government administrator, ambassador, and passionate spokesman for the poor, Mr. Shriver has devoted his life to the most vulnerable among us. Sargent Shriver is perhaps best known as the founder and first administrator of President John F. Kennedy's Peace Corps. In that position, Mr. Shriver organized Peace Corps operations in more than 50 countries in the developing world. After founding the Peace Corps, Mr. Shriver dedicated himself to President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Within the Great Society, Mr. Shriver founded Head Start; he created the Job Corps; he organized Legal Services; and he created Volunteers in Service to America. In time, Mr. Shriver's service to our country took on a diplomatic perspective when he went to Paris as our ambassador to France under both President Johnson and President Richard M. Nixon. Upon his return from Paris, Mr. Shriver threw himself into Democratic politics. During the 1970 election, he traveled the country on behalf of Democratic House and Senate candidates. And then in 1972 he was the Democratic nominee for vice president joining the ticket with my good friend George McGovern. In 1976, Mr. Shriver ran in the Democratic presidential primaries. Mr. Speaker, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Mr. Shriver devoted himself to philanthropic causes. Among other things, he served on the Rockefeller University Council; he was elected president of the Special Olympics; he was later appointed Chairman of the Board of Special Olympics, Inc. Mr. Shriver went on to receive numerous awards and honorary degrees from colleges and universities. Mr. Speaker, this summer I had the opportunity to see and talk with Sargent Shriver in Massachusetts. He shared with me his dreams of a peaceful world and his hopes for a brighter future. And he looks great. Mr. Speaker, as we honor Mr. Shriver today, I believe it is important that we reflect on his life of service to our country and how we can learn from him. In a letter he composed about his fight with Alzheimer's disease, he wrote of the challenges we face as a country ``to search for the pathways to peace . . . to overcome the horrors of poverty and neglect in this country and around the world. Indeed, Mr. Shriver's words should guide us each day. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in honoring Mr. Shriver for his decades of selfless service to our country and the world community.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this Conference Report. While I have continuing problems with the process of how this bill was negotiated, excluding the participation of most Democratic- appointed conferees, and how no time has been allowed for Members of this body to review the final version of the bill on which we are voting this morning, it is not for reasons of process that I oppose this bill. I oppose this bill because it does not do right by our disabled veterans; it does not do right by the hard-working, faithful, and patriotic civilian workforce of the U.S. Department of Defense; and it does not do right by our commitment--including the declarations of our current president--to halt the global proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, first I would like to summarize several of the items in this bill that I strongly support and for which I have fought for many years. I support the extension of TRICARE for non-deployed National Guard and Reservists and their families. Under current law and Pentagon policy, reservists become eligible for TRICARE, the Defense Department's health care system, once they are on active duty. This conference report will ensure that TRICARE is provided to those Guard and Reservists who lack coverage or who are not eligible for coverage offered by an employer. Guard and Reservists will be required to pay 28 percent of TRICARE premium and can stay in the program for one month before and six months after mobilization. This program is authorized for one year, until September 30, 2004, but I will continue to fight to ensure these changes become permanent. I also support the provision in this conference report to allow lawful permanent resident military members to achieve naturalized citizenship after serving honorably for one year in the regular components of the military and our Ready Reserves. It also allows non- citizen spouses, unmarried children, and parents of citizens and non- citizens serving in the U.S. military who are killed as a result of such service, to file or preserve their application for lawful permanent residence. This provision does not provide any benefits if family members are out of status or are illegal aliens. I support the increases in Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance. The higher rates authorized in this bill will be $225 per month for hazardous duty pay and $250 for family separation allowance. These higher rates will be provided to all eligible military members, not just those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly support the 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel and the targeted increases for mid-grade and senior non- commissioned officers and mid-grade officers. I also strongly support the increased authorizations for the equipment, supplies, logistical support so badly needed by our deployed military personnel and those in training, as well as the increases in research, development, testing and evaluation of new equipment and materials that will be required for an effective and modern fighting force. Our uniformed men and women deserve the very best equipment to carry out their duties and missions, and I believe this bill helps provide them with these materials. Unfortunately, I cannot support a bill that will still leave two out of every three disabled veterans subject to the so-called Disabled Veterans Tax. This conference report includes a plan to provide concurrent receipt of military retirement and Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits to military retirees with disability ratings of 50 percent or high that would be phased in over the next ten years. According to a report released by Veterans Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lane Evans, a veteran himself of the Vietnam War, the plan authorized in this bill will help only 160,000 of the approximately 560,000 disabled military retirees that are subject to the tax. To be eligible for relief, retirees must have 20 years of service and disability ratings of 50 percent or above. As is already provided for in current law, veterans who meet the criteria for a combat-related disability, popularly known as ``Purple Hearts Plus,'' will receive full disability and retirement benefits, if they have twenty years or more of service. I believe that the Conference Report should have included the provisions of H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003, which I and the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives attempted to bring to the House floor for action earlier this year. It would cover all of our disabled veterans, not just one out of three. Three days from now we will remember our veterans and celebrate Veterans Day. I cannot do this in good conscience if I support legislation in which two-thirds of retired veterans who have service-related disabilities will be left behind and will be required to continue to pay tax on their disability. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report that scraps existing civil service laws and protections for the more than 746,000 civilian employees whose daily work and sacrifices ensures the effective running of the U.S. Department of Defense. This Conference Report removes all collective bargaining protections contained in current law; it removes all basic due process protections for employees; it strips Defense Department employees of basic appeal rights; and it removes the requirement that Defense Department employees receive additional pay for working overtime, working on holidays or weekends, or working in jobs involving unusual physical hardship or hazards. Mr. Speaker, this is simply wrong. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Conference Report on H.R. 1588 because it lifts the ban on research and development of a new generation of so-called low-yield nuclear weapons that was first enacted in 1989 during the Administration of President George H.W. Bush. This new program will allow the United States to pursue a new generation of nuclear weapons of a type most likely to be used in battle, which I fear may lead to a new nuclear arms race on a global scale. I also have other grave concerns regarding this bill, such as the weakening of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which I do not have time to go into this morning. I regret that I must vote in opposition to this very important bill, but I simply cannot short-change our disabled veterans, the Defense Department workers, and the very security of our nation and the world from nuclear attack.