Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my respect for both the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their work on H.R. 2555, the conference report on fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations. I think it is important that we raise some of the questions that we are hearing from our constituents back home and from the people who are operating security at some of our airports. I think that the questions that were raised by my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are appropriate, but those are the same issues that are raised to us when we tour some of the airports in our districts and in our States. But I want to add my voice to the growing concern that a number of people have, that the Federal Government is cutting back dramatically on our commitment to our Nation's airports at a very critically important time. Just now the American traveling public is beginning to regain confidence in flying since the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, and we must continue to reward that confidence by funding the necessary number of baggage screeners at our Nation's airports. Earlier this week I had the privilege to tour Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, with the CEO of the Massachusetts Port Authority, the airport operator and the airport's Federal security director. Regrettably, Logan is remembered by many as the airport from which both planes that hit the World Trade Center Towers were hijacked. What is not as well known is that no other airport in the country has moved more quickly and aggressively to address passenger security than Logan. Massport and the TSA at Logan enjoy a tremendous cooperative relationship reinforced by daily meetings 7 days a week. Logan has the Nation's only fully automated 100 percent bag screening system at a major airport, and unlike airline hub airports where many passengers are connecting from one gate to another and never pass a security checkpoint or have their luggage screened, 90 percent of Logan's departing passengers will go through a checkpoint, and most of those will check at least one bag. Despite these challenges, the screeners at Logan have done a tremendous job in protecting the 11 million passengers that depart that airport every year. These screeners do an incredible job. It is hard work. These people who work to screen baggage and do other things to enhance the security at that airport do tremendous work. And they do not get the gratitude, quite frankly, they deserve. The TSA at Logan will never compromise safety, but their staffing levels at Logan have been steadily decreasing this year, and this inevitably will result in longer lines at checkpoints and delays. At a time when we are trying to help the commercial airline industry do better, it seems to me that we need to be sensitive to the fact that without proper staffing we will see longer and longer lines. There are currently 100 fewer screeners at Logan than when the Federal Government took over. That is unimaginable. We cannot continue to bail out airlines without first meeting our commitment to our Nation's airports. This whole procedure, this conference report, began with providing 56,000 screeners. Then it went to 49,000, and now this bill caps screeners at 45,000. With all due respect to the great work that the chairman and others have done, I think we need to do better, and I hope that at some point in this process we will find a way to do that. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the passage of H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, and want to begin by thanking and congratulating my colleagues, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) on the Subcommittee of Water Resources and Environment for their hard work on this legislation. This bill is the result of thoughtful bipartisan cooperation which is clearly evident in the final product. These colleagues and the committee staff deserve a tremendous amount of credit for tackling some difficult issues in this legislation, not the least of which is the reform of the Army Corps of Engineers project review process. H.R. 2557 reauthorizes the 1986 Water Resources Development Act for the Civil Works Program for the Army Corps of Engineers. The bill authorizes funding for a number of vitally important water resource development programs, studies and projects all across this country. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the total outlays authorized by the bill for 2004 to 2008 to be $2.6 billion, with an additional $2.1 billion over the 10 years after fiscal year 2008. CBO also estimates that the Water Resources Development Act of 2003 will increase direct spending by $17 million over the period of fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008. Mr. Speaker, the Army Corps of Engineers is a unique Federal agency in that it performs a broad range of both military and civilian duties. The Corps' civilian duties have traditionally included the construction and maintenance of passable channels and flood control. However, Congress expanded these responsibilities in the early 1990s to add beach erosion control, ecosystem protection, disaster relief, and other activities to their charge. Today the Corps maintains more than 11,000 miles of channels for commercial navigation, 300 deep commercial harbors and 600 shallow inland harbors. The Corps also manages 33 major lakes and reservoirs and 8,500 miles of levees for flood control. Perhaps lesser known, but equally as important, is the fact that there are 75 hydropower plants at Army Corps facilities that are responsible for producing approximately one-quarter of the Nation's electricity. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Massachusetts is a State with an abundance of navigable rivers, harbors, lakes and coastline, and I am especially grateful for the work performed by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, I believe the reforms to the Corps' project review and approval process adopted in this bill are not only necessary, but will serve to strengthen the Corps' capabilities. By establishing an independent peer review system under the direction of the National Academy of Sciences, this legislation ensures that Corps projects will satisfy acceptable economic and environmental standards. The peer review system applies only to projects estimated to cost $50 million or more, which represents roughly 30 percent of all Corps projects. The bill also provides sufficient flexibility and discretion for the Corps to exempt noncontroversial projects from the review process. This is critically important so that the Corps can move quickly on projects that do not have an adverse impact. The Water Resources Development Act of 2003 also embraces a number of other important reforms to improve the coordination of environmental reviews and enhance the Corps' ability to work cooperatively with non- Federal partners. I am especially pleased that this legislation recognizes the need for the Federal Government to do more for local communities by substantially increasing the Federal cost share for deep harbor dredging to 65 percent and 100 percent for long-term maintenance. This is welcome news to States and other non-Federal partners that are struggling in this economy to leverage the match for these projects. Mr. Speaker, although the underlying bill is good, and it is a bipartisan project, I personally wish we were considering this bill under an open rule. The majority leader has already cancelled votes on Mondays and has informed this body that it is unlikely there will be votes on Fridays during the entire month of September. It is clear that we have time to consider thoughtful bills like the Water Resources Development Act under an open rule. Yet the Republican leadership continues to close the democratic process by reporting restrictive rules that only make in order a handful of amendments. While the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment worked with a number of Members, including myself, on a variety of issues, not every issue was addressed by the manager's amendment. A number of thoughtful amendments were brought before the Committee on Rules, requesting waivers for their consideration by this body. While the rule does make in order three amendments, the manager's amendment and one amendment each from majority and minority, other amendments were not made in order. One of these amendments was offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). Her amendment would have directed the Department of Transportation to develop regulations to reduce the amount of invasive species that enter the Great Lakes on the cargo ships that travel throughout the region. This is a critically important issue the gentlewoman made clear to the Committee on Rules last night. Her amendment was thoughtful, and I am disappointed that this body will not have the opportunity to debate and vote on it. However, the underlying bill, the Water Resources Development Act, demonstrates our collective commitment to addressing water resource needs nationally, and it reaffirms our confidence in the Army Corps of Engineers. It was written and considered in a bipartisan fashion, and it deserves the support of every Member of this body. Once again, I commend the work of the members of the committee, specifically the chairman and the ranking member, on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly and disturbingly clear that the Bush administration is not being truthful with the American people. From the economy to the environment to the war in Iraq, too often members of the administration play fast and loose with the facts. They said their massive tax cuts for the wealthy would produce thousands of new jobs. In fact, we have lost not thousands but millions of jobs. They pledged that no child would be left behind, when, in fact, their education budget fails to live up to its promises and many children are being left behind. They say there is no real evidence of global warming when, in fact, the vast majority of the scientific evidence disagrees, and it is absolutely stunning to see how hostile this administration is to our precious environment. On foreign policy it is even worse. For example, in a television interview over the weekend, Vice President Cheney rejected suggestions from Democrats, Republicans and people around the world that perhaps a different approach is needed in Iraq. The Vice President insisted that the administration's Iraq policy is a rousing success, but after hundreds of American casualties, billions of American taxpayer dollars, zero weapons of mass destruction and facing a long-term occupation of Iraq, that does not seem like the definition of a rousing success. Before the war, the administration said it would cost between $50 and $100 billion. Mr. Speaker, we now know that the cost of the war in Iraq is at $166 billion and counting. According to the Washington Post, the Vice President pointed to Iraq's prewar possession of 500 tons of uranium as evidence of their reconstituted, to use his word, nuclear program. The reality is the material was low-grade uranium that could not be used for weapons without sophisticated processing that Iraq could not do. Perhaps most disturbingly, the Vice President and other members of this administration continue to cloud the issue regarding the link between Iraq and the terrible tragedy of September 11. The Vice President on Sunday insisted that the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda ``involved training, for example, on biological and chemical weapons, that al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems.'' According to a report in today's Boston Globe, however, those claims are based on the hearsay of a terrorist, have never been verified, cannot be proven, and are questionable at best, and Mr. Speaker, I would put the full story of the Boston Globe in the Record at this point. [From the Boston Globe] Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged (By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender, Sept. 16, 2003) Washington.--Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state and Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago. But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning ``more and more'' about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq. Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war. ``There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11,'' Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. ``There was no such relationship.'' A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is ``totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward'' any proof. Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter. Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's ``willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding.'' In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January. But Cheney, on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying. ``We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.'' Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further. The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in U.S. custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim. A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. ``There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this,'' the official said, speaking on condition he not be named. Nonetheless, 60 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link. Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees. But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said. Former senator Max Cleland, who is a member of the national commission investigating the attacks, said yesterday that classified documents he has reviewed on the subject weaken, rather than strengthen, administration assertions that Hussein's regime may have been allied with Al Qaeda. ``The vice president trying to justify some connection is ludicrous,'' he said. Nonetheless, Cheney, in the ``Meet the Press'' interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein. ``We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s,'' Cheney said, ``that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems.'' The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a ``senior terrorist operative,'' who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February. But intelligence specialists told the Glove last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. ``The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said,'' Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. ``If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Before the war, we were told that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Today, the administration is singing a very different tune. They now talk about Iraq ``maintaining the capability to develop'' those weapons. Maintaining the capability to develop? Is that what passes for proof in the Bush administration? There are those who occasionally attempt to give straight answers. Larry Lindsay gave an accurate prediction of how much the war would cost. He got fired. General Shinseki told the truth about how many troops would be needed in Iraq. He has been replaced. In the Bush administration, it seems loyalty to the party line is more important than candor. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about important issues here, issues of war and peace, life and death. The American people deserve to know the truth. They deserve straight talk, not some intentionally muddied rationale created for political purposes. They deserve a lot better than they are getting from this administration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Joan Anne McCaffery Kupersmith of Wilton, Connecticut, who will be feted at Patsy's Restaurant in New York City on Sept. 18, 2003, on the occasion of her fortieth birthday. Mrs. Kupersmith was born in Teaneck, New Jersey on Sept. 18, 1963, and was raised with her five terrific siblings in Harrington Park, New Jersey. She is a graduate of Boston College and Harvard Law School. An accomplished attorney, Mrs. Kupersmith has chosen to represent children in the courts of her community, providing expert counsel as a court- appointed attorney for children who need and deserve sage support as they navigate our legal system. Mrs. Kupersmith's work is made possible in part by the strong support of her husband, Ken, and her loving children, Ryan, Caroline and Nicholas. Public service is a tradition in the Kupersmith and McCaffery families, and I applaud Joan Anne's humanitarianism. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to acknowledge such a fine individual, and I am certain the entire House of Representatives joins me in extending our very best wishes to Joan Anne and her entire family at this festive time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the community of Shrewsbury, Massachusetts in celebrating the 100th birthday of the original building of the Shrewsbury Public Library. Dedicated in September 1903, through the generosity of a trust fund established by Jubal Howe, the library has served the town well from its central location on the town common. The Artemas Ward annex was added in 1922 in memory of the Revolutionary War hero, and in 1978 a town meeting voted a major addition and renovation project. For those who could not travel to the library, Anthony and Olive Borgatti donated a bookmobile in 1959 that for many years traveled to neighborhoods with an assortment of reading materials for loan. Today, the Town of Shrewsbury is again looking at ways to expand the size of the library to keep up with a growing population. The Shrewsbury Public Library is one of the finest in the area and includes 135,000 books, 354 art prints, over 3,500 videocassettes, and subscriptions to 14 newspapers and over 160 magazines. It has the second highest library circulation in Worcester County. The library has children's story hours, conversation circles, book discussion groups, and family activities. With 100 years history in this library building, many wonderful stories have been told and enjoyed. Many lessons have been learned and many adventures have occurred by the simple turning of a page. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the entire U.S. House of Representatives joins me in congratulating the Shrewsbury Public Library on 100 years of dedicated service to the people of Shrewsbury. It is an honor for me to be part of this special celebration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Vincent Pedone, State Representative of the 15th Worcester District of Massachusetts, who is being honored as the ``Grand Marshal'' by the Worcester Columbus Day Parade Committee for 2003. State Representative Pedone is currently serving his sixth term as a State Representative from Worcester. He serves on the House Ways and Means Committee and is Vice Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. State Representative Pedone works hard for his constituents; whether securing funding for various economic development projects or delivering services to the most vulnerable citizens in his district. Upon his election in 1993, State Representative Pedone made the following commitment to the people of the 15th Worcester District, ``I will work as hard as I can to represent you in a professional, ethical, and honorable way''. State Representative Pedone grew up in the neighborhood he now serves, the grandson of Italian and Irish immigrants. Just recently he and his wife Toby became parents for the first time. Together, they renovated the house that his grandfather built on East Park Terrace, and they plan to raise their family in the community they love so much. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the entire U.S. House of Representatives joins me in congratulating State Representative Vincent Pedone for this high honor.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over the past 3 years, I have raised many questions regarding U.S. policy in Colombia. In July, working with my good colleague from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Service, I offered an amendment that would have made a modest reduction in U.S. military aid to the Colombian armed forces as a signal of grave concern about the rapidly deteriorating human rights situation in Colombia and the continuing ties between the Colombian military and paramilitary forces. That measure was defeated, in part, because Members of Congress were reassured by Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Colombian government that President Uribe is a strong supporter of human rights and an ally in the fight against on terrorism. Unfortunately, throughout the month of August and the first 10 days of September, the human rights situation in Colombia has deteriorated even further. Scores of trade union and human rights leaders have been detained by official government forces in Arauca, one of President Uribe's highly militarized showcase provinces and where nearly 300 U.S. military personnel are active in the counter-insurgency war. And what was their crime? Quite simply, they denounced the links between government security forces and the paramilitary groups in the region. According to Amnesty International, the detentions ``appear to be part of an ongoing coordinated campaign to undermine the work of trade unionists and human rights activists and to expose those sectors to increased attack from army-backed paramilitaries.'' Also in August, the Commander in Chief of the Colombian Armed Forces, General Jorge Enrique Mora Rangel, held a press conference in which it was alleged that a village of resettled refugees who were trying to protect themselves from the armed actors by putting barbed wire around their village were somehow instead ``a FARC-controlled concentration camp,'' a remark that puts these refugees and the humanitarian organizations that serve them, including the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, at further risk. These accusations were made shortly after the Colombian Constitutional Court issued a decision allowing some of these organizations to proceed with a lawsuit against General Rito Alejo del Rio, for human rights abuses carried out when he was the Commander of the 17th Brigade in northwestern Colombia. Over the past few months, one public attack after another against human rights defenders and organizations has been made by the very highest-ranking members of Colombia's government and military, culminating this week in statement by President Uribe himself. On Monday, September 8, President Uribe, in a speech to Colombian military personnel, attacked human rights organizations as ``politickers at the service of terrorism.'' President Uribe stated that human rights groups in Colombia are ``terrorist agents and cowards who hide their political ideas behind human rights.'' These highly inflammatory and dangerous remarks came on the same day as some 80 human rights groups released a report critical of President Uribe's security measures, which, in their view, have increased repression against the civilian population. The report was issued by some of Colombia's most respected human rights groups, including the Colombian Commission of Jurists, the Consultancy for Human Rights, and the Jesuit-affiliated Center for Popular Education and Investigation. Equally disturbing, in President Uribe's speech to the military, the word ``terrorist'' is only used in reference to left-wing guerrilla forces; the paramilitary forces are referred to as ``private justice groups,'' even though it is the paramilitary forces that are responsible for 70 percent of the human rights violations committed against the civilian population and nearly all attacks against labor leaders and human rights defenders, and are on the U.S. State department's list of terror organizations. All of us in Congress have seen this pattern before. We know that when high government and military officials start labelling leaders and organizations as ``terrorists'' or ``sympathizers,'' their death soon follow. When President Uribe made such statements, he knowingly and deliberately placed these democratic actors at great risk. The right to criticize, to disagree with official doctrine is a cornerstone of democracy. Let me be clear: Colombia is not threatened by national and international human rights organizations, U.N. officials, judges, or Colombian government officials whose responsibility it is to protect and promote human rights. Indeed, the most important step President Uribe could take to end terrorism within Colombia's borders is to investigate, prosecute, and punish all those responsible for violations of human right and international humanitarian law, including the paramilitaries and their military allies. It is impunity, not human rights defenders, that is eroding any prospect for peace, democracy and the rule of law in Colombia. Sadly, U.S. policy is complicit in aiding and abetting this serious state of affairs in Colombia.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake- McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment to limit funding for the enforcement of the travel ban to Cuba. This amendment is offered on behalf of the 52-member bipartisan Cuba Working Group. For 40 years, U.S. Cuba policy has violated the right of every American to travel freely. While Americans may travel to Vietnam, to China, and even to North Korea, they may not legally travel to Cuba. For 40 years, the American people have been told that the sanctions against travel to Cuba, like other economic sanctions, will bring human rights and democracy to Cuba and the downfall of the Castro regime. This policy has failed, and it has failed miserably. Currently, Cuba and the United States are engaged in a dangerous spiral of escalation and recrimination. The Cubans engage in a cruel crackdown against dissent on the island. The United States tightens the restrictions on travel and eliminates people-to-people educational and cultural exchanges. At the very moment when the Cuban Government was trying to break the spirit of Cubans who dare to think differently, the United States Government restricted even further the exposure of Cubans to individuals and groups who could provide alternative information and provoke discussion, the American people. We need a better, more rational, more mature approach. Mr. Chairman, Americans are a pragmatic and practical people. We like things that work, that do the job, that deliver results. After 40 years of a failed policy on Cuba, it is long past time to try something else. If this policy was going to work, it would have worked by now. I believe that ending the ban on travel is one of the best steps we can take. I believe the Cuban people can benefit from more contact, not less, with the American people. Now is the time to invade Cuba with doctors and writers, teachers, students, business leaders, bicyclists, grandmothers, activists and more. They are, indeed, our very best ambassadors. I agree with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that the 40-plus years of a U.S. policy of isolation has not contributed to the betterment of human rights in Cuba and, in many respects, has had a negative impact on human rights and that the travel ban should end. I agree with the vast majority of dissidents living on the island, including Vladimiro Roca, president of the Cuban Social Democratic Party, and Oswaldo Paya, leader of the democratic reform movement known as the Varela Project, who have expressed their full support for an end on the ban on travel by Americans to Cuba. I agree with independent journalist Miriam Leiva, wife of imprisoned dissident Oscar Espinosa Chepe, when she wrote to President Bush this May declaring: ``The visits of hundreds of thousands of North Americans to Cuba could contribute to the exchange of ideas and the progress of democracy.'' This amendment represents the bipartisan majority of this Congress and the majority view of the American people. It represents the mainstream view in this country. For 3 consecutive years, this House has voted overwhelmingly to lift the ban on travel, only to have a small group of Members undermine the will of the House in conference committee. I would say to the leadership of this House, do not just talk about democracy; respect democracy. Respect the will of this House. Respect the Members of the greatest deliberative body in the world. Do not hide behind closed doors and secret negotiations. Do not hide behind rhetoric that questions the integrity of those who disagree with you. The current policy has failed. It is time to take a new approach. Support the freedom of Americans to travel, support Cubans who want to interact and meet with Americans, support the bipartisan amendment to end the travel ban on Cuba.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's televised speech on Sunday night, calling for tens of billions of dollars in additional funding to support the U.S. occupation of Iraq, was extremely disappointing, disappointing because the President failed to explain to the American people the details on how he is going to change this failing policy. It is clear that his administration rushed to war with too little thought given to the implications of an American occupation of Iraq. We were not welcomed with open arms as some administration officials have predicted. On the front page of today's Washington Post is an article entitled ``Spy Agencies Warned of Iraq Resistance,'' detailing how U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush Administration before the war that there would be significant armed opposition to a U.S.-led occupation. In all the many briefings I attended, I do not recall any administration official sharing that information. We have not found the weapons of mass destruction that we were told existed in such abundance. And while the administration continues to link Iraq to the terrible tragedy of September 11, so far it has produced no evidence to support such a claim. In fact, the occupation of Iraq has increased the terrorist presence in that country, not lessened it. On Sunday night President Bush had the opportunity to tell the American people of his plan, including his exit strategy for the brave American men and women who are serving in Iraq with such incredible distinction. Instead, the President detailed nothing. This is a war that should never have happened. As awful as Saddam Hussein was, he was not an imminent or direct threat to the people of the United States. Months into the war, the Congress and the American people are still waiting to hear a clear, consistent and convincing justification for it. Why did we need to invade Iraq? What was so urgent that it required us to go to war when we did? Why could we not have spent the necessary time to build an international consensus on how to best deal with Saddam? What was so threatening to our country that made this Congress spend only 1 day, 1 day debating the authorization authorizing war? As of today, 284 brave young Americans have lost their lives and 1,450 have been wounded. And in preparation for this war, this Chamber could only manage to devote a single day in October debating it. That is shameful. Now the President says he wants another $87 billion and expects everyone to just go along, no questions asked. Mr. Speaker, like so many people throughout this country, I have a lot of questions and I am not prepared to just go along. I want to make sure that American troops have all the resources they need and I am not advocating that we walk away from our obligation to the people of Iraq. However, I also want to make certain that the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people are not wasted on more of the same. I have no problem with helping Iraq build hospitals, health clinics, schools, roads and housing. But I do have a problem with the lack of support by this administration for the building of hospitals and health clinics, schools, roads, and housing right here in the United States. Why did the President not tell us on Sunday that in the face of this enormous price tag, he is willing to forego his tax cut for millionaires so that we can avoid going deeper into debt? If this is a time for sacrifice, then why do the people in the income bracket of President Bush and Vice President Cheney not have to make any sacrifice? I cannot vote for 87 billion additional dollars without some accountability and some clarification. What is the plan? How long are we going to be there? Eighty-seven billion dollars is for just 1 year. What about next year or the year after that? How is the $87 billion going to be spent? How were the $79 billion we appropriated in April spent? We are now at $166 billion and counting. The President wants us to spend $87 billion more mostly for Iraq. For months some of us have been trying to get just $1.8 billion more for our veterans' health care only to be told by the administration that there is not enough money. We have been trying to get $7 billion so that the Pell grant program fully lives up to its promise and students are not buried under a mountain of debt. The administration says no. We have been trying to get just $300 million to fund the Global Food for Education Initiative, to provide a nutritious meal in a school setting for millions of children, but the administration tells us that the money just is not there. The American people need to know what is at stake here. They need to know about the choices the administration is asking us to make. This is a time for truth and candor. We have had enough spin. We have had enough deception. This is also the time for this Congress to do what it failed to do before the war: ask the tough questions, demand the straight answers, and debate thoughtfully the implications of what we are doing. We must be more than a rubber stamp, and I would urge my colleagues respectfully to proceed with caution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just close by urging my colleagues to vote no on this rule. The majority says we have an open rule, but as my colleagues have heard in this debate this morning, a number of very important, substantive amendments have not been made in order. The amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has offered that would address this shortfall in funding for Amtrak was not allowed by the Committee on Rules last night. This is our only opportunity to fix this very, very serious issue. The Amtrak funding in this bill is half of what is necessary to maintain existing services and operations, and it is simply inadequate. In addition, this rule does not protect language in this bill that would prohibit the Treasury Department from contracting with expatriate corporations. Again, these are these companies which operate here in the United States but set up shell corporations overseas for the express purpose of avoiding their taxes. We are at war. We have a difficult economy. American citizens are being asked to sacrifice, and yet we are going to protect companies that set up these P.O. boxes in places like Bermuda to avoid paying taxes and to allow them to continue to receive U.S. Government contracts. It is unconscionable that we would try to protect those corporations. I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending the members of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies for their hard work on this difficult bill. This subcommittee faced many challenges, and with the help of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), they produced a bill for this House to consider today. I especially want to thank and recognize my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his leadership and his guidance in crafting this bill. While our colleagues deserve praise for their work to improve this bill, it still has serious problems. I am concerned about the removal of the mandatory setaside for transportation enhancements. Funding for Amtrak is half of what is needed to properly maintain and run this system. This bill will make it harder, not easier, for low-income families to receive the earned income tax credit. And despite pledges made to protect the corporate expatriate language adopted by the full committee, this rule allows this important provision to be removed from the bill without a vote by the House. Beginning with ISTEA in 1991 and continuing with TEA-21 in 1998, we required that the communities receive the maximum benefit from transportation investments. It is precisely because of mandated 10 percent setaside of surface transportation program funds that the enhancement program has successfully leveraged State matching contributions totalling almost $8.4 billion for 15,000 projects spanning every part of this country. These funds have been used for such worthwhile activities as the development of scenic bikeway and pedestrian facilities, the preservation of abandoned railway corridors, and the protection of historically significant transportation assets. Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Massachusetts, more than $75 million has been invested in a total of 228 community projects since 1992. Sixty percent of that funding has been invested in devising a network of bikeway and pedestrian trails which is rapidly becoming an important part of our infrastructure. But section 114 of this bill would eliminate the mandatory 10 percent setaside for transportation enhancements that has made the program so widely popular and tremendously successful. Furthermore, it undermines the national transportation policy we reaffirmed in TEA-21 in order to allow States to divert funding from small scale, locally selected projects to massive transportation initiatives that do not have the same broad community support. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) will offer an amendment to strike this section from the bill, preserving the good policy set by ISTEA and TEA-21. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment. This bill, Mr. Speaker, also badly underfunds our national passenger rail system. Amtrak's management has recently begun to stabilize its finances, improve service, and increase ridership. Their reward for that progress in this bill is to be given one-half, or $900 million, of the $1.8 billion Amtrak needs to simply maintain existing operations. One-half. Although I am pleased that more than 40 percent of the $900 million provided to Amtrak under this bill is designated by capital expenses along the Northeast Corridor, we all need to take a more national approach to Amtrak's funding. The money provided for Amtrak in this bill is not only grossly insufficient; it is intended to bring Amtrak to the brink of failure. That is wrong. Once again, the subcommittee has included a provision that gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to arrange for an alternate service provider for commuter rail service should Amtrak cease operations. Mr. Speaker, that is not foresight. It is foreshadowing of a disastrous transportation crisis for this country. By providing Amtrak half of the funding it needs, this appropriations bill makes such an event a self-fulfilling prophesy. Amtrak's management deserves the opportunity to continue the progress it has made, and it deserves the confidence and support of this institution. More importantly, the American public deserves a first-rate national intercity rail system to complement our aviation and highway systems. I cannot believe we would walk away from the success of the transportation enhancement program or retreat from the recent progress we have made in setting Amtrak on the right course. This appropriations bill, unfortunately, takes us backwards instead of forwards. Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress strongly enough that although this is technically an open rule, the opportunity to amend this bill is very limited. The most substantive amendments brought before the Committee on Rules last night required waivers, and as usual the Committee on Rules did not grant any of those waivers. House rules severely restrict the amendment process on all appropriations bills. Therefore, even though the Committee on Rules granted an open rule, one that technically does not restrict the amendment process, by its nature the amendment process for appropriations bills is still limited. For example, this rule does not make in order a number of important amendments including one offered by the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). That amendment would have provided an additional $500 million above the $900 million currently in the bill for Amtrak. This would give Amtrak sufficient funding to ensure solvency and to begin to address the long-term capital needs that have been neglected for so long. The amendment offsets the additional Amtrak funding by reducing the tax cut that those earning $1 million or more would receive in 2004 from $88,000 to $88,500 or by only $2,500. This rule does not protect language currently in H.R. 2989 that would prohibit the Treasury Department from contracting with expatriate corporations, those companies which operate here in the United States but set up shell corporations overseas for the expressed purpose of avoiding their taxes. Amendments to allow both of these worthwhile initiatives were defeated last night by the Committee on Rules Republicans, I am sad to say. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me comment on two amendments regarding U.S. policy towards Cuba. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and myself and several of our colleagues from the Cuba Working Group will offer a bipartisan amendment to prohibit funds from being used to enforce restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba. Another bipartisan amendment will be offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) that will eliminate the cap on remittances to Americans from Cuban households. Each year for the past 3 years these amendments to end the ban on travel have received overwhelming support by the Members of this House. Last year it was approved by a vote of 262 to 167. The amendment to lift the cap on remittances passed by a similar margin. The crackdown on dissidents carried out earlier this year by the Cuban Government demonstrated how completely ineffective U.S. policy over the past 40 years has been in protecting human rights in Cuba. Because of this, many major human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have called on the United States Government to end the restrictions on Americans wanting to travel to Cuba. Most importantly, the amendment affirms the basic right of all Americans to travel freely. Former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas said, ``Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. It often makes all other rights meaningful.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support for the fourth year in a row the Flake-McGovern amendment on ending the travel ban on the right of Americans to travel to Cuba and support the Delahunt-Flake amendment lifting the cap on remittances to Cuban family members living on the island. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to respond to the gentleman from New York on the issue of Amtrak. The fact of the matter is that Amtrak's management has recently begun to stabilize its finances and improve its service and increase its ridership, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, their reward for their progress in this bill is to be given one-half of what they need to maintain existing operations. If the gentleman does not want to support Amtrak, he does not want to give Amtrak the money that they need to support their existing operations, then that is his right and he can vote no on such an amendment; but the Committee on Rules last night specifically denied the right of my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) to offer his amendment which would have corrected this shortfall, and I think that is one of the concerns that we have about this rule. Why this rule truly is not open is because a lot of meaningful amendments to address some very serious issues were denied last night by the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have put us in quite a situation here. We all remember the great job that President Clinton and James Lee Witt did in the 1990s by remaking FEMA into the world-class disaster response agency it is today. But earlier this year, the Republicans in the House decided to play games with FEMA's funding levels. They deliberately provided inadequate resources for FEMA in order to meet their arbitrary budget cap. They knew full well that they would have to come back for more FEMA funding; and surprise, surprise, here we are. We are here to consider a new supplemental appropriations bill that will partially fund FEMA through August and through part of the hurricane season. I am sure almost all of us will vote for this bill, because this funding is so important for FEMA and the families that they help. But it is important that we discuss the other emergency that is looming, and that is that of AmeriCorp. As many of my colleagues probably know, AmeriCorp is woefully underfunded. Without immediate action, 20,000 AmeriCorp positions will be lost; 20,000 AmeriCorp positions will be lost. The other body did the right thing, and they added $100 million to AmeriCorp to their version of the supplemental. But on a near party- line vote in the House Committee on Appropriations, the Republican majority killed this funding. This must be another part of the Republican employment plan. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is playing games with the lives of 20,000 AmeriCorp employees. These people are proudly serving their communities and have committed themselves to this important public service program. But without our help, they will be cast aside, at no fault of their own. After September 11, President Bush issued a challenge to Americans to give back to their communities, right here in this Chamber. He specifically singled out AmeriCorp as one way to give back. Unfortunately, the administration's actions have not matched their rhetoric. While they have talked a good game about the importance of this program, they have done absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure its long-term stability. Mr. Speaker, these are real people we are talking about. I recently talked to a young woman in Worcester, Massachusetts. She was thrilled just to be accepted into the AmeriCorp program. But then she told me that her hiring depends directly on whether AmeriCorp receives the emergency funding it needs. Her life is on hold while the Republican leadership plays more games and breaks more promises. Mr. Speaker, all of us support important funding for FEMA, but we cannot and must not turn our backs on the young people across this country who have stepped up to serve their communities. We owe it to them to do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, I will call for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will provide us the opportunity to debate the Obey amendment, which will provide important AmeriCorp funding. Mr. Speaker, this is the only way we can help AmeriCorp. Once again we must take this avenue of defeating the previous question because the Republicans on the Committee on Rules shut us out. Last night they shut us out with regard to increasing veterans funding, and, then, after that, they shut us out with regard to finding ways to help 20,000 AmeriCorp volunteers keep their jobs. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment for this Congress. What we are talking about here today is a big deal. It is a huge deal. This is about veterans and the services that they receive in this country. The vote on this rule will show once and for all which Members of this body truly support veterans and which Members are merely talking a good game when it comes to funding veterans programs. This bill woefully underfunds veterans services. It is disgraceful. We have young men and women who are bravely serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world, and how do we thank them for their sacrifices? By cutting important veterans programs and services. I know the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) did the very best they could with the little money they had to work with. In fact, they should be praised for crafting this bill out of such few resources. They are both dedicated and good public servants, and I do not fault them for this problem. But I do fault the Republican leadership and the Republicans on the Committee on Rules for not making several bipartisan amendments in order last night that would have increased veterans spending by at least $1.8 billion. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) had an amendment, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) had an amendment, and they were just shut out. The Committee on Rules provides waivers all the time, and it could have provided waivers for these amendments. Not only did the majority fail to provide waivers for these amendments, but in fact, every single Republican on the Committee on Rules voted against every amendment to increase veterans spending last night. Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that the Republican leadership is all talk and no action. They talk about funding important programs. They talk about their support and their admiration for our veterans. They like to pose for pictures with our veterans. They speak at every veterans conference, but they do not back up their rhetoric with the funds necessary to pay for these programs. Frankly, this body is quick to pass authorization bills that designate the necessary funding levels, followed by lengthy press releases and big press conferences, claiming support for these programs, but the Republican leadership does not put its money where its mouth is when it comes time to genuinely provide the funds needed to run these programs. This entire year has been nothing but a history of broken promises, to our teachers, our schools, our children and, today, to our veterans. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and it is outrageous that this Congress is turning its back on the men and women who have defended this country and made it the greatest and freest country in the world. We have veterans in our districts who have to wait months and months and months to get health care. We have veterans programs that are being slashed, but it does not have to be this way. I truly believe that this is a defining moment for this body. A yes vote on this rule is a vote against veterans. This rule prohibits any opportunity to increase veterans spending. So if my colleagues want to live up to their rhetoric, if they actually support our veterans, then join me in voting against this rule. Send this flawed rule back to the Committee on Rules and force the majority at a minimum to give us a vote but, more importantly, to give our veterans what they deserve.