Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for setting the record straight. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) how many more speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record the letter that was sent to us by 43 Governors, including Governor George Pataki and Governor Jeb Bush, in support of funding for AmeriCorps. I would only say to my colleagues, if Members do not want to listen to President Bush, maybe you might listen to his brother and provide the funding that all these Governors are asking for. The letter is as follows: July 21, 2003. President George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear President Bush: As strong supporters of America's, national service programs, we are writing to urge you to help solve the crisis confronting AmeriCorps. This crisis is felt most directly by states and localities facing the imminent closure of hundreds of AmeriCorps programs. We hope you will do everything possible to ensure that these programs are not closed or drastically cut, that needed services continue to be provided by AmeriCorps members, and that we can continue to tap the idealism and patriotism of so many of our citizens who want to serve. Your leadership on national service has helped to boast our nation's civic spirit and we appreciate that, in your 2004 budget request, you proposed that the number of AmeriCorps volunteers increase from 50,000 to 75,000. Since your 2002 State of the Union Address, when you called upon Americans to dedicate two years--or 4,000 hours--of their lives to serving their country, tens of thousands of Americans have responded by seeking new opportunities to serve their communities and their nation. Through AmeriCorps, among many other initiatives, these citizens have worked to meet critical needs in education, public safety, health, and homeland security. Unfortunately, on June 16th the Corporation for National and Community Service announced dramatic and unprecedented cuts of approximately 50 to 90 percent to our states' AmeriCorps programs and corps member slots. We are very pleased that, following this announcement and under the leadership of Senators Bond and Mikulski, Congress acted quickly to pass the Strengthen AmeriCorps Act, which will alleviate some of this devastation and correct the Corporation's management of the National Service Trust. This legislation is an important first step towards assuring fiscal accountability, increasing the enrollment of AmeriCorps members, an ensuring the program's long-term health. We recognize that prior ``fixes'' to the Trust have helped put full AmeriCorps staffing for this year in jeopardy. It is truly a shame that mismanagement might prevent willing individuals from serving their communities through AmeriCorps. To avoid such a situation, we hope that you will consider approving an appropriation of up to $200M for AmeriCorps as part of the FY03 supplemental spending bill currently being debated by Congress. Without an emergency appropriation, the dramatic decrease in AmeriCorps positions now being proposed could seriously affect communities and individuals who rely on AmeriCorps members for help. It is also likely to damage, if not destroy, the infrastructure of strong programs, which do not have the resources to sustain a significant budget cut, even if only for one year. Organizations that have been built over a decade cannot be eliminated this year and rebuilt the next. Finally, we look forward to working with you to see the goal of 75,000 AmeriCorps volunteers realized in the near future and salute your overall commitment to bringing Americans together around the ethic of service. Over the past ten years, AmeriCorps has become an essential resource for states and their communities to meet pressing needs, train future leaders through service, and provide access to life- changing educational awards for thousands of citizens. AmeriCorps also greatly leverages private sector dollars for civic initiatives. With your leadership we can work to assure that it remains a vital force for good across the country for years to come. Sincerely, Gov. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts; Gov. Frank Murkowski, Alaska; Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arkansas; Gov. John Rowland, Connecticut; Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida; Gov. Edward Rendell, Pennsylvania; Gov. Janet Napolitano, Arizona; Gov. Gray Davis, California; Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, Delaware; Gov. Sonny Pedue, Georgia. Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, Idaho; Gov. Frank O'Bannon, Indiana; Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas; Gov. Mike Foster, Louisiana; Gov. Robert Ehrlich, Maryland; Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota; Gov. Bob Holden, Missouri; Gov. Mike Johanns, Nebraska; Gov. James McGreevey, New Jersey; Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Illinois; Gov. Thomas Vilsack, Iowa; Gov. Paul Patton, Kentucky; Gov. John Baldacci, Maine; Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Michigan; Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, Mississippi; Gov. Judy Martz, Montana; Gov. Kenny Guinn, Nevada; Gov. Bill Richardson, New Mexico; Gov. George Pataki, New York; Gov. John Hoeven, North Dakota; Gov. Brad Henry, Oklahoma; Gov. Don Carcieri, Rhode Island; Gov. Michael Leavitt, Utah; Gov. Mark Warner, Virginia; Gov. Bob Wise, West Virginia; Gov. Dave Freudenthal, Wyoming; Gov. Mike Easley, North Carolina; Gov. Bob Taft, Ohio; Gov. Ted Kulongoski, Oregon; Gov. Phil Bedesen, Tennessee; Gov. James Douglas, Vermont; Gov. Gary Locke, Washington; Gov. Jim Doyle, Wisconsin.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, first it is important to acknowledge what everybody knows. We are not here on the House floor today because the Republican leadership has seen the light on the high cost of prescription drugs, and we are not here discussing drug reimportation because the Republican leadership suddenly thinks it is a good idea. We are here because during the vote on Medicare a few Members of the majority stood up and stood their ground and demanded a vote on it. Now, it has been widely reported, Mr. Speaker, that during the discussions that led to today's debate, the Republican leadership promised that they would not lobby against the reimportation bill. That lasted about 5 minutes. They have even bragged about their reference in the press. As the majority leader said the other day, ``We are trying as hard as we can to defeat it.'' Now, apparently, the Republican leadership, and the majority leader in particular, has gotten bored with breaking the promises they made to seniors and to students and to middle-income workers and to Democrats and Independents, and now they are breaking their promises to their own Members. I hope that they fail in their attempts to defeat this bill, because our seniors, gouged by the high cost of prescription drugs, are looking for affordable alternatives. They are our mothers and our fathers and our grandmothers and our grandfathers and our neighbors. Too many of them living on a fixed income simply cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars for their medicines. Something must be done. And while I believe the only long-term answer is a true prescription drug benefit under Medicare, a benefit that allows the Secretary of HHS to negotiate for lower prices for prescription drugs, the Gutknecht bill is a good step. There has been a lot of rhetoric about safety. Let us set the record straight. First, prescription drugs will not be reimported from Mexico or other developing countries. Instead, under the Gutknecht bill, Americans can buy FDA-approved drugs produced at FDA-approved facilities in other industrialized nations. Second, the same technology used by the U.S. Treasury Department to prevent illegal counterfeiting of American currency is being used by the drug industry in Europe to prevent illegal counterfeiting of prescription drugs. It is clear to me that the real motivation behind the massive lobbying campaign we have seen is not safety. The motivation is money. The pharmaceutical companies do not want anything to affect their profits. What they do not tell you is that the prices set by these companies are artificially high, 30 to 300 percent more than in other countries with the same medicine. Now, I am not against businesses succeeding, and I am not against companies doing well; but those profits should not be made unfairly, on the backs of our most vulnerable senior citizens. Thousands of my constituents, desperate for affordable medicine, are way ahead of our Congress on this issue. Several times a year they travel by bus to Canada to get the drugs they need at low costs they can afford. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this rule only allows for 1 hour of debate. But then again, this is an important issue. And this body, thanks to the Republican majority and the Committee on Rules, has become a place where we debate trivial issues passionately and important issues hardly at all. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Gutknecht bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the ordering of the yeas and nays on the question of ordering the previous question on House Resolution 336 in favor of the previous force vote thereon.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I are offering an amendment to make modest reductions in military aid for Colombia, and to transfer those funds to the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund for programs that combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases. H.R. 2800 provides $4.3 billion in foreign military financing, of which $110 million is slated to go to the Colombian military. Our amendment reduces that amount by $35 million. The Andean Counterdrug Initiative is fully funded at $731 million, with at least $159 million in military aid for the Colombian armed forces. Our amendment reduces that total by just $40 million. These are modest reductions but, if approved, they will send a powerful message that Congress believes respect for human rights is essential, that impunity for high-ranking military officers who commit human rights abuses must end, and that Congress requires a more defined U.S. plan and exit strategy in Colombia. This amendment will also do a great deal of good. I commend the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for increasing funding for HIV/AIDS, but the total is still about $1 billion less than the $3 billion authorized, the amount the President recently promised to African leaders. Mr. Chairman, $75 million is a modest amount, but every dollar counts in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases. $75 million could ensure that 250,000 more people with HIV/AIDS could receive drug treatment for an entire year. Think of it. This amendment could literally save the lives of a quarter of a million people over the course of the next year. Now, I know some of my colleagues are saying, but we cannot pull out of Colombia. Well, let me be perfectly clear. No one believes more strongly than I do that the United States must stay engaged in Colombia. I will never advocate that we walk away from Colombia. But I have serious questions about the direction of U.S. policy, the goals that have yet to be defined for our military involvement there, and how we define success or failure in Colombia. The committee has stated that U.S. policy in Colombia stands at a crossroads, and I agree. In the past 4 years, we have sent over $3.1 billion to Colombia, 80 percent in military and security assistance. On July 16, the Colombian government announced it will soon present ``Plan Colombia-Phase II'' and seek substantial U.S. aid increases for 2006 and beyond. Meanwhile, coca production in the Andes has actually increased since Plan Colombia began, rising from 185,000 hectares in 2000 to 205,400 hectares in 2002, according to the State Department. Colombia's small drop in coca production last year did not even bring its levels back down to where they were in 2000. And Colombia's decrease is offset by shifting production back to Bolivia and Peru. That does not seem to be progress to me. Further, according to the Justice Department, the availability of cocaine in the United States actually increased in 2002. So let us not spin ourselves into thinking our policy is working. Despite human rights conditions placed on U.S. military aid to Colombia, our aid continues to flow uninterrupted. We keep writing huge checks, even though every reputable human rights organization in the world concludes that the Colombian armed forces directly collaborate with paramilitary forces. These are the same paramilitary forces responsible for the majority of human rights abuses against civilians. These are the same paramilitary forces on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. These are the same paramilitary forces that President Uribe's own hand-picked commission determined control at least 40 percent of the drug trade in Colombia and receive 80 percent of their funding from drug profits. Meanwhile, over the past year, human rights crimes by official Colombian military police have increased, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia. Regions where the Colombia military is most present and active are precisely the areas where official human rights abuses and political violence have most sharply escalated, according to the Colombian government's own Inspector General. Colombia's Attorney General has dismissed prosecutors who are in charge of investigating the most serious cases of human rights crimes committed by high-ranking military officers, closing those cases, and ignoring others. Instead, the Attorney General is opening new investigations against Catholic bishops, human rights defenders and community leaders. Impunity is not only alive and well in Colombia, it is better protected than ever. Mr. Chairman, when the United States bankrolls a foreign military, then we have a special obligation not to be indifferent to its human rights record. We have a special responsibility because this is a reflection on us, but this Congress has been sending a very disturbing message to the Colombia military; namely, if you perform poorly, if you violate the human rights of your own people, do not worry, we will lower our standards on human rights. We can do better. These modest reductions in military aid will not undercut Colombia's fight against the brutal FARC guerillas, but it could end up being the most significant message sent by this Congress in support of human rights and democracy. I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Skelton amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Let me just go over a few facts here. Fact: If the McGovern-Skelton amendment passes, we still have $195.3 million in hard military aid for the Colombian military in this bill. Fact: That $195.3 million joins the $120.5 million in the military aid under the Defense appropriations bill that passed this House on July 8. So fact: If the McGovern-Skelton amendment is approved, this House will still provide a minimum of $315.8 million in military aid to the Colombian military. I want to say to my colleagues the important fact is not how much acreage is sprayed, it is how much coca is grown. And the fact is despite this policy coca production in the Andean region has increased since Plan Colombia was enacted in 2000. Those are not my statistics. Those are the statistics by the United States State Department. Fact: While coca cultivation in Colombia dropped 15 percent last year, coca levels in Colombia are still higher than they were in 2000. Fact: The modest drop in coca production in Colombia is completely offset by shifting coca cultivation back to Bolivia and Peru. Is that progress? Is that success? All of us want to protect our constituents from these illegal drugs, but the bottom line is this is not doing it. Fact: U.S. counterdrug efforts in Colombia and the Andes have had absolutely no apparent impact on the availability or use of cocaine here in the United States. This is according to the January, 2003 National Drug Threat Assessment. Fact: If we want to stop drug production abroad, then invest in drug treatment and prevention right here at home. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the cosponsor of this amendment, raised, I think, a very important issue about the fact that more is being expected of our military personnel in Colombia than of the Colombian military personnel themselves. President Uribe has said that he has introduced a law to change the recruitment criteria so that people who have high school degrees or are from wealthy families in Colombia are not automatically exempt from serving in the military, but such a law has been introduced every year since the 1990s. President Uribe has not made it a priority. His priorities are part of a national referendum this fall, and changing the recruitment law is not one of them. I mean we need to see a little action, not just talk. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) talked about how important it is that the government of Colombia is making progress in trying to work out a truce with the paramilitaries, but the fact of the matter is almost every human rights group in the world is concerned about what is happening because the Colombian government Peace Commissioner Luis Carlos Restrepo confirmed the fears of human rights advocates that paramilitaries involved in horrific crimes will get a free pass. I quote him: ``For those who have committed crimes against humanity, we are looking for punishment that is not jail . . . '' Another concern with the paramilitaries is that the demobilized paramilitaries could go straight into the peasant soldier program, thus in effect legalizing paramilitaries without screening out the worst offenders or even significant retraining. There is no clear end in sight, no exit strategy as we get more and more involved in Colombia. In November of 2001, there were 220 U.S. private contractors in Colombia carrying out military and counterdrug operations. Today there are 308. In November, 2001, we had 117 U.S. military presence in Colombia; today we have 358. The $75 million that we seek to transfer, this modest amount, to the HIV/AIDS tuberculosis and malaria accounts I hope will be used in Colombia. I hope much of it will be used to help the people of Colombia who have suffered so much. Speakers on the other side have talked about all the important development initiatives that are going on there. I support those. I wish that more of our aid to Colombia was in the form of development assistance and not so much of it in the form of military aid. Let me finally close by saying we talk a lot about human rights in this Chamber, and we talk about human rights in Iraq, we talk about human rights in Iran, we talk about human rights in China, every other place in the world. We need to talk about human rights in Colombia. And anybody who has been to Colombia who has been outside the U.S. embassy, who has been outside President Uribe's palace, who has been outside the U.S. military headquarters there will see firsthand that that country is experiencing a very difficult time right now, and it is not just because of the FARC guerillas which have one of the most brutal records, but it is also because of the impunity that continues to exist in that country and the fact that the Colombian military still has yet to sever its ties with the paramilitaries. Vote for the McGovern- Skelton amendment.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who has taken the lead in fighting for additional funds for HIV/AIDS programs.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out one thing that is of great concern to me. I am extremely disappointed that the majority in the Committee on Rules exposes to a point of order a section requiring an open bidding process for reconstruction contracts in Iraq. This section, included by the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) in the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations bill requires competitive bidding for any new reconstruction contract in Iraq. Without this provision, the administration will be able to award enormously valuable contracts to large corporations without any competition and all behind closed doors, if they so chose. Mr. Speaker, we have seen this happen before. After the war in Iraq began, the Department of Defense began to negotiate and award contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. One contract was awarded to Halliburton, the Vice President's former employer. This contract to clean up the oil wells and to get them ready for mass production was awarded without competition and behind closed doors to Halliburton. The gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe), to his great credit, wants to end this practice and return to the standard of competitive bidding. But there is opposition to this effort. The chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee requested that this section be exposed to a point of order. Mr. Speaker, that is very unfortunate. We must make sure that the rebuilding effort in Iraq is above-board without the appearance of shady dealings and smoke-filled rooms. So I would urge my colleagues to make sure that we retain this important provision. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), ranking member, for all the good that they have done in this bill. I only wish they had had more resources to work with. To me, the major shortfall of this bill is the inadequate funding for HIV/AIDS programs. It is important that the United States keep its promise. And Members will have two opportunities later this afternoon to do just that, by supporting the McGovern-Skelton amendment and the Kilpatrick amendment. Both of these amendments will in the end increase the amount of money for HIV/AIDS programs. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, adoption of this rule will allow the House to consider H.R. 2800, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004. This rule exposes to points of order three sections of the bill, a section relating to debt forgiveness through the Commodity Credit Corporation for poor countries; a section relating to open bidding process for reconstruction contracts in Iraq; and a section relating to the duties of the Millennium Challenge Commissioner. And we are very concerned about that, Mr. Speaker. Although this rule allows any Member to offer amendments under the 5- minute rule, it is not completely open. The standing rules of the House severely restrict the amendment process on all appropriations bills. Therefore, even though the Committee on Rules granted a rule that technically does not restrict the amendment process, by its nature, that amendment process for appropriations bills is still limited. Spending amendments almost always require funding offsets elsewhere in the bill. Limitations must be very narrowly crafted and cannot impose any new duty on the agency or department to which the limitation is directed. Whether or not an amendment is germane is just one criterion that must be met in order for an amendment to be made in order on an appropriations bill. House rules prohibit amendments to appropriations bills if they contain authorizing language, if they provide funding for unauthorized programs, services or projects, and if amendments violate the Budget Act. In general, nearly all substantive amendments require some type of waiver, waivers that are rarely granted by the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, several Members came before the Committee on Rules last night and requested waivers for their amendments. I supported the right of every Member who came before the committee to offer their amendments. They are serious amendments and this is an important bill. However, I am particularly disappointed that a very thoughtful amendment offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, the gentlewoman from New York, was not made in order by this rule. The Lowey amendment would designate as emergency funding an additional $1 billion for HIV/AIDS programs. Had it been made in order, the Lowey amendment would have given this body the opportunity to help President Bush fulfill the promises he has so recently made to African nations to provide $3 billion in fiscal year 2004 in the global campaign against HIV/AIDS. The gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from New York are to be commended for the funding for HIV/AIDS that is provided in the bill given overall funding constraints placed on foreign aid funding for fiscal year 2004. The bill contains a total of $1.43 billion in global assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, most of which is within the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund. But even when this amount is combined with the funding in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, it is still nearly $1 billion short of the $3 billion for fiscal year 2004 pledged by President Bush and authorized by this Congress with great fanfare just a few weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, I fear that once again this House may be making promises that it has absolutely no intention of keeping. And although the House will not have the opportunity to consider the Lowey amendment, Members will have a chance to consider at least two other amendments that attempt to address the shortfalls. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) will offer an amendment that would transfer $300 million from the Millennium Challenge Account to the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund to boost the amount for HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. And the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I will offer an amendment to make very modest reductions from two accounts that provide military aid for Colombia in order to add $75 million to the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund for programs that combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other deadly infectious diseases. If adopted, Mr. Speaker, each of these amendments will save hundreds of thousands of lives. $75 million alone, the funding in the McGovern- Skelton amendment, would ensure that an additional 250,000 people could receive the HIV/AIDS generic drug treatment for an entire year. Think of it, Mr. Speaker. If the McGovern-Skelton amendment is approved, 250,000 more fathers and mothers and children will have access to these lifesaving drugs. The Kilpatrick amendment would increase the expansion of mother-to-child transmission programs, expand prevention programs and establish drug purchase and distribution centers in Africa and throughout the developing world. Forty-two million people are currently living with AIDS around the world. Last year, 3 million people died of AIDS and 5 million more were infected. Mr. Speaker, the House has the opportunity to do the right thing, to save more lives this afternoon, by supporting both the McGovern-Skelton and Kilpatrick amendments. I would urge my colleagues to support both of them. H.R. 2800 provides $17.1 billion, far below the fiscal year 2003 total spending level of $23 billion for foreign operations and $1.7 billion below the amount requested by President Bush. While it increases moneys for basic education and funds reconstruction in Afghanistan and U.S. commitments in the Middle East, it still falls short of what the United States should do, indeed must do, to ensure our long-term security at home and abroad. Development assistance, for example, is cut by $63 million from last year's level. This is the account that funds microenterprise programs, clean water projects, agricultural and rural development and a wide variety of USAID-supported projects that move impoverished communities toward food security, self-sufficiency, and economic prosperity. What does a cut of $63 million mean? It means thousands of women who were enrolled in microenterprise projects will be cut off. Small farmers who were encouraged to cultivate new crops that might be able to compete in regional or even global markets will find that their project funding has disappeared and they have been left to fend for themselves without seed, without credit, without technical assistance. So not only will these programs not expand; we will be cutting off precious aid, support, and hope to tens of millions of people around the world. From East Timor to Mali to Bolivia, from eastern Europe to the Balkans to South Asia, people will be cut off. These are people and communities and governments who have chosen to be our partners. What kind of partner does the United States show itself to be when we turn our backs on the very people we just shook hands with? Mr. Speaker, we need a foreign operations bill that honors the promises our Nation has already made to the nations and peoples of the world and one that seeks to expand our very best programs even further. We need such a bill not only because it helps those in need but because it is essential for our own national security. This bill, in my opinion, does not meet those needs. It cannot, because from the very start this House simply failed to make those resources available. Mr. Speaker, I regret that this bill is so restricted in funding. I regret that several amendments that required waivers were not made in order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, July 17, 2003, during rollcall 382 I mistakenly voted against House Amendment 263 to H.R. 2691, the FY 2004 Interior Department Appropriations Bill. The amendment, sponsored by Mr. Gallegly of California and Mr. Moran of Virginia, sought to restrict the use of funds by the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management to administer any action related to the baiting of bears except to prevent or prohibit such activity. As a cosponsor of H.R. 1472, the ``Don't Feed the Bears Act of 2003'', I certainly support ending the practice of bear baiting and will work vigorously for the passage of this legislation during this session of Congress. I sincerely regret this error as I intended to have voted in favor of the Gallegly-Moran amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, on Thursday, July 17, 2003, during rollcall 382 I mistakenly voted against House Amendment 263 to H.R. 2691, the FY 2004 Interior Department Appropriations Bill. The amendment, sponsored by Mr. Gallegly of California and Mr. Moran of Virginia, sought to restrict the use of funds by the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management to administer any action related to the baiting of bears except to prevent or prohibit such activity. As a cosponsor of H.R. 1472, the ``Don't Feed the Bears Act of 2003'', I certainly support ending the practice of bear baiting and will work vigorously for the passage of this legislation during this session of Congress. I sincerely regret this error as I intended to have voted in favor of the Gallegly-Moran Amendment. Accordingly, I respectfully request that this statement of correction be printed in the Record.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, sadly, this fiscal year 2004 Interior appropriation bill marks yet another broken promise to the American people and a further betrayal of our country's environment. In 2000, this body adopted the historic CARA-Light Agreement, which authorized $12 million over 6 years for a number of vitally important land acquisition and conservation programs. That was truly an important day for this House and an important victory for the environment. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have played a part in building the support for that victory by sponsoring the amendment that restored funding for the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund program for the first time in 5 years, but Mr. Speaker, I am not proud today of this Interior appropriations bill. In fact, this House should be embarrassed and ashamed that we would so cavalierly break our promise to the environment because it is more important to give tax breaks to millionaires. It is appalling. The Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations is authorized to spend almost $1.6 billion on conservation programs in fiscal year 2004. This bill, however, only appropriates $990 million for these programs, which is $570 million less than the CARA-Light agreement requires. Meanwhile, the demand for funding of these conservation programs continues to grow and grow. The National Park Service conducted a survey in 2002 that asked every State to estimate the total request they have received for land and water conservation funds over the past 3 fiscal years and then compared those requests to the funding each State has received. The results of this survey demonstrated a shocking nationwide unmet need of 92 percent. These are cities and towns in each of our district and in every one of our States that go wanting year after year for their neighborhood park to be improved or their open space to be saved from development. Since 1964, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been responsible for the acquisition of nearly 7 million acres of protected land and open space and the development of more than 38,000 State and local parks and recreation areas. The LWCF is a widely popular and very effective program. This bill does not do this program justice. The Interior bill provides less than half of the documented need for the full funding of the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund, less than half. In my home State of Massachusetts, the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs will receive a little more than $2 million in fiscal year 2004 to help address the open space and recreation needs of 351 cities and towns. It is simply not enough. Our open space is disappearing every day. If we do not preserve this land now, we will lose it forever; and the need for safe parks and recreation areas continues to grow. Mr. Speaker, this bill continues to systematically dismantle the structure of the Title VII Conservation Trust Fund piece by piece, program by program. It reduces the much-celebrated CARA-Light agreement to a terrible hoax and an empty gesture. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendments that will restore funding to these conservation programs. We must live up to our obligation. We must meet our promises. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had an amendment that would fix all of this by taking a tiny, tiny amount of the overly generous Republican tax cut for millionaires and put it toward conservation programs. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules stayed true to form and said no. I urge a no vote on the previous question and a no vote on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is the distinguished chair of our Democratic Caucus. He had four amendments brought before the Committee on Rules, and three were not made in order. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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