Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, let me echo a point that was made by my colleague from Massachusetts about the importance of the amendment process and how it promotes congressional accountability. Let me read my colleagues a quote: ``What does the ability to offer an amendment have to do with accountability? If a Member has the power to offer an amendment, he can no longer claim to support one thing, but then say that he was blocked in his effort to make a change in the law. In addition, with more floor votes and more clear issues, Members will be forced to take clear positions with their votes. That is exactly what the American people want: fewer excuses and more elected officials who actually stand for something.'' That quote, Madam Speaker, was made by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). I agree with that quote. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), my friend, seems confused as to why we are having this debate. He has asked for the amendment resolution to be read over and over, so let me try to clear something up. The reason why we are having this debate today is because we believe that this House is becoming a place where trivial issues get debated passionately, and important ones, not at all. The fact that what they are asking for is an additional day to debate essentially nonconsequential, trivial issues bothers us because we are constantly being told by the majority that we do not have enough time to make everybody's amendments in order. We do not have enough time to allow this House to deliberate. We do not have enough time to make sure that the democratic process works, and that all Members, Democrats and Republicans, have an opportunity to have their constituents' voices be heard on this House floor. So that is why we are having this debate. We are having it in a particularly passionate way today because of what went on earlier this morning in the Committee on Rules. The prescription drug bill, perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with, an issue that impacts 40 million of our senior citizens in this country, this bill was brought to the Committee on Rules in the middle of the night, and virtually every amendment and all of the substitutes except one were ruled out of order, were denied. So these people will not have an opportunity to be heard on the floor today. I mean, we are stunned. We are shocked. We are appalled that on a bill this important that they are rushing it to the floor under an extremely restrictive process, limiting debate so that we are not going to have much of a debate here on this House floor. In the other body they have been debating it for 2 weeks, over 70 amendments, and they are still debating it; but here in the people's House, we are supposed to represent the people. We are supposed to be the body of government closest to the people. We are being told that we have to do it in a matter of a few hours, let us do it quickly, no amendments and get out of here. That is not the way to do it. This is too important; and for some of us who worry that they are trying to privatize and weaken Medicare, it is appalling that we do not have an opportunity to have amendments on this floor to protect Medicare, to make sure that it does not wither on the vine, to make sure that it is there for future generations. That is what is at stake here. That is what we are talking about is so important. I want to close by making an appeal to some of my Republican colleagues who routinely come before the Committee on Rules and, like many Democrats, get routinely shut out of the process. Many of them were there last night, early this morning, at 2:00, 3:00, 4:00 in the morning trying to get their amendments made in order, very thoughtful amendments. They were shut out of the process. I want to speak to them just for one second and urge them to join with us in voting against this resolution. Send a message to your leadership that everybody in this Congress deserves respect and everybody should be heard, that the constituents that I represent are as important as the constituents that you represent, are as important as the constituents that are represented by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of this Chamber. So this is an important vote, and the debate we are having today is very relevant and very relevant to the topic at hand. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this. We are spending too much time naming post offices and not enough time debating the issues that real people care about. So I urge a ``no'' vote. Madam Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time, and I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. This resolution is simple. It allows the Republican leadership to consider suspension bills on Wednesdays. Current rules allow this body to consider suspension bills on Mondays and Tuesdays. A special provision in the rules allows the majority to place items under the suspension of the rules on Wednesday as well. That special provision expires soon, and it is my understanding that the majority would like to extend it through the 108th Congress. Madam Speaker, I am rising today to strongly oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the resolution. I have serious concerns about not only the suspension process but about the way this House is being managed. Suspensions should be reserved for noncontroversial items that do not require lengthy debate by the full House. Controversial issues or substantive issues should not be brought to the House floor under the suspension process, a process that allows little debate and no amendments. But, Madam Speaker, this House is becoming a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. The majority of this House already allows far too little debate on critical issues facing the American people. Later today, we will debate the most sweeping changes to Medicare since the program was created 38 years ago. Two days ago, I asked the chairman of the Committee on Rules when as a Member of the House I could examine this hugely important bill, and I was told emphatically that it would be available online yesterday morning. So I got up early yesterday morning, and I logged on at home; but there was no bill. I checked again during the day, but again no bill. Finally at 11:50 p.m. last night, we were given a copy of the bill and told the Committee on Rules would hold an emergency meeting an hour later to consider this bill, and we reported the rule at 5 a.m. this morning. Why the rush to do this bill in the middle of the night? Is this bill so important, so time sensitive that the Republicans need to force it through the Committee on Rules in the dead of night? When I asked the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules why it was considered an emergency hearing, all he could tell me was that he called the emergency hearing because it is his prerogative as chairman of the committee and he wanted to do it this way. We had only an hour to look at this final bill, a bill that is close to 700 pages long. This process, Madam Speaker, is disgraceful. It demeans this body, and it insults the American people who rely on us to read, to debate, and to vote knowledgeably on legislation. It is clear that the Republican leadership wants to rush this bill through this body as quickly as possible. The other body has already spent 2 weeks debating this bill. They will consider over 70 amendments before they are done. Republicans and Democrats alike have been able to bring their amendments to the floor in the other body and to be heard and to debate these issues. Fifty-eight amendments on the Medicare bill were brought to the Committee on Rules this morning. Only one substitute was made in order. Everything else, including some very thoughtful amendments offered by Republicans, was denied. We will have a grand total of 4 hours to discuss a bill that will fundamentally change the way 40 million Americans pay for the medicines that they need. This process is awful, Madam Speaker; and this resolution will make it worse. The question is quite simple. Rather than naming more post offices on Wednesdays, why do we not have more debate? What is wrong, for example, with this House spending a few days or even a week on the Medicare prescription drug bill? Why not let more Members, Democrats and Republicans alike, have an opportunity to be heard? We obviously have the time; otherwise you would not be here asking for more suspensions to be scheduled. I understand that the majority has a responsibility to run the House, to move legislation through this process. The Committee on Rules can be a tool in that effort; but under this Republican leadership, the Committee on Rules has become not a tool but a weapon, a weapon that stifles debate, that shuts Members and their constituents out of the legislative process, destroys the committee process and harms the public interest, all behind closed doors and often in the middle of the night. As Members know, and the American people are noticing, the Committee on Rules is where the sausage gets made and it is not pretty. The facts speak for themselves. Two thirds of the rules reported by this committee in the 106th Congress were closed or restricted. That increased almost three-fourths in the 107th Congress. In fact, less than 30 percent of the rules reported by this committee in the 107th Congress were open. And so far this year of the 52 rules reported by the Committee on Rules six have been open rules, six of 52. All of this may sound like Inside Baseball to most Americans, but as we can see with the prescription drug bill this stuff matters. In the House of Representatives process determines a great deal, and lately, Madam Speaker, the process around here has been lousy. When they were in the minority, Republicans consistently complained about their treatment by the then Democratic majority. So if this is payback for the way Democrats ran the House, then call it payback, but please do not claim that this is fair and balanced when it is clearly not. Americans are better served with an open democratic process. It is in the public interest to allow the full and free debate and to have many people and many different points of view heard and considered by Members of the people's House. In 1994, while still in the minority, Chairman Dreier gave a speech about the undemocratic nature of the Committee on Rules. In that speech he said that ``the arrogance of power with which they prevent Members, rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans, from being able to offer amendments, that is what really creates the outrage here.'' The wisdom of his words still apply today. The arrogance of power is indeed a dangerous thing. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member on the House Committee on Rules. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), another member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time. The material previously referred to by the gentleman from Massachusetts is as follows: Previous Question for H. Res. 298--Rule on H.R. 2559 Fiscal Year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations At the end of the resolution, add the following: ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in order without intervention of any point of order and before any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for a division of the question in the committee of the whole or in the House. ``Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as follows: On page 2, line 13, under the heading ``Military Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert $1,726,660,000; On page 3, line 13, under the heading ``Military Construction, Navy'', delete the dollar amount and insert $1,311,907,000; On page 4, line 5, under the heading ``Military Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and insert $968,509,000; On page 4, line 21, under the heading ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'', delete the dollar amount and insert $872,110,000; On page 5, line 20, under the heading ``Military Construction, Army National Guard, delete the dollar amount and insert $231,860,000; On page 6, line 3, under the heading ``Military Construction Air National Guard'', delete the dollar amount and insert $95,605,000; On page 7, line 19, under the heading ``Family Housing Construction, Army'', delete the dollar amount and insert $601,191,000; On page 8, line 13, under the heading ``Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'', delete the dollar amount and insert $288,193,000; And on page 9, line 6, under the heading ``Family Housing Construction, Air Force'', delete the dollar amount and insert $841,065,000. At the end of the bill, add the following: Section . In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income tax excess of $1,000,000 for the tax year beginning in 2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 shall be reduced by five percent.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will close for our side. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their eloquent and powerful words and for reminding us all how we are not living up to our promise to our uniformed men and women, and it is something that every single Member in this House should listen to very carefully; and we now have an opportunity to be able to do something about that. Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a recorded vote on the previous question, and I will urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Obey amendment to restore funding for military construction programs. This amendment was submitted to the Committee on Rules and rejected by the Republican majority. The bill provides $9.2 billion for military construction spending. That is $41 million below the level requested by the President, and $1.5 billion less than last year. As we have said over and over, even the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, called the bill woefully underfunded. This amendment will help restore some of these desperately needed additional funds. It will provide an additional $958 million above the subcommittee's allocation. This would be offset by reducing the 2004 tax cut for 200,000 millionaires from $88,000 to $83,000. That is it. Mr. Speaker, whether or not Members are Republicans or Democrats, they should be extremely concerned, in fact outraged, about the lack of adequate funding for the programs that help our men and women in the military. The Obey amendment would help fix that and do so with no additional cost to the deficit. Our rhetoric is simply not enough, Mr. Speaker. If we want to honor our uniformed men and women then we should not be cutting their benefits and their programs. We should be providing them what they need. So I will urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let me emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the military construction appropriations bill. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering the Obey amendment to help restore funding for this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has worked very hard on this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the rule under consideration for H.R. 2559, the Fiscal Year 2004 Military Construction Appropriations Act, is an open rule. It provides for one hour of general debate, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, allows for germane amendments and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the work of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) of the Subcommittee on Military Construction along with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for continuing the tradition of bipartisan action on this bill and for doing the best with a terrible allocation. Mr. Speaker, I have a terrible feeling of deja vu. Almost exactly 1 year ago, on June 27 of 2002, I stood on this House floor as the minority manager of the rule on the fiscal year 2003 military construction bill. Along with the then-chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), we all bemoaned the inadequacy of that bill. We all pledged to do better next year and called upon President Bush to increase the budget for desperately needed military construction, housing, base realignment and base closure. Well, 1 year later none of that has happened. In fact, this year is even worse. If last year's appropriations bill was inadequate, this one is woefully inadequate, to quote the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg). In fact, the fiscal year 2004 bill is $1.5 billion less than last year's bill. Let me repeat that. This bill is $1.5 billion less than the fiscal year 2003 funding levels. It is even $41 million less than the chairman's request. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues what in the world are we doing? How can we stand on this House floor day after day, week after week and declare how much we support our uniformed men and women when the funding provided for family housing in this bill is $270 million less than last year? How can we stand on the floor of this House day after day, week after week and say that we are engaged in a long-term struggle against a global enemy when funding for military construction in this bill is $1 billion less than last year? Mr. Speaker, poor facility conditions are not only unsafe, they hamper readiness and decrease troop retention. According to the Pentagon, 180,000 of the 300,000 units of military housing are substandard. According to the Pentagon, 68 percent of the Department's facilities have deficiencies so serious that they might impede mission readiness or they are so deteriorated that they cannot support mission requirements. The current reductions in funding for construction in these facility categories means that the rate at which buildings are renovated or replaced has just increased from 83 years to 150 years. This is a national scandal. And let us be clear, this bill is not only about new housing, it is about the operation and maintenance of existing family housing. One of the few increases in family housing in this bill is for the Army. It receives an $81 million increase. Unfortunately, funding for the operation and maintenance of existing Army family housing is cut by $63 million, allowing more and more current housing units to deteriorate and fall into substandard condition. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing that since the events of September 11 we live in a changed world. I keep on hearing how much we appreciate our Armed Forces, how much we appreciate their sacrifice and service. Then why do we keep cutting and cutting and cutting the military construction appropriations bill? We obviously do not appreciate them enough to give them decent housing. We obviously do not admire them enough to give them quality facilities. Are we going to be on the floor of this House next year expressing our disappointment over how inadequate the military construction appropriations bill is again? Now, I have been told that we should just wait until the 2005 round of base closings, then we will see some modest increases for housing at the bases that survive the next round of closures. That is as cynical a rationalization as I have ever heard. Do we honestly believe that inadequate housing and facilities exist only on bases likely to be closed down? Mr. Speaker, this crisis in funding for family housing and military construction is nationwide. It exists at nearly every single base and installation across the land and overseas, and it affects every branch of our Armed Forces. And if base closure is somehow magically supposed to balance the ledgers, then why are we in such a housing and construction crisis right now? It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker, and there is a remedy. The ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), tried to provide an extra $958 million above the allocation level for military construction and housing. His solution is not hard to accept. This House would simply scale back 5 percent of the scheduled tax cut for people with adjusted gross incomes of over $1 million for 1 year. This would mean that the tax refund for these individuals would be reduced from about $88,000 to $83,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent census, there are more than 280 million people in the United States. This modest change in the tax cut would affect about 200,000 individuals, or less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers. Such a small adjustment, however, would provide nearly a billion dollars to help ensure that more than 1.4 million men and women who serve our country on active duty have decent housing and workplaces for themselves and their families. But the Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations rejected the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) proposal, and last night the Republicans on the Committee on Rules refused to allow the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment to even be debated and voted on in this House. So we are faced with the results of what happens when we rob our Nation of the most basic revenue needed to adequately fund our Nation's priorities. We rob our valiant military personnel of decent homes and facilities. We rob our veterans of their basic benefits. We cut back funding for schools and child care for military families. And we are faced with passing this woefully inadequate bill, a bill I believe that for all the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), can only be viewed as a shameful scandal on the part of this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for this House and, more importantly, it is a sad day for America's senior citizens. This bill is a complex and controversial $400 billion Medicare privatization plan that will affect the lives of 40 million senior citizens. For 38 years Medicare has been there for our parents and our grandparents, helping them live longer, more healthy lives. It is a sacred promise with the elderly of this country and this House is about to radically and fundamentally break that promise. If that were not bad enough, the Republican leadership blocks out all amendments and all but one substitute to this bill. For example, this bill mandates for the first time a co-payment for senior citizens who receive Medicare home health care. I have been fighting for years to protect home health care from cuts, so I had an amendment before the Committee on Rules around 4:30 this morning to eliminate that co-pay because I think it is unfair and I think we should help seniors who use home health care, not charge them more money. But like every single other amendment, Democrat or Republican, my amendment was not made in order. The other body has spent the last 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker, debating, discussing and amending their prescription drug bill. They seem to recognize that this is a big deal. So how much time do we give our seniors in this House? Not 2 weeks, not even 2 days. Three hours. What a terrible disservice to the people I represent, the people we all represent. This bill ends Medicare as we know it and turns it into a convoluted, complicated voucher program of HMOs and PPOs and shifting coverage. It is a bill that leaves a huge gap in coverage, penalizing people for getting sick. It is a bill that moves us towards privatizing Medicare and leaves our seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry and the big drug companies. It is a bill that only a CEO could love. Senior citizens deserve a drug benefit within Medicare. They should not be left at the mercy of the HMO accountants who are more concerned with the bottom line and profit margins than with adequate health care. Our substitute works like the rest of Medicare. It tackles the high cost of drugs and it guarantees our seniors meaningful, consistent prescription drug coverage. That is what our seniors deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and yes on the Democratic substitute.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this bill, as well as the chairman of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 49 recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Foreign Agricultural Service at the Department of Agriculture. I have had the privilege of working with many of the FAS staff in Washington and in our embassies around the world, and on one special program in particular, the Global Food for Education Initiative, or the GFEI. In July 2000, President Clinton announced at the Okinawa G-8 summit that the United States would initiate a $300 million pilot program, the Global Food for Education Initiative, to provide hungry children with a daily nutritious meal in a school setting. The twin goals of the program were to reduce hunger among children and increase the number of children, especially girls, attending school. The GFEI was modeled around a series of successful FAS school feeding programs that use section 416(b) surplus commodities and that were implemented by U.S. private voluntary organizations and the World Food Program. FAS faced a monumental task to initiate the GFEI pilot program on a very tight timeline in an accountable and effective manner. They came through with flying colors. In December 2000, the President announced that the GFEI would carry out 48 projects in 39 countries and reach about 9 million children in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. In February 2003, USDA published the first evaluation of the GFEI. This report documents the marked success of these school feeding projects. Hunger was reduced, parents and community organizations were empowered, and school attendance increased, especially among girls. I do not believe this level of success would have been achieved without the diligent leadership of Mary Chambliss, Robin Tilsworth, Babette Gainor, and the rest of the FAS staff. Their belief in this program and their commitment to accountability and oversight ensured that the project lived up to the promise of the initial proposal. I encourage my colleagues to visit the FAS Web site and review the GFEI report. I have seen these projects in action in Indonesia and Colombia, and I have had the privilege of meeting the FAS staff based at our embassies who help carry out these programs in the field. Mr. Speaker, there are 300 million hungry children worldwide. Most do not get a chance to go to school. For the children involved in the GFEI, these school meals are often the only food that child will receive, and that meal and school may be the only stable factors in their precarious and uncertain lives. In last year's farm bill, the GFEI became permanent when the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program was established. It received $100 million for fiscal year 2003, a reduction from the pilot program, but an allocation which I hope will increase in the future. Every single Member of the other body called upon the President to keep the McGovern-Dole Program in the capable hands of the FAS, a resounding endorsement if ever I heard one. Mr. Speaker, I commend the FAS and its staff for their commitment to use our farmers' productivity to help end world hunger. I congratulate them on a half century of fine work, and I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I also applaud his incredible work on behalf of the hungry around the world and here in the United States. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia, for bringing this bill so quickly to the House floor for consideration. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2474, authorizing the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships and urge its swift passage by this House. I want to acknowledge the leadership of my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and to thank her for her many contributions to ending hunger here at home and abroad. She has honored the memory of her husband and our former colleague, Bill Emerson, in whose honor the National Hunger Fellowships at the Congressional Hunger Center are named. I have had the privilege of working closely with the gentlewoman from Missouri over the past few years, first when we helped create the Global Food for Education Initiative, known as the George McGovern- Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, and now when we serve together as the cochairs of the Congressional Hunger Center. I admire her leadership and determination, and I hope to learn a great deal more from her about how best to end hunger, honor America's farmers, and contribute to increasing food security for all nations. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2474 will correct a simple error in last year's farm bill reauthorization that authorized funding for the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships, but inadvertently channeled the monies to the Congressional Hunger Center's endowment rather than through the Center's program budget. Passage of H.R. 2474 will ensure that the two fellowship programs are administered and funded through the Congressional Hunger Center for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004. This adjustment will allow for the endowment to have enough time to build so it may sustain funding for the Congressional Hunger Center over the long term without interrupting the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships program in the short term. I also thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla), and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the subcommittee for agricultural appropriations, for including the appropriate allocations for these hunger fellowships in the fiscal year 2004 agriculture appropriations bill. I also would like to express my appreciation to Jim Dyer, the majority staff director for the Committee on Appropriations, for his help and support on this matter. Mr. Speaker, today I have had the privilege of meeting the newest class of Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellows who are in Washington for their initial orientation. The Congressional Hunger Center received 155 applicants for these fellowships, which were narrowed to 50 finalists, and 15 young men and women were chosen to receive these fellowships. The Leland Fellows will work for 2 years on hunger issues, including a 1-year field placement in countries throughout South Asia, sub- Saharan Africa and Latin America. The class of 2003-2005 will work in Thailand, Uganda, Malawi, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Mexico, Mauritania, and in East Africa. Their field placements include national and international nongovernmental organizations, private commercial organizations, and bilateral and multilateral agencies. They will spend their second year in the headquarters of the organizations that sponsor their field placements where they will focus on policy-making to address the root causes of hunger. I know that our friend and former colleague, Mickey Leland, is looking down on these dedicated young people and is proud that the work they are doing in his name will create future leaders in the fight on hunger and poverty. The Bill Emerson National Hunger fellows Program annually selects around 20 participants who work for 6 months in rural and urban community-based organizations across the country involved in fighting hunger at the local level. Their 6 months is spent in national nonprofit organizations engaged at the national level in antihunger and antipoverty work. This year, 24 men and women will represent the 10th class of Emerson Fellows. Together, these two hunger fellowship programs, administered and coordinated by the Congressional Hunger Center, are having a significant impact on the fight to end hunger in America and around the world. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and our former colleague Tony Hall, who were instrumental in establishing the center 10 years ago. Congress can take great pride in the support for the Congressional Hunger Center and the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowship programs. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2474.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Father Michael P. Bafaro for his service to the local and international community. Father Bafaro studied at St. Thomas Seminary in Bloomfield, CT; Seminary of Philosophy in Montreal, Canada; and Vesovile Seminary in Pordenone, Italy. At Vesovile, Father Bafaro was ordained on June 28, 1953. He worked for 11 years at Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Worcester, Massachusetts before volunteering to travel to Sicuani, Peru to work with the often neglected Andean community. His experience in Peru was a critical step towards his role as an international community leader and activist. He returned to Worcester to work with the Latino community. In Worcester, he founded the only Latino community-based organization in the city. His role as founder and executive director of Centro Las Americas, in addition to his longtime participation in the community thereafter, caused the organization to grant Father Bafaro the first Annual Lifetime Achievement Award. Father Bafaro earned the position of Pastor/Administrator of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel-St. Ann in Worcester in 1986. This position had a special spiritual meaning for the Father Bafaro due to his close relationship with the Carmelites of Peru. Once again Father Bafaro excelled as a leader and defender of human rights and equality. He has proven to be a loyal advocate for children's education, cultural awareness, low-income housing, and employment opportunities for those in need. He built the Mt. Carmel Apartments for low-income and handicapped people in 1991 and the Italian-American Cultural Center. Father Bafaro has been honored with the Worcester Sons of Italy Achievement Award and Social Justice Award; the Beacon Award from the Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester; the Pro-Deo Ad Juventudem Medal; and on four separate occasions, he received the key to the City of Worcester. Father Bafaro also participated in organizations such as the Affirmative Action Commission for the City of Worcester; the Board of Directors of the Northeast Hispanic Catholic Pastoral Center; the Priest Senate of the Diocese of Worcester; the Governor's Commission of Puerto Ricans and Hispanics; the Executive Board of Worcester Cooperative Council; City Managers Manpower Commission; Coalition for Peace and Justice; the Federation of New England Catholic Charities and Social Services; the Order of Sons of Italy; the United Way Task Force; and Ad Hoc Committee for Statewide Education. Father Bafaro supported the Worcester community in December 1999 after the fire that claimed the lives of six firefighters. He provided support and guidance to the families and friends of the fallen heroes. He is the president of Worcester Community Cable Access television station where important community issues are presented and discussed. These examples show his devotion to raising the consciousness of others and the extent to which he stands for peace and justice. Father Bafaro has touched many lives, and has spent most of his life working to improve the lives of others. He has struggled alongside the underprivileged and promoted open-mindedness among people from multiple backgrounds. I can attest to the extent at which Father Bafaro has assisted and guided the community of Worcester because he has collaborated with my staff and me on various projects, including the Latino Education Institute. I have witnessed the accomplishments of Father Bafaro as a local community activist and leader who has based his work on the broader goal of promoting justice and equality at home and abroad. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the entire U.S. House of Representatives joins me in thanking Father Michael P. Bafaro for his contribution to the community.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding the time, and I certainly want to associate myself with her remarks and the remarks of the gentlewoman from Connecticut. I think it is important to kind of set the facts straight here because the gentleman from New York, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I think has said some things that I believe are a little bit misleading. One is those of us on our side of the aisle here, we voted for the child tax credit six times. They voted against it six times. We voted for it six times. The difference with what we voted for and what they ended up voting for is we ended up voting for a child tax credit that was fully paid for, with offsets, because we are a little concerned quite frankly with the way Republicans are on this tax cut/spending spree right now because it is adding to our deficit and adding to our debt. This year as a result of their policies, CBO tells us that the deficit this year is $400 billion, the biggest single year deficit ever recorded in our history. That is what we are worried about over here. So we feel very strongly that as we support these tax cut measures to help working families, that they be paid for, that the offsets be specified. The other body came forward with a bill to help deal with the child tax credit that was going to cost $10 billion, which was fully paid for, with offsets. The majority in the House could not get together with their counterparts in the other body, even though they are of the same party, but the leadership in this House, I think, is so out of touch and so radical when it comes to how they spend the taxpayers' money in this country that they could not even come up with a bill that even approached anything near what the other body did. But what the House leadership did is they came up with a bill that would cost $82 billion, that was not paid for. In other words, it was all borrowed money, money being borrowed from our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. They all talk about cutting taxes, but they, in essence, are raising taxes on our kids, something called a debt tax. We are paying an ever increasing amount on the interest on the debt that is being accumulated in this country, in large part because of their fiscally irresponsible policies. So do not tell us that we voted against a child tax credit. We voted for it six times. We voted for one that would provide immediate relief to these families that we have been talking about for these last several weeks, including our military families, men and women serving in Iraq right now making a base pay of $16,000 a year. They deserve help right now. They work hard, they are defending our country, they deserve this child tax credit. We tried to bring to this floor just like the majority did in the other body brought to the Senate floor a responsible child tax credit bill that was fully paid for. They said no. We voted for one that was paid for six times and then they came up with a sham, a public relations ploy, knowing that it will get lost in conference committee or that there would never be a conference committee and these low- and medium-income families would get nothing. And here we are today debating an estate tax relief bill that takes effect 7 years from now. We are talking about lifting the sunset 7 years from now. There are more important and pressing problems for a lot of working families, people who will never get to the point where they are going to have to deal with whether or not they are going to pay estate tax or not. I would just respectfully suggest to the gentleman that his facts are a little bit wrong with regard to what we on this side of the aisle have tried to do and have been championing.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules. The gentleman's party controls the House and the Senate and the White House. My question is when are we going to have a child tax credit? When are we going to provide relief to that soldier in Iraq who is earning $16,000 a year? We are talking about helping millionaires today, and my question is since the other side of the aisle controls everything, when are they going to bring this child tax credit to the floor?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, some of the gentleman's colleagues in the other body have said quite clearly that they are not going to deal with the bill sent over there because it was not paid for. I guess since we have Republicans that control the House and the Senate, I would like to think that they would get along with each other and resolve some of these issues; and the issue of the child tax credit is something that would help low-income and moderate-income families right now. They need help now, and it seems to me while we are talking about this estate tax relief bill today, which takes place 7 years from now, why can we not help the people hurting right now.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no, I voted against the child tax credit that was not paid for.