Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I expect this conference report to pass overwhelmingly. I am troubled, however, that the conferees failed to include the provision sponsored by Senator Byrd urging Congress to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal budget process. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer unforeseen expenses; they are known, and they are anticipated. They should be in this budget. This bill is nearly $82 billion, bringing the total amount the President has received off-budget for Iraq and Afghanistan to nearly $300 billion in just 2 years. We cannot keep digging ourselves into this deficit hole. Unless our policy changes, and I hope it does, these operations are going to be long-term. And even though no one at the White House or the Pentagon is willing to admit it, everyone in this House knows it. We have to get this spending back into the regular budget process so that it is paid for and does not bankrupt the Federal budget for decades to come. We should be paying these costs like grownups, not passing them on to our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I am relieved that the conferees reinstated the President's ability to waive the restrictions on the economic aid for Palestine. I recently traveled to Israel and the Palestinian territory with our distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). It became clear to me that what we need out of any agreement is not just a separate state for the Palestinians, but an economically viable State, where Palestinians can make a decent living, feed their kids, and live with dignity. The House bill would have made it all but impossible for the U.S. to help create that kind of confidence in the future. At least now the President has some flexibility to show that the U.S. is willing to invest in a secure and dignified future for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this supplemental, because I cannot support any more money for the policy in Iraq. Over 138,000 troops are serving in Iraq, and I was there over the recess and had the privilege of meeting some of them. These men and women are in Iraq because of lies, because of deceit, and half-truths, and they deserve better than more of the same. I cannot support ever-increasing funding for the war in Iraq without a clear understanding from this administration about when and how it will bring our own troops home. I am tired of the spin, I am tired of the lack of accountability, and I am tired of the lack of candor. I believe the time to stand up and call for that kind of clarity is now. Every Member of Congress, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, loves this country, supports our troops, and is doing everything possible to help military families make it through difficult times. This is not in question. Our policy in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, is what is in question, and I, for one, simply cannot support it. Mr. Speaker, I expect this conference report to pass overwhelmingly, but there are a number of issues in this bill that I find troubling. First, I am troubled that the conferees failed to include the provision sponsored by Senator Byrd urging Congress to fund our military, security and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal budget process. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer unforeseen expenses; they are known and anticipated. They should be in the budget. This bill is nearly $12 billion, bringing the total amount the President has received off-budget from the Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan to nearly $300 billion in just two years. Mr. Speaker, we can't keep digging ourselves into this deficit hole. Unless our policy changes--and I hope it does--these operations are going to be long term. And even though no one at the White House or the Pentagon is willing to admit it, everyone in this House knows it. We have to get this spending back into the regular budget process, back into the regular authorization and appropriations process, so that it is paid for and doesn't bankrupt the federal budget for decades to come. We should be paying these costs like grown-ups--not passing them on to our children and grandchildren. Second, I commend the conferees for providing funding to meet critical shortfalls in basic equipment for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially for the Army, the Marines, and our National Guard and Reservists. I just hope this time the funding works and the shortfalls are met. This is not the first time the Congress has specifically provided funding above and beyond the President's request for body armor, up-armored Humvees, trucks, radios, and the like. But somehow, this equipment never gets to the men and women whose lives are on the line. So I thank the conferees for their work on this matter, and I just hope this time the equipment gets to where it's needed most. Third, I strongly support the increased life insurance and death benefit payments for our troops, including our Guard and Reservists. But, Mr. Speaker, we could have done this over a year ago when my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Renzi, and I succeeded in doubling the death gratuity and restoring its tax exempt status. We would have done more, but we were told at that time, in no uncertain terms by the Pentagon, that increasing the benefit to $100,000 was unacceptable. So I am pleased to see this matter satisfactorily resolved. Fourth, I am very disappointed that the conferees failed to include in the final conference report the Senate-approved amendment offered by Senator Durbin to close the pay-gap for Federal employees who are National Guard and Reserve members and are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Representatives Lantos, Graves, Shays and I have introduced H.R. 838, the HOPE at HOME Act, which would help close the pay gap for all activated and deployed Guard and Reservists, including those who work for the Federal government. Senator Durbin's provision focused solely on Federal employees, which is the largest employer of National Guard and Reservists, and cost only $170 million over 5 years. Right, the Federal government praises those private sector employers that by their own choice do the right thing and make up the difference between a Guard or Reservist's civilian pay and their military pay. Rather than just praising others, I believe the Federal government should be a leader in closing the pay-gap, and I am angry that once again the Congress failed to take positive action on this matter. Fifth, I am pleased that the conferees reinstated the president's ability to waive the restriction on the economic aid for Palestine. I recently had the privilege of traveling to Israel and the Palestinian territories with our distinguished Democratic Leader, Congresswoman Pelosi. It became clear to me that one of the most important things we need out of any peace agreement is not a separate state for the Palestinians, but an economically viable state. We need a Palestinian state where people can make a decent living, feed and care for their children, and live with dignity. The House-passed bill would have made it all but impossible for the U.S. to help create that kind of confidence in the future. While the restrictions remain, at least now the president has the same flexibility to show that the United States is willing to invest in a secure and dignified future for Palestinians and Israelis alike. And sixth, I strongly support the funding provided in this supplemental for the tsunami disaster relief and reconstruction, the international peacekeeping missions in Haiti and Darfur, Sudan, and for international food aid programs. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this supplemental for two major reasons. The first is that it still contains the Real ID Act. The conferees did not increase the funding levels for border security, as they were instructed to do under the House-passed motion to instruct. Instead, the conferees have chosen to impose these highly restrictive, punitive measures that will burden our states and, I believe, fail to have any meaningful effect on stemming illegal immigration, but will do great harm to those immigrants fleeing persecution, regardless of how they come to our shores seeking protection. But most importantly, I cannot support this supplemental because I cannot support any more money for the policy in Iraq. Over 138,000 American troops currently serve in Iraq. I had the privilege of meeting some of them when I was in Iraq during the Easter recess. These men and women are in Iraq because of lies, deceit and half- truths. They deserve better than just more of the same. I can no longer support ever-increasing funding for the war in Iraq without a clear understanding from this Administration about when and how it will bring our own troops home. I am tired of the spin. I am tired of the lack of accountability. I am tired of the lack of candor. I believe the time to stand up and call for that kind of clarity is now. For others of my colleagues, that time may come 2 years from now, or 4 years from now, or 6 years from now, or maybe never--but for me, the time is now. Every Member of Congress, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, loves this country, supports our troops, and is trying to do everything possible to help military families make it through this difficult time. This is not in question. Our policy in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, is what is in question. And I, for one, can simply not support it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take time today to recognize ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' a project of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation designed to raise awareness of the issue of access to health care. It may be hard to believe, but more than a decade has passed since the Clinton Administration's health care plan died in Congress. In survey after survey, Americans consistently rate access to health insurance as one of their top concerns. But unfortunately, our nation's political leaders have failed to lead on this critical issue. The facts reveal a startling truth--as a Nation, we are facing a crisis of the uninsured. In just the last four years, the number of uninsured Americans has ballooned to 45 million, an increase of more than 5 million people. If the millions that go without health insurance for some period during the year are included, the number of uninsured dramatically increases to more than 85 million people. To dispel one myth: This rise in the number of uninsured is not the result of people deciding not to work. Rather, an overwhelming majority of the uninsured--80 percent--are working families, many employed by businesses that have become less able to provide health coverage for their employees. And if things weren't bad enough, the Administration has proposed broad cuts to Medicaid, essentially gutting the healthcare system of last resort for poor Americans, by at least $10 billion. In these worsening times, how can we justify pulling the rug out from underneath our community's most vulnerable? In my home state of Massachusetts, we have been fortunate; we are among those states with the lowest percentage of uninsured. But, even there we have a lot more work to do. According to a recent Urban Institute report, there are currently 532,000 uninsured people in Massachusetts, and most of the health care available to these people is provided by local hospitals. And like many other states, since 2000, Massachusetts workers have seen their health premiums rise three times faster than their wages. If these trends continue, fewer individuals and families will be able to afford to pay for coverage, and fewer small businesses will be able to provide this vital benefit to employees. As we all know, we often tend to ignore that, which does not directly affect us, but we can no longer afford to do so; there are clear consequences to all of us for ignoring the plight of the uninsured. According to a recent Institute of Medicine report, the United States loses $65-$130 billion each year as a result of the poor health and early deaths of uninsured adults. Should things continue to worsen, we will all be forced to bare the financial burden of the uninsured. But this problem extends beyond the dollars and cents. As citizens, we have a moral responsibility to our communities, and we cannot stand by in good conscience as millions are denied access to basic health care. So, as we take this time to recognize ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' I hope that my colleagues will join me in raising awareness about the reality facing the millions of uninsured. We must not allow this issue to remain on the back burner of the national political debate. Health care is a right, not a privilege, and all of us must work to extend that right to every single American.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I once again yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I introduce our next speaker, let me respond to the gentleman. When he mentioned the fact, I think he used the word that some of these amendments were not germane to the bill, it is my understanding that all eight Democratic amendments were cleared by the Parliamentarian of this House as being germane. And if we had an open rule, every single one of them would have been germane to this bill and could have been offered. So, again, it is puzzling to me why some of these amendments were denied. I would also say to the gentleman, the point I was trying to make is that while there is a lot in this reauthorization bill that is good in terms of reauthorizing programs, it seems inconsistent with the budget resolution that the Republican leadership passed just last week that eliminates a significant amount of funding from the education budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to close by again expressing my disappointment that this is not an open rule, and that if they did not want to give an open rule, they should have made at least all eight amendments in order. Five Democratic amendments were not made in order under this rule, notwithstanding the fact that, according to the parliamentarian, they were germane. These amendments were thoughtful. They certainly would not have disrupted the debate on this bill. They could have been dealt with in a short period of time, but I think my friends on the majority side are so addicted to denying amendments and stifling debate and closing rules that it is hard for them to break the habit. So I express my regret and I hope that in the future, that they will be more forthcoming with allowing Members to have their say on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education For the Future Act, is a good news/bad news piece of legislation. The good news is that this is a bipartisan bill. And the Republican majority in the Education and the Workforce Committee supports these important vocational programs, and were determined to bring this reauthorization bill to the House floor. The bad news is that these same Republican leaders voted just last week for a budget resolution that eliminates all funding for these programs in fiscal year 2006. The good news, which we will no doubt hear from some of our Republican colleagues today, is that they are determined to restore some of the funding for the Perkins Vocational Education Programs when the House starts moving forward individual appropriations bills, and that there is room to fund these programs under the budget education numbers. The bad news is that the education funding in the budget resolution is so limited that it already requires deep cuts and even elimination of many other critical education programs. So to restore the $1.3 billion for vocational, career and technical education and training programs that the Republicans just voted to eliminate from the Federal budget, will require cutting even deeper an additional $1.3 billion from all the other education programs. Moving on, Mr. Speaker, the good news is that H.R. 366 increases State and local accountability for these programs and they are funded. The bill requires each local recipient to establish levels of performance for high school and post secondary students in core skills and knowledge. This is an important new responsibility for local educators, and for the States that must negotiate and monitor these accountability measures. The bad news is that this bill does not authorize, let alone provide, additional funding or resources to ensure that local schools and States can successfully carry out these new responsibilities and requirements. We have all seen this before, Mr. Speaker. We have seen this in the No Child Left Behind Act where the law mandates new responsibilities, new accountability measures, and new administrative tasks, but fails to provide the necessary resources to ensure their success. At least in No Child Left Behind, Congress authorized the funding to support these new mandates, even though the President and the Republican Congress failed to provide the funding to carry them out successfully. H.R. 366, does not even pretend to authorize additional resources. It just requires this additional workload happen. In fact, H.R. 366 actually reduces the setaside for State administrative funds while State responsibilities are being increased. Mr. Speaker, we used to call these unfunded mandates by the Federal Government, but I guess times have changed. Finally, this bill consolidates into one block of funding both the Perkins State grant program for vocational education, and the tech prep program that prepares students and current worker for highly skilled technical occupations. The good news is that this is an effort to save the tech prep program. The bad news is that history has shown us that when programs are rolled together into one block grant, they inevitably end up receiving less funding over time than they would have if they remained separated programs. While this authorization requires the consolidated grant programs to ensure that fiscal year 2006 tech prep presumes received the same level of funding as in fiscal year 2005, it authorizes no such assurances for fiscal years 2007 through 2011. But what does it matter, Mr. Speaker? There is no money for these programs in the 2006 budget resolution. So why quibble over the details of the authorization, when it is all window dressing anyway? Mr. Speaker, Federal support for career and technical education is a critical means of ensuring that our students and our future workforce are well trained for the jobs of the present and the future. The career and technical education programs funded under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Education Act, and reauthorized by H.R. 366, provide the training and the skills for high school and community college students to prepare for their post secondary education and employment and ensure their future financial success. It is shameful, then, that President Bush and the Republican- controlled Congress have undermined these critical programs by presenting budgets and approving budget resolutions that eliminate their funding. America has lost over 1.7 million private sector jobs since the start of the Bush administration, and hundreds of thousands of American jobs have been outsourced to other countries. The Republican response has been to short-change our students and workers instead of investing in them. Businesses and rapidly growing industries face the prospect that many high-skilled, high-wage jobs will go unfilled or be outsourced because they cannot find enough qualified American workers. At the same time, millions of young adults ages 16 to 24 lack the skills needed to secure jobs that pay more than poverty-level wages. Rather than invest more funds in career and technical education and training in our high schools and community colleges, President Bush and the Republican Congress have chosen to terminate the entire $1.3 billion Federal investment in these programs. Nearly half of all high school students and one-third of college students who take vocational courses will be denied funding, leaving many schools and communities unable to prepare these students to successfully enter the workforce. Mr. Speaker, in Worcester, Massachusetts, the city has invested in constructing a modern vocational high school to serve over 1,000 students, recognizing the importance of training these students to enter the manufacturing and high-tech companies of central Massachusetts. Currently, several students at Worcester Vocational High School have received Skills USA Awards to the Vocational Industrial Clubs of America; and one student, Christopher Bradley, placed third in national competitions. Just recently, three other vocational students, Amanda Niquette, Alicia Sheperd and Amy Trujillo, received an award for their work in raising community awareness about hunger. They created public service ads on hunger, appeared on local talk shows, and organized a breakfast that raised over $3,000 for the Worcester Food Bank. Mr. Speaker, these students and tens of thousands of students just like them across our Nation deserve the support of this Congress. But the Republican majority is turning its back on these young men and women and their hopes to contribute to our communities and our national economy. While it is important to reauthorize these programs, it is just as important to make sure that they are fully funded. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority cannot declare with a straight face that it supports these programs by passing H.R. 366 this week, when just last week in a rush to the House floor it approved a budget based on eliminating all funding for these programs. I recognize that authorizations and appropriations are different bills; but they are all part of the same process, namely, the budget process. In fact, the budget resolution is like the mother of all authorization and appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, despite what I expect to be widespread support for this bill, and I will vote for this bill, I do not want my colleagues on the other side to mislead the American public by claiming that this is a good and fair rule. Yes, two of the three amendments made in order are Democratic amendments, but the Republican leadership denied five other amendments from being offered on the floor today. My friends on the other side of the aisle will say it is a good thing that two-thirds of the amendments made in order are Democratic amendments. Let me respond right now. Denying five of eight amendments, a total of two-thirds of the total amendments offered before the Committee on Rules, is undemocratic and it is one more example of Republican leadership trying to stifle debate in this country on very important issues. Of those amendments not made in order today, Mr. Speaker, the one that is most troublesome is the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The Miller amendment is simple. It prohibits the Department of Education from using Federal funds to pay journalists or media commentators to engage in publicity or propaganda. It also would have required prepackaged news segments paid with Federal funds to disclose such funding in the segment. This is a simple and straightforward amendment. Republicans and Democrats in this body and the Senate have publicly condemned the way President Bush paid Armstrong Williams and other journalists to publicly support partisan and controversial administration policies. This amendment does not blame anyone. It just says that no administration now and in the future can use journalists to act as paid ambassadors for administration policy. Why would the Republican leadership deny this amendment? Why should this administration's actions be condemned but not prohibited? My Republican friends, I am sure, will not answer these questions; but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is just one more case of the Republican leadership's actions not matching their rhetoric. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any more speakers on his side?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for clarifying the schedule, but it just seems to me that a budget resolution that deals with over $2.5 trillion deserves a little bit more attention by each Member in this House than what the leadership on that side of the aisle is giving us. As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) pointed out, we have rules in this House that the other side of the aisle continues to break. One of those rules is that we are supposed to be able to read the legislation before we vote on it. We are supposed to understand what the impacts are. I would think that a concern on not only our side of the aisle, but I would think there are thoughtful Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle who would want to read and understand what the budget conference has decided. We are not going to know until this budget is filed. It is just frustrating. This is a big deal. The other side of the aisle routinely waives the rules on major pieces of legislation and Members on both sides of the aisle have no idea what they are voting on. There are just the sound bites which the Republicans put on on how they defend this budget. As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) pointed out, we are concerned that the budget resolution conference report is expected to mirror the President's budget by using every penny of the Social Security trust fund surplus to help finance the deficits that the other side has produced. That in our opinion is unacceptable. This whole process is just bad. I wish this were just the exception to the rule, but it has become a pattern in this House. I know that your party is in control, but for the life of me I cannot understand why you want to undercut a deliberative process. What is wrong with having Members understand what they are voting on, participate in the debate and read the legislation? That should not be too much to ask; and, unfortunately, we are going to be denied that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will yield one last time to me, I just want to make the point, and obviously it is falling on deaf ears today, but one of the things that concerns many of us is that what is happening today has become a pattern. Again, it impacts not only Members on our side, but also a lot of Members on your side. Important pieces of legislation are coming to the floor and people have not had an opportunity to even look at them. That is a bad process. That is undermining the process.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me again just remind my friend from Florida we are relying on press accounts to try to figure out what is in this budget.

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, if the gentleman will yield further, what is wrong with us debating this next week?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman's party controls everything. I thought he would be an expert on this budget by now, given the fact that all the decisions are being made in a very one-sided way. And, again, some of us here are concerned about the potential Medicaid cuts. These cuts would impact real people. We are not going to know for sure what is in that budget until it is filed, and it just seems that we need to fix this process. And, again, I have to believe that there are people on his side of the aisle who feel as we do over here that there is nothing wrong with deliberating, there is nothing wrong with reading the bills before they come to the floor and understanding what, in fact, are in these bills. And they are giving away tomorrow. We could be here tomorrow. There is no problem on our side about working tomorrow. But the bottom line is they are just kind of giving it away. We spend a lot of our legislative days doing nothing meaningful, quite frankly. It seems to me we could take some of that time, and we are going to be here all next week, to go over this in a very thoughtful way. But we are not going to be given that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) by saying his party controls the White House, the House, and the Senate. We should be able to expect a better, smoother process here. We should not have to be going to martial-law rules where we are going to bring up a budget on the same day when Members will not have a chance to go through it and read it. A lot of us are getting our information from the newspapers because we do not get very much information from the other side of the aisle, and the newspapers tend to know more than we do, unfortunately. We need to figure out a way, or the Republicans should figure out a way, since they control everything, to work better with themselves so we do not have to have a situation where major pieces of legislation come to the floor like this under same-day martial-law rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman suggesting that we should have the right to read legislation only if we pledge to support the legislation that comes to the floor? I am trying to understand, when the gentleman was going on about how he did not think any of our side would vote for the budget resolution, that may very well be true, but the point of this martial-law rule is to bring it up on the same day so we will not have an opportunity to fully read the entire budget. The rules of the House say we should have 3 days. I am asking the gentleman, does he believe the rules should be waived and people should not have an opportunity to be able to read legislation if they will disagree with the gentleman's party?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman, first of all, he mentioned the three different versions of the budget that have been drafted. What worries me is that in all three versions, Medicare and Medicaid get whacked. What everybody on our side has been talking about here today, even aside from the substance of what is in the ultimate budget, is the fact that there should be a process where people can read and understand what is in the budget before they vote on it. That should not be a big deal. The House rules say you are supposed to have 3 days, and you routinely waive those rules so that Members on our side, and even Members on your side, do not have a chance to even know what they are actually talking about when they get to the House floor to debate some of these major pieces of legislation. That is wrong. Why do we have rules, if all you do is waive them all the time? We should be able to have a deliberative process. We should not have to do this. This should not be a controversial point. We should all be able to agree, no matter what we think about the substance of a bill, that we should be able to give Members an opportunity to look at what is in these bills. Now, you have the votes to do whatever you want and you will ram this thing through, like you ram everything else through, and that is the way it goes. But let me close, and I say this with no disrespect to the gentleman, who I have great admiration for, and I am proud to serve with him on the Committee on Rules, but it is my view that your party is doing a lousy job running this government, and, quite frankly, this process stinks, and I would urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this martial-law rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to several World War II veterans in my district. These heroic men, through their sacrifice and bravery, literally helped save the world from tyranny. They left their homes and families behind to fight on distant shores, and they returned home to help make this country the most successful democracy the world has ever seen. In many cases, they left as boys and returned as men, with a sense of pride for what they had accomplished, but also with painful memories of those who never made it home. On Sunday May 1st in Plainville, the newly elected Commander and Officers of the Disabled American Veterans, Chapter 5 Memorial of Wrentham will pay tribute to 11 of these men. They are: Owen W. Emery Sr, Alvin L. Berman, Caster Salemi, Charles Guinn, Army; Donald J. Calvey; Edmund F. Stoddard, Donald R. Flynn, Evan Gilmore, Joseph Goff, William Fermano, and Father Valentine Chepeleff. This year, of course, marks the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. And this recognition ceremony represents just a small token of the great gratitude we owe these veterans. I look forward to participating in this important ceremony. I know that all of my colleagues here in the House of Representatives join me in paying tribute to these extraordinary men and their families.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee, or should I say the Break-the-Rules Committee, is at it again. Here we are taking up a bill that adds to the deficit and cuts billions of dollars from the safety net that protects the most vulnerable people in our country. We are considering this bill under a martial-law rule and without the 3 days required by the House rules so that Members can actually read and analyze this bill for themselves. What is the big hurry, Mr. Speaker? The House is in session all next week. We do not need to ram this important bill through like this. I have an idea. Let us take the weekend and actually read the budget. Let us figure out what it really means. Let us listen to our constituents before we vote on this conference report. Perhaps the Republican leadership is concerned that the more the American people learn about what is in this budget, the less they will like it. We know that this budget resolution includes upwards of $40 billion, maybe more, worth of budget cuts, and we know that the people affected by these cuts are those who can least afford it. With passage of this budget, the Republican leadership will deny school breakfasts and school lunches to hungry children. They will deny health care to people who cannot afford health insurance. They will deny poor, pregnant women and infant children food and nutrition advice through the WIC program. Of course, they will deny the wealthiest few in this country their huge tax cuts. To make matters worse, this is not a balanced budget. It is not even close. It continues to burden our children and grandchildren with record debt. Mr. Speaker, the Reverend Jim Wallis recently issued a statement in reaction to this budget entitled ``Budgets Are Moral Documents . . . and There is Still Time to Speak.'' He writes, ``Poverty reduction should be a moral imperative in politics. A budget that scapegoats the poor, fattens the rich and asks for sacrifice mostly from those who can least afford it, is a moral outrage. These budget priorities would cause the prophets to rise up in righteous indignation, as should we. Our Nation deserves better vision.'' Mr. Speaker, this budget creates a government without a conscience, and we must do better. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and reject this budget conference report. Mr. Speaker, I include Reverend Wallis' article for the Record. [From Convener of Call to Renewal, Apr. 27, 2005] Budgets Are Moral Documents . . . and There Is Still Time to Speak (By Jim Wallis) The biblical prophets frequently spoke to rulers and kings, and usually spoke for the dispossessed, widows and orphans, the hungry, the homeless, the helpless, the least, last, and lost. People of faith are called to speak in the same ways. Budgets are moral documents that reflect the values and priorities of a family, church, organization, city, state, or nation. Examining budget priorities is a moral and religious concern. According to press accounts, the final budget resolution could include cuts to Medicaid of $10 billion; cuts of $6 billion to programs that empower the poor, disabled, abused and neglected--the least, last and lost; and billions in cuts to food stamps. These are misguided priorities. Cutting pro-work and pro-family supports for the less fortunate jeopardizes the common good. This approach is not value-based and does not square with our moral and religious convictions. To add what some reports say could be $70 billion more in tax cuts for the wealthy at the same time shows that this budget has not received enough moral scrutiny. Our political leadership's tax cut mentality ignores ``the least of these''--leaving them with crumbs from the feast of the comfortable. And it does nothing to help our deficit problems. Religious communities spoke clearly in the past years about the perils of a domestic policy based primarily on tax cuts for the rich, program cuts for low-income people, and an expectation of faith-based charity. We speak clearly now against budget proposals asking that the cost of the deficit be borne by the poor, who are not to blame and can least afford it. Poverty reduction should be a moral imperative in politics. A budget that scapegoats the poor, fattens the rich, and asks for sacrifice mostly from those who can least afford it is a moral outrage. These budget priorities would cause the prophets to rise up in righteous indignation, as should we. Our nation deserves better vision. People of faith will continue to speak for the least, the last and the lost. We urge congressional leaders to join us by opposing budget resolutions that place basic human needs at risk. Will leaders who can positively impact the budget debate do so? It's not too late to ``Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.'' (Proverbs 31:8-9).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to this year's Better Business Bureau of Central New England Torch Award For Marketplace Ethics recipients from my hometown area of Worcester County. Mr. Speaker, the mission of the Better Business Bureau of Central New England, Inc. (BBB) created in 1942, is to promote and foster the highest ethical relationship between businesses and the public through voluntary self-regulation, consumer and business education, and service excellence. Ten years ago, the BBB established its annual Torch Award for Marketplace Ethics to recognize companies for their outstanding commitment to exceptional standards in relationships to their customers, employees, suppliers, competitors, shareholders, and surrounding communities. These awards are helping to illuminate the importance of corporate conscience and responsibility to upholding a fair and honest marketplace. Mr. Speaker, two companies are being honored today by the Better Business Bureau for their commitment to marketplace ethics: Apple Home Care Associates, Inc. of Holden, MA. (provider of hospital equipment and supplies; established in 1990; 12 employees; President, Ms. Joni Milluzzo) and Sarkisian Builders, Inc. of Rutland, MA. (building contractor; established in 1962; 6 employees; President, Mr. Pat Sarkisian). Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Apple Home Care Associates, Inc. and Sarkisian Builders, Inc. for this outstanding recognition of their business ethics and solid reputations within the communities they serve. It is through the efforts and leadership of companies like these that businesses throughout Massachusetts, both large and small, are reminded that ethical behavior in the marketplace counts.