Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his resolution last night and for his words today.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just refer him to CBO's report in which it concludes that the tax cuts are the largest legislative contributor to the negative debt that we have right now. I mean, so it runs contrary to what the gentleman is saying. All we are suggesting here is that when my colleagues pass these tax cuts for their corporate friends and for wealthy people that they pay for them, pay as you go. That is the responsible thing, so we do not pass this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, that did not take long. On just the third legislative day after the election we are yet again confronting a need to raise the Nation's debt limit. It is interesting that even though this problem has been apparent for months the Republican leadership chose to wait until after the election to bring this issue to the floor, interesting but not at all surprising. Once again, the historic fiscal mismanagement of this Republican Congress and the Bush administration is on display, and, once again, we are reminded that we are passing on a massive, unpaid credit card bill to our children and our grandchildren, and the numbers are staggering. In 2002, the Bush administration came to Congress asking for a debt limit increase of $450 billion. In 2003, they asked for another increase of $984 billion, an unprecedented increase, and this year's request will increase the debt ceiling by another $800 billion. Amazingly, this increase is only expected to last the Treasury 1 year, which means that unless this Congress gets its act together we will be back here next year debating yet another multibillion dollar increase in the national debt limit. In the last 18 months, this Nation's debt has gone up by nearly $1 trillion, $1 trillion. Today's debate proves once again that the promises made by the Bush administration when they came into office were nothing more than empty rhetoric. They promised under their plan the debt ceiling would not be reached until 2008. Instead, because they continue to insist on massive tax breaks for the wealthy that are not paid for, the debt limit will have to be raised for the third time in 3 years. On January 29, 2002, George Bush stood in this Chamber and told the Nation our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term. I guess he misspoke. But this debate is about more than numbers, Mr. Speaker. It is about priorities. It is about the kind of country we are leaving for future generations. How will our children be able to afford things like education and health care, homeland security and national defense? How will they be able to pay for us when we retire? These massive deficits, this huge debt will mean higher interest rates, and that means that the American people will have to pay more for a college education or a new car or a new home. Reckless fiscal policy is not a value. It is a vice, and it has to stop. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal irresponsibility of the majority and the administration is magnified by the Republican leadership's refusal to institute budget reforms requiring Congress to pay for any new spending. PAYGO simply is a responsible plan that says if you want to increase spending or if you want to give tax cuts to your rich friends, you have got to pay for it. In the Committee on Rules, several members offered, and I supported, an amendment to increase the debt limit and reinstate the pay-as-you-go spending policies, and it was rejected. Now I know what my friends on the other side of the aisle are thinking, the next election is not for another 2 years. They think the American people will forget about this fiscal irresponsibility that they are pursuing. Well, maybe they might and maybe they will not, but, in the meantime, they are undermining our economy and they are passing on to our kids a big fat credit card bill and it is shameful. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and vote no on the underlying bill so we can have a real debate on the gross fiscal mismanagement of this Congress and this administration and institute real budget reforms that will provide pay-as-you-go for increased spending and these tax cuts.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time under this administration that we have raised the debt limit, and what we were asking for last night in the Committee on Rules and what we are asking for today is that, before we do this again, that we institute the necessary budget reforms that require pay-as-you-go so that we are not going down this path of fiscal irresponsibility, so we are not passing down to our kids and our grandkids this massive credit card bill. My colleagues denied us that ability to be able to vote up or down on a pay-as-you-go bill today, and that is what we are urging here today. That is why we are opposing this rule, and that is why I am going to vote against increasing the debt limit. Because there is no reason to believe that my colleagues' bad habits are not going to continue into the next Congress.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is refreshing that the Republican leadership is allowing this House to debate and vote on a bill that now has actually been filed, and I am glad that the majority has finally provided paper copies of this massive bill to Members of this House. Unfortunately, we are still considering a flawed bill under a very flawed process. Let me remind my colleagues this rule waives the normal 3-day layover of the conference report. Those are the rules of the House. Members of Congress and the American people deserve to have at least 3 full days to read and examine and analyze this massive tax cut, but this rule waives that layover and allows this body to consider this bill today when most Members have not read the bill in its entirety. Like I said this morning during debate on the martial law rule, this is not the first time the Republican leadership has broken and flaunted the rules to get their way. And while I continue to be disappointed by the way the Republican leadership continues to misuse the House rules, I want to talk for a few minutes about the substance of this conference report. Mr. Speaker, to describe this bill as flawed does not do it justice. This conference report is a legislative grab bag filled with goodies for special interests. Every Member of this body knew about the export subsidy that was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Thousands of U.S. exporters are needlessly paying tariffs to European countries simply because the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to pass legislation to avoid these penalties. Thanks to the Republican leadership of this Congress, jewelry, textile and small manufacturers in my Congressional District have been especially hard hit by these sanctions. Now, our colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) joined together and sponsored a bipartisan bill to fix this problem a long time ago, and 177 Members are cosponsors of that bill. The Crane-Rangel bill was clean, it was simple, and it would bring the United States into compliance with the WTO without the extra add-ons that the Republican leadership felt compelled to include in this conference report as sweeteners or incentives for passage of this bill. Crane-Rangel would have been approved by this House if the Republican leadership would have allowed the bill to come to the floor for an up- or-down vote. It would have been sent to the President and signed into law by now, if the Republican leadership did not drag its heels while pretending to address this problem. And its small cost could have been completely paid for. Instead of bringing a clean bill fixing this problem to the floor, the Republican leadership has delivered this monstrosity. Once again, the Republican leadership has turned a noncontroversial issue in a noncontroversial bill into bad policy. Does this conference report fix this problem we have with the WTO? Well, according to the Republican leadership it does. But according to press accounts, the European Union is hinting this legislation may not accomplish its goal; and, if true, the sanctions on American exports will not be lifted. Mr. Speaker, there was a better way to do this, and I am disappointed that the Republican leadership took the hard way out of what should have been an easy problem to fix. But while this conference report should be about eliminating the WTO sanctions against American corporations, it is really about the tax breaks and other goodies provided to special interests. This conference report gives tax breaks to various corporate interests. There are 276 separate tax breaks that benefit everyone from restaurant owners to foreign gamblers. Provisions like the one that will help native Alaskan whalers were inserted to help vulnerable Members in the other body win reelection. Home Depot and General Electric, two companies who have donated large sums of campaign funds to the Republican Party, get significant tax breaks in this bill. Mr. Speaker, this conference report should not be used to reward corporate contributors. This is no way to do tax policy. We can and we should do better. Now, if that were not bad enough, Mr. Speaker, several provisions that actually do help average Americans, which were included in the other body's version of this bill, were stripped out by Republican leaders. When the Republican leadership had a chance to actually do something good for a change, they turned away and ignored the needs and concerns of everyday Americans. Included in this conference report is a bailout for tobacco farmers. This provision will provide $10 million to financially vulnerable tobacco farmers in tobacco communities. These funds would come from an assessment on tobacco companies, not from taxpayers. While this bailout provision is important to a small segment of the American population, the heart of the amendment adopted by the other body was FDA regulation of tobacco. The Senate amendment would give the Food and Drug Administration the broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. We know that each day, 5,000 children try their first cigarette; that 2,000 children will become daily smokers, and nearly 1,000 will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. The other body included this language as a bipartisan amendment adopted by a vote of 78 to 15. But instead of supporting this bipartisan amendment, the Republican leadership stripped FDA regulation from this conference report, leaving only the tobacco bailout. By stripping out FDA regulation, we continue to leave our children vulnerable to the dangers of tobacco. This is unconscionable, and I am disappointed by the Republican leadership's action. During debate on the other body's version of this legislation, two amendments were adopted to block President Bush's overtime regulations that recently went into effect. These regulations are yet another nasty attack by this administration on American workers. Mr. Speaker, we all know that these overtime regulations will deny six million workers overtime protection. The House has voted against these regulations twice, and the other body has voted against it three times. These overtime cuts are pay cuts. When workers lose their overtime pay protection, employers force them to work longer hours for no extra pay. That is wrong. Protecting the 40-hour workweek is vital to protecting the work- family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of this Nation, and I am disappointed that the Republican leadership did not stand up to the corporate interests and support these two amendments. Instead, they caved to pressure from their corporate friends and allowed these misguided regulations to continue to stay in effect. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must express my extreme displeasure with the Republican leadership for stripping out the provision that would provide tax relief to every company in business that voluntarily makes up the difference in income to an employee activated in the National Guard or Reserves. This provision would also have provided support to those same companies to train temporary companies to fill the jobs left vacant by active duty employees. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I attempted to offer this amendment during the debate on this bill when it was considered in June, but the Republican leadership denied us the opportunity to offer that amendment to the bill. However, a similar amendment offered by Senator Landrieu was adopted. During this time of national emergency, when members of the Reserves and Guard are serving extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is vital that the Congress provide help to the hundreds of small businesses suffering from long-term vacancies or the families whose loved ones have been activated for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. But instead of showing a little compassion, instead of doing the right thing, instead of standing with the troops, their families, and their hometown communities, the Republican leadership in both Chambers stripped this provision from the final bill. Mr. Speaker, it is truly a sad day when this body turns its back on those who are fighting for this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this conference report. We need to draw a line in the sand when it comes to corporate giveaways and legislative sweeteners like the ones written into this conference report. It is time we say enough is enough. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) mentioned it is almost an election year. Judging from all the special goodies that are in this bill, it is an election year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to comment on some of the words of my colleague from New York (Mr. Reynolds) who read very well from the Republican talking points on this bill. I would say that if we followed the rules of this House and he actually had the 3-day layover to actually read what was in this bill or what was not in this bill, he would have noticed that this bill actually undercuts the will of the House and the other body with regard to President Bush's nasty overtime regulations which was removed from this bill. He would realize that the Republican leadership stripped out a provision that would provide tax relief to every company and business that voluntarily makes up the difference in income to an employee activated in the National Guard or Reserves. I think he would see that of the 276 separate little provisions that benefit special interests, makers of bows and arrows, tackle boxes and sonar finders and even importers of Chinese ceiling fans, let me say to my colleague from New York that I think those who are serving in our National Guard and Reserves and those businesses that are struggling as those brave men and women are fighting overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think they are more important, quite frankly, than Chinese ceiling fans. I think they deserve a bigger break than makers of bows and arrows and tackle boxes and sonar fish finders. That is the complaint here, that this bill is filled with special goodies for people who do not need it when in fact some of the people who need it most do not get anything. What is even more frustrating is the fact that people are going to vote on this bill today, this conference report, when it was just brought before us today, breaking the rules of this House, waiving the rules of this House where we are supposed to have 3 days to know what is in it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the coauthor of the Crane-Rangel bill. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, to close, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means and also a conferee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to pay a compliment to my colleague from New York, with whom I am on the Committee on Rules, for his eloquence in describing all the great things that are in the bill that has not been filed and nobody has read yet. I am looking at my watch, and it is almost 12:30, and the bill has not been filed. I would hold my breath, but I am afraid I would die waiting for this bill to be filed. I am on the Committee on Rules, and we are supposed to meet on this later today. We have not gotten a copy of the bill. We do not even know when we are going to meet. This is not the way this process is supposed to work. And while I have nothing but the greatest respect for the gentleman from New York and I want to believe everything he says, that everything is great and there is nothing bad or sinister about this bill, I have learned long ago that I need to verify everything here. Every Member of this House has an obligation to know what they are voting on. And again, they have undermined this process, which I think does a great disservice not only to the Members of this House but to the people we represent. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, what I object to is the fact that the Republican leadership does not want to follow the rules of this House. Madam speaker, I yield 2 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for finally filing the bill. I am glad somebody is listening to us and has been responsive. But the fact of the matter is, and I will say this again, the rules of this House matter, at least they are supposed to, and we are supposed to have 3 days to review conference reports, the final product. In the good old days, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will tell you, the conference reports routinely laid over for 3 days. People had a chance to read them. Members of both sides of the aisle had a chance to read them. The fact is that the Republican leadership continues to ignore and to violate and to break the rules of this House, and no matter how you try to sugarcoat it and change the subject, the facts are the facts. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means and a conferee. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to my friend from New York a couple of things. He began his opening statement talking in great detail about all the things that are in this legislation. Yet we have learned that it has not been filed. So until it is filed, we do not have the final product. He has now told us that it is on the Web page, documents are on the Web page that were made available about 3 minutes ago. I guess we should be grateful for that. Let me ask the gentleman, is that supposed to replace the 3-day layover that conference reports are supposed to have under the rules of this House? That is the rules of this House, that we are supposed to have 3 days to look at this stuff. Instead, we do not have a bill that is filed; but we are told, be happy, don't worry, because there is all kinds of things coming over on people's Web pages and that is supposed to suffice. What has us on this side frustrated is that you do not follow the rules. The leadership of this House on a regular basis breaks the rules. What we are simply saying is on a bill of this significance and a bill that has a whole bunch of goodies that have been added on, that you should follow the rules so that everybody in this House, not just a few select groups of the elite in the leadership, but there are 435 Members of this House, and every one of them is entitled to know what they are voting on before they go to vote. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my friend from New York has introduced a martial law rule to allow the House to consider the FSC-ETI and corporate tax giveaway bill at some point today. This bill has been lingering in legislative limbo for months, and we could have fixed this problem a long time ago for a lot less money. But now, one day before we have been told by the Republican leadership that we are going to adjourn until after the election, we have been rushed to the floor to consider a martial law rule to debate and vote on a bill that has barely been filed. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. We are considering a rule for a bill that was just filed. We are considering a rule for a bill that has been available for just a few minutes. The American people do not know what is in the bill, but we are here rushing it through at the eleventh hour. I cannot say I am surprised by the Republican leadership's actions. Unfortunately, the outrageousness of the Republican leadership's actions in the 108th Congress, from the Medicare vote, to the energy bill, to the continued fiscal irresponsibility, just to name a few, has made transgressions like this one pale in comparison. But this martial law rule is not a trivial matter. It is important for my colleagues and the American people to know and understand exactly what the Republican leadership is forcing this body to do today. Madam Speaker, what we are doing right now on the floor of this great institution is flying blind, and that is par for the course for what takes place under this Republican leadership. We can read in the newspaper reports that this bill is loaded up with goodies for special interests and friends of the Republican leadership. The Washington Post today editorializes that this bill should be vetoed. But I ask you, Madam Speaker, who other than the Republican leadership has seen the final version of this bill? Can the Republican leadership provide a copy of this bill for every Member right now so they can actually read it before we start this process? Why are we starting this process before every Member has had the opportunity to read and examine this important conference report--so we make sure it is exactly what we expect it to be? I will tell you why, Madam Speaker. Because the Republican leadership did not finish writing the conference report before they filed this martial law rule. They are rushing through this process when they should be doing this carefully and deliberately. Madam Speaker, we should follow the rules of this House. Let every Member read the conference report before we vote on it. Madam Speaker, there is an arrogance in this House that permeates from the top down. It is an arrogance that flaunts the committee process and thumbs its nose at the 431 Members of Congress who do not happen to be part of the Republican leadership. This arrogant attitude has reached a point that it is now common practice for major pieces of legislation to be written behind closed doors by just a handful of Members of the Republican leadership and then shoved down the throats of this body. This is not just election-year rhetoric. Let us look at the evidence. The energy bill was written in the back rooms of the Capitol and the White House to benefit big energy companies and wealthy corporate contributors. It was introduced with little time to examine the bill and then forced through this institution by a heavy-handed leadership. The Medicare prescription drug bill was written by a handful of Republican Members of the House for the benefit of HMOs and the big drug industry. It was brought to the floor of this distinguished body in the dead of night and the vote was held open for over 3 hours while the Republican leadership did everything it could to twist arms to their breaking point in order to win the vote. The bill to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a bill that should be among the most bipartisan bills considered in this Congress, was written in the Speaker's office. The 9/11 Commission held public hearings. The other body developed bipartisan legislation and openly debated their version on the floor this last week, yet the Republican leadership here in the House decided it was in their best interest to secretly craft this bill behind closed doors. Important provisions that are approved by a bipartisan majority of this House and with recorded votes in this body are routinely stripped away behind closed doors. How many times, Madam Speaker, has this body voted in favor of amendments to close tax loopholes that benefit the Benedict Arnold companies that open up a post office box overseas so they can avoid paying taxes here in the United States? How many times has this body voted to allow the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada only to have the Republican leadership kill these bills in the dead of night when no one is looking? Instead of fostering debate and Democratic action, the Republican leadership has turned the rules of this House from a tool to guarantee orderly democratic process into a weapon that quashes informed democratic debate. It is indeed, in every sense of the word, a disgrace. Madam Speaker, we all know the United States is the greatest democracy in history, and this House is a great and noble institution. But it is the people's House, not the leadership's House, and the Republican leadership should treat it as such. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider carefully their rights when they vote on this martial law rule. Members have the right to know and understand exactly what we will be debating and voting on, and in this case, I believe few of us will enjoy that right. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4658, the Servicemembers Legal Protection Act of 2004. This important legislation includes a number of provisions intended to enhance and improve the quality of life of our troops, veterans, and military families. Specifically, I would like to address Section 211 of H.R. 4658 that amends the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Since September 11, 2001, over 400,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists have been placed on active duty. Not since World War II have so many National Guardsmen and Reservist been called to active duty. They and their families face many burdens in service to their country. Their service has taken them away from not only their families, but their jobs as well. One burden faced by the men and women of the National Guard and Reserves is their employment status upon return from active duty. The uncertainty of their activation and period of time away from their jobs also severely affects their employers, a situation that has been compounded by extended deployments. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated that 70 percent of military reservists called to active-duty work in small or medium-size companies. In an effort to assist National Guardsmen, Reservists, and their employers, the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) was established to address potential problems arising among the Nation's employers. Trained ESGR employers manage to solve roughly 95 percent of the cases where problems have arisen when a Reserve or Guard member returns to his or her workplace through an informal process--without the Department of Labor having to get involved. What about the other five percent? According to the ESGR, many of the problems facing this five percent of cases grew out of a lack of understanding of the rights and responsibilities of employers and their returning employees. In response, I introduced H.R. 4477 with the bipartisan support of U.S. Representative Jeb Bradley. The Committee on Veterans Affairs incorporated H.R. 4477 into Section 211 of H.R. 4658, the bill the House is considering today. Section 211 is simple and straightforward. It seeks to promote understanding between employees and employers when it comes to their rights and obligations under USERRA. Section 211 would require the Department of Labor to produce a poster--similar to the Family and Medical Leave poster-for employers to post at work sites. Mr. Speaker, many employers across the country either do not know about USERRA, or they are only vaguely aware of it. By not complying with USERRA, employers put themselves at risk of facing Department of Labor investigations. By educating employers and employees before potential violations, we can protect employers from costly litigation, potential fines, and public embarrassment. Mr. Speaker, Section 211 would not create additional paper work or burden employers with difficult Department of Labor requirements. In fact, Section 211 is an effort to educate employers and keep them from unknowingly breaking existing law. Let me briefly share with you how I came to introduce H.R. 4477. I was contacted by a constituent who is a member of the Massachusetts ESGR. He suggested that simply altering USERRA to require its posting would solve many of the problems that he had seen arise between employers and returning Reservists and Guardsmen. He described how many employers are not fully aware of their responsibilities under USERRA, and why many employees are afraid to exercise their rights, even though those rights are protected by USERRA. In posting USERRA and familiarizing themselves with the law, employers and employees will gain a deeper understanding of USERRA and preferably work out any potential conflicts before employees are activated. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Chris Smith and Ranking Member Lane Evans of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, as well as Chairman Henry Brown and Ranking Member Michael Michaud of the Subcommittee on Benefits, for moving forward with H.R. 4658. Their dedication and leadership on issues affecting the well-being of our veterans and uniformed men and women are appreciated and respected by all members of this House, including myself. I would also like to extend my thanks to the staff of the Committee on Veterans Affairs for their hard work on H.R. 4658. In particular, I would like to extend my deep appreciation to Geoffrey Collver of the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Veterans Affairs for working closely with me on Section 211. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the adoption of H.R. 4658.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall votes numbers 487, 488, 489, 490, and 491. If I was present, I would have voted: ``Aye'' on rollcall No. 487; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 488; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 489; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 490; and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 491.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Wolf, for sponsoring this resolution and for his leadership in the fight to end hunger here in the United States and around the world. I also want to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Stenholm, and the members of the Agriculture Committee for moving this resolution forward for consideration by the full House. I rise in support of H. Res. 261. America's Second harvest, the food banks that operate across the country, and the volunteers who help provide assistance at these organizations deserve to be recognized and thanked for their diligence and hard work in combating hunger in America. Mr. Speaker, I believe hunger is a political problem. There is no reason people--both here at home and around the world--should go without food. America is known as a country of plenty, and it is shameful that our prosperous nation still has children, veterans, seniors, and other individuals and families who simply do not know from day to day whether they will have enough to eat. The system of food banks throughout the United States provides a safety net where individuals and families can go to get a meal when they really need one. In my own congressional district and hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts, the Worcester County Food Bank provides this invaluable service to the people of Central Massachusetts. Jean McMurray, the executive director of the Food Bank, helps provide food for soup kitchens and food pantries throughout Worcester County. The food bank also runs and operates a kitchen where they prepare food for soup kitchens and train people in food service and food preparation skills in order to find good-paying jobs. These are excellent programs and an excellent food bank, and I am so very pleasing that this resolution recognizes and honors the work of Jean McMurray, her staff and their counterparts across the country. Mr. Speaker, our food banks are stretched thin. Every day they are called upon to provide more and more assistance. Sadly, more people go without food every day in our country, and the safety net provided by these food banks, the assistance that help the food insecure escape starvation, is strained to the breaking point. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Hunger Center, I have worked closely with America's Second Harvest and local food banks. The Congressional Hunger Center, dedicated to training tomorrow's leaders in the fight against hunger, places Emerson Trust Fellows in food banks and other anti-hunger organizations across the country so that they may see and learn first-hand from the work carried out by these groups. Mr. Speaker, like my colleague Mr. Wolf, I am committed to ending hunger in America. We have a blueprint researched and developed by the Alliance to End Hunger on how Congress and the American people, working together, can achieve that goal. This resolution honors many of the groups and individuals who are on the front lines of that battle, and I thank Congressman Wolf once again for his leadership. I hope passage of this resolution will help energize this body to make a full commitment to ending hunger in America once and for all.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.