Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me, first, begin by reiterating something that has been said many times here. One of the great features of H.R. 6 is that it would create a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. It could be used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Everybody talks about wanting to become energy independent, but they don't want to do anything about it; and this would actually create a reserve to do that, to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels, to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices and conservation, and to increase research development and deployment of clean renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies. Again, this is the beginning of our dealing with this issue. There is a lot more to do. And I look forward to more debates and hearings and more ideas from Members from both sides of the aisle to figure out how we can achieve our goal of energy independence. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for participating in the debate today. Over the past 100 hours, this House has made tremendous progress in addressing the needs of the American people. We have strengthened the ethical rules of this House. We have made the homeland safer by adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We have given low-wage workers a much needed raise. We have embraced the promise of stem cell research. We have made student loans and prescription drugs more affordable. And with the passage of this rule and the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, we will take our energy policy in a new direction, toward cleaner, renewable energy and away from tax giveaways to huge oil and gas companies. If you want the same old same old, vote against this rule and vote against the underlying bill. If you want a new direction, then support the rule and support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, let me close with a word about process. I understand the concerns expressed by my friends on the other side of the aisle. I served in the minority party during the last Congress, and I suspect my friends are worried that they will be treated as poorly and disrespectfully as we were. I was here when the Republican majority passed exactly one open rule on a non appropriations bill. I was here when votes were held open for 3 hours to change people's votes. I was here when special interests provisions were tucked into conference reports after they were signed. This House is broken, Mr. Speaker, and the Democratic majority was elected to fix it, and that is what we are going to do. All I can tell my friends on the other side of the aisle is what I believe. I believe that every Member of this House deserves to be respected. I believe that one party does not hold a monopoly on good ideas; and I believe that openness should be the rule, and not the exception. And all I can offer my friends is my word that I will work as hard as I possibly can to make sure that this House runs in a more open, democratic fashion than was the norm over the past 12 years. We will not be perfect, because human endeavors never are. But we will be better. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 66 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the following: ``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are waived except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed three hours, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five- minute rule. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.''.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time 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. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 66 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield my friend from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 30 minutes, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 66 is a closed rule that allows the House to consider the final piece of the first-100-hours agenda. This rule, as has been mentioned, provides 3 hours of debate in the House, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Science and Technology. Mr. Speaker, I expect that we will hear a great deal from my friends on the other side of the aisle about process, and they will be upset that this is a closed rule. Mr. Speaker, Democrats campaigned on changing the culture in Washington. We campaigned on ending the culture of corruption and on draining the swamp, and we have done that. We campaigned most importantly, Mr. Speaker, on doing what is right for hardworking American families whose priorities and whose concerns have been ignored for the last 12 years. Over the last 100 hours, Mr. Speaker, the House has voted to clean up the ethical mess in Congress, to strengthen homeland security, to combat the Federal deficit by instituting pay-as-you-go rules, to invest in lifesaving stem cell research, to make college more affordable by lowering the interest rates on student loans, to reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by allowing the government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, and to increase the minimum wage for millions of hardworking and underpaid workers in America. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that each of these initiatives not only has passed the House of Representatives, but has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. And in a difference in approach to legislation compared to the Republican majority in the past, who used to subscribe to the rule that they would only bring measures to the floor if a majority of the majority on their side supported it, I am happy to report that yesterday's vote on making college tuition more affordable for our young people not only enjoyed a majority of the majority in terms of support, but a majority of the minority actually voted in support, and that is refreshing. Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to the American people that we would achieve these goals quickly, and that is what we have done. And in order to keep that promise to the voters, we have utilized an expedited process. With the passage of this rule, the House will consider H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am proud to stand here in support of this initiative. The voters sent us a message in November. They called us to account for bill after bill of kickbacks to special interests like Big Oil. We were not sent here to allow huge corporations to continue to reap the benefits of tax breaks while gouging their customers at the gas pump. I commend Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for holding true to their commitments and listening to the American people by bringing this legislation to the floor for a vote. The distinguished chairmen of the Committees on Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel, and Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, crafted this legislation to balance fiscal responsibility with our Nation's growing energy needs. At long last, Mr. Speaker, Congress is putting its money where its mouth is and increasing our investment in renewable energy. We are not just talking the talk; we are walking the walk. We promised no quick fixes. It took years of failed legislative policy to dig us into this hole. But the bill before us today will set us on the path toward energy independence. For years, experts have warned of an impending energy crisis. They pointed to the Nation's increasing oil and gas consumption and called attention to our limited supply of these natural resources. Unfortunately, Congress and the Bush administration failed to heed these warnings. In fact, under the Republican-controlled Congress, Federal investment in alternative energy sources actually decreased over the past decade. And at the same time, the administration prescribed more of the same, giveaways to the oil and gas industries. During the 109th Congress, President Bush heralded the Republican Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a necessary approach to the Nation's energy crisis. In all, it provided $8.1 billion, let me repeat that, $8.1 billion in tax incentives for the entire energy industry. And despite their record profits, oil and gas companies took 93 percent of these tax breaks, $7.5 billion. Now, I suppose that that shouldn't be a surprise to many people here, given the fact that in the 2006 elections the oil companies gave $17.5 million to candidates running for Congress. $14.5 million of that money went to Republicans. Mr. Speaker, all that money going to the oil industry did not leave very much money for alternative and renewable energy supplies. So, Mr. Speaker, when that energy bill was debated, many of us on this side of the aisle voiced concerns that the bill would do nothing to ease the price of gas at the pump or decrease our dependence on foreign oil or provide significant investment in renewable sources of energy. I should say, Mr. Speaker, there is study after study after study, news article after news article after news article which support our concerns, unfortunately. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is a critical step in the right direction. It closes the tax loophole for oil companies which provided Conoco Phillips $106 million in 2005, even as that company enjoyed profits totaling $13.5 billion. It rolls back tax breaks for geological studies for oil exploration and repeals five royalty relief provisions from the 2005 energy bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, and I think most importantly, for a lot of us who believe that we need to do more to achieve energy independence, it reinvests those funds into clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Certainly, there are no easy solutions to remedy our energy crisis. But we know one thing for certain, if we fail to pass this bill and make the necessary changes and investments now, our dependency on foreign oil will continue to worsen. The time to is now. For those who want the same old, same old, who are married to the status quo, vote the rule down. But for those who are tired of being dictated to by big oil companies, for those who believe that we should reinvest in renewable energy, for those who believe that citizens matter more than campaign contributions, vote ``yes'' on this rule. Chairman Rahall said in his testimony before the Rules Committee 2 days ago that what we are considering today is just the first step. We have much more that we need to do. I look forward to working with him and other Members of this Congress and moving this country forward. Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Rahall, for their work. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and supporting the supporting bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Florida for voting with the Democratic majority in support of increasing the minimum wage and for voting with us to make it more affordable for students to go to college. We appreciate your support. Judging from his statement on this bill, I get the sense that he is opposed to the underlying bill. Let me just say if you are opposed to the underlying bill, vote ``no'' for everything. If you are for the same old, same old, if you want more, if you support tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, if you are against investing more in renewable energy, vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I mean, that is the way this place works. That is your right. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House H.R. 475; the bill shall be considered as read; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, and one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 75) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007. Currently, Massachusetts has about 99,000 undergraduate students attending 4-year colleges and universities who receive federal need-based college loans--or Stafford Loans. In my own district, the 3rd Congressional District of Massachusetts, at Worcester State College, a 4-year public college, more than 1,300 students have Stafford Loans; and at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a 4-year private college, more than 1,700 students have Stafford Loans. In Massachusetts, the average Stafford Loan Debt is about $14,000 ($13,994). Even though, under H.R. 5, the full reduction to the interest rate takes five years to achieve--because Democrats believe in making sure their proposals are fully paid for--Massachusetts students starting college in 2007 will benefit immediately from these changes to the interest rates. The savings for the average student in Massachusetts receiving a Stafford Loan who starts school in 2007 will be $2,310. That translates into $1,760 for that student at Worcester State College and $2,750 for the student at WPI. And for the students who start school in 2011, when the interest rate reduction is fully phased in, their savings will increase to $4,470. Or once again, about $3,420 for the student at Worcester State College, and about $5,330 for the student at WPI. These figures have real meaning to low- and middle-income students and their families. They are targeted at families whose annual income is less than $70,000. These are the families and individuals who most need our support to achieve the dream of a college education. According to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent at least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending 4-year public colleges over the next decade--and another 2 million high school graduates from attending any college at all. These reductions won't cost the U.S. taxpayer a single dime. They will barely cause a ripple in the profitability of banks and lenders currently doing business with the federal government in managing Stafford Loans--no matter how much complaining and moaning we're likely to hear from them. And let me emphasize one other point--I agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle that there are many reasons why a higher education is increasingly out of reach for many American families: The failure over the past several years to increase the maximum Pell Grant level, the stagnation of funding for campus-based aid programs, and the soaring costs of college tuition, fees, room and board--to name just a few. As my colleagues know, I have been a particular champion of significant increases both to the Pell Grant maximum level and overall funding of the program. It's my understanding that the gentleman from California, Chairman George Miller, will begin hearings on these and other issues related to the affordability of a college education. Working through the Education and the Workforce Committee, legislation will be drafted and marked up through regular Committee process, reported out, and hopefully be scheduled on the House legislative calendar in the 110th Congress. So these profound issues that concern Republicans and Democrats alike will proceed through regular order with the full participation of the Minority.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, time and time again, the American people have spoken on this issue--they overwhelmingly support the expansion of embryonic stem cell research. And today, Congress has the opportunity to take heed and do the bidding of the people by passing H.R. 3. Recent developments have proven that we are not far off from recognizing the true potential of embryonic stem cell research. In meetings with researchers at ViaCell and New World Laboratories, two small biotech companies in my home state of Massachusetts, I have seen first-hand the notable progress made in their research on spinal cord injuries and tissue regeneration. All around the world, researchers are gaining similar ground. However, our nation's current policy stands to limit such critical advancements. And that is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3. It marks the way for an increased number of embryonic stem cell lines while also developing strong ethical guidelines to protect the integrity of this research. We have the rare opportunity to help spur scientific innovation that could, with the proper research and development, produce better treatments--or even cures--for diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and cancer. But absent a federal investment in embryonic stem cell research, we will never witness its true potential. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Waters for her leadership on the Out of Iraq Caucus and for her words here today. I want to thank all of my colleagues for participating in this Special Order this evening. We are all here because we love this country, and we are all here because we are outraged by the Bush policy in Iraq. We believe our country is much better than what is on display in Iraq today. We want to change the policies of this country to make our country better, to make it reflect what this country really is all about, the finest and the best traditions of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, on November 7, George Bush lost the election. The American people made it very clear that they wanted a change in direction in Iraq. That election was about Iraq, and the American people all across this country made it clear that they want a change in direction. Last night the President of the United States gave a speech, and he made it clear that he doesn't care what the people of this country believe. He is ignoring the message and the statement of the mid-term elections. You know, I had hoped, notwithstanding all of the media hype leading up to the President's speech last night, I was hoping maybe, just maybe he was going to do the right thing. That instead of announcing tens of thousands of more American troops in Iraq, that he was going to announce that he was going to withdraw tens of thousands of American troops from Iraq and begin the U.S. withdrawal and begin the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. He did not do that. So what do you do, Mr. Speaker? What do you do when you have a President of the United States who ignores the advice of his generals and military leaders who all told him that an escalation of U.S. forces was a bad idea? What do you do, Mr. Speaker, when you have a President of the United States who ignores the work of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group? The group's report by all accounts says our policy in Iraq has been a failure, and it suggested that we find a way out. What do you do when you have a President of the United States who ignores that? What do you do when you have a President of the United States who ignores the will of the American people, who ignores the election last November 7? What do you, Mr. Speaker? Well, all of us here have expressed our concern and our outrage over this policy, most of us since before the war again. But what do you do now? We can give more speeches, which we have been doing. We are sending more letters and issuing more press releases. But, Mr. Speaker, when you have a President of the United States who is behaving as arrogantly as this President is with regard to this war, then Congress must take action. Congress must condition funding. Congress must withhold funding. Congress must cut funding if that is what it takes to end this war. Now, there are those who say if you do that, you are going to shortchange our troops. I hear that from the Bush administration and from some colleagues here in this Congress. Let me tell you what shortchanges our troops is when we keep them in harm's way in a war that makes no sense, when we have them serve as referees in a civil war, when we put more and more of our troops, when we escalate our involvement in this war. That shortchanges our troops. The fact of the matter is this administration has been shortchanging our troops for a long, long time, Mr. Speaker. When wounded veterans come back, when people come back from this war with post-traumatic stress syndrome and they can't get the care that they need, that shortchanges our troops. I don't think it shortchanges our troops to reunite our soldiers with their families and their loved ones back in the safety of this country. That doesn't shortchange our troops. That actually is what our troops deserve. I think we need to understand that all this rhetoric, the constant invocation of 9/11, the constant admonitions that somehow we are not being true to our troops if we talk about cutting aid, withholding funds, stopping funding for this war because this President won't deal with us, we need to put that rhetoric aside. This President will not listen to the American people. Put the rhetoric aside. We have to do what is right. Let me tell you one final thing, Mr. Speaker. All of us who serve in this Congress do not have to wake up in harm's way. We are not on the front lines in Iraq. I would like to have an amendment introduced some day to a bill that says all these people who want to go to war all the time, they should be the ones who lead the charge. Let those who are up here constantly calling for ``stay the course'' and ``let's continue the current policy,'' let them go and fight. The time has come to end this war. That is what the American people want, and this Congress has the guts to do it. I thank the gentlewoman. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we will once again listen to President Bush as he describes yet another strategy for the war in Iraq. By all accounts from the media, the President will tell the Nation that he intends to send more U.S. troops to fight and die in Iraq. This is not ``stay the course,'' Mr. Speaker, this is escalation. And at a bare minimum, Congress must find the wisdom and the courage to require and vote upon specific new authorization to escalate the number of troops in Iraq. This is what Senator Kennedy called for yesterday. He has introduced legislation that prohibits any Federal funds from being used to increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq without a specific authorization of Congress by law for such an increase. It is the very minimum we can do, Mr. Speaker, for Congress to finally take some responsibility for this war and exercise some accountability. What do you do, Mr. Speaker, when a President fails to listen to the military advice of his generals? When he consistently changes generals when their experience and best counsel does not match his own preconceived ideas? What do you do, Mr. Speaker, when a President ignores the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group? What do you do when a President, whose idea of a exit strategy is to kick the ball down field, is determined to dump this mess on whoever will be the next President of the United States? Mr. Speaker, this President lost the mid-term elections. He lost because the American people voted against the war, and they want a new direction. This is George Bush's war, and he should end it on his watch. If he is not going to listen to his own generals, the counsel of the Iraq Study Group or the American people, then Congress must confront him and begin to deny him the means and the ability to carry out the next disastrous step of his policy. It is my view that too many in Washington are consumed with saving face, rather than saving lives. Political expediency, political cover and political posturing must not be the guiding principles on how we proceed in Iraq. Instead, we must be focused on the men and women we put in harm's way. And everyone in this Chamber should be haunted by the fact that Congress has acquiesced too many times in one of the worst foreign policy blunders in United States history. Over 3,000 American military personnel have been killed in this war. Are we going to stand here next January and talk about the 4,000 or 5,000 who will have died? Well over 22,000 American troops have been wounded, some injured for life, and over tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children are dead. It is long past time for this Congress to accept responsibility for having given this President a blank check and a free pass for nearly 4 years. It is simply false to argue that placing any restrictions on funding for this disastrous war somehow shortchanges our troops. Redeployment from Iraq does not shortchange our troops. Bringing them home to their families does not shortchange our troops. I will tell you what shortchanges our troops. Making them serve two, three or possibly even four tours of duty in Iraq, that shortchanges our troops. Failing to provide the veterans of this war with health care, that shortchanges our troops. Increasing by more than five times the backlog on veterans' disability claims so that those injured in Iraq and those suffering from PTSD don't get the help they need when they return home, that shortchanges our troops, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is no military victory to be had in Iraq. It is time George Bush ended his war and brought our uniformed men and women home. To do that, we must change the dynamic in Iraq. We must end our occupation, let the Iraqi people determine their own destiny and engage the countries of the region and the international community while we withdraw. We can start by voting not to escalate this war, even if that means conditioning or withholding funds. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, will not vote for any so-called emergency supplemental appropriations bill that escalates the war in Iraq, that fails to offer a clear plan for when our troops will be coming home. Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. They are far ahead of the politicians in Washington. They want leadership. They want us to do what is right. They want us to end the war.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after a decade of inaction by the Republican majority, we stand to vote today on one of the most critical issues facing working Americans. For years, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, led our efforts to bring the minimum wage more in line with this country's growing cost of living. We pushed for a clean, up or down vote. But instead, as the 109th Congress winded down, we were presented with a muddled package of bills, and once again, the will of the American people was pushed aside to accommodate corporate interests. So, I must commend Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for including this minimum wage increase in our first 100 hour commitment to working Americans. For the 6.5 million minimum wage earners throughout the country, this bill amounts to an additional $4,400 each year. That alone would cover: 15 months of groceries; over two years of health care; and two and a half years of college tuition at a public, 2 year college. Ultimately, up to 13 million low-wage workers will be helped by this increase. Right now the average CEO of a Fortune 500 Company earns $10,712 in 1 hour and 16 minutes. It takes the average minimum wage worker 52 40- hour weeks--an entire year to earn the same $10,712. That's wrong, and we're going to fix it. And, let's be clear, there is no evidence to support the Republican claim that an increase in minimum wage leads to job loss. For proof, we only need to look at the twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia that have set minimum wages that are higher than the federal minimum wage. In fact, a May 2006 study released by the Center for American Progress and Policy Matters found that employment in small businesses grew more than 9.4% in states with higher minimum wage; and inflation-adjusted business payroll growth was over 5% stronger in high minimum wage states. A 1998 study by the Economic Policy Institute found that unemployment and poverty rates actually dropped after the last increase in the federal minimum wage in 1997. Working Americans are the backbone of our nation, and this increase is long overdue. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Craig C. Mello, PhD of the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS) in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts for his great work in the advancement of genetic research. Born in New Haven, CT in 1960, Dr. Mello is an alumnus of Brown University where he received a Bachelor's of Science in Biochemistry in 1982 and Harvard University where he received his PhD in Cellular and Developmental Biology. Dr. Mello and his colleague Dr. Andrew Fire are today's pioneers in RNA interference (RNAi). Their dedication to science and research has provided the world with evidence that will lead to the saving of lives around the world. Dr. Mello's research is not only groundbreaking but revolutionary. Madam Speaker, Dr. Mello's and Dr. Fire's discovery was published in Nature magazine in 1998. They have received several awards, including the National Academy of Sciences Award in Molecular Biology and the Wiley Prize in Biomedical Sciences as well as international awards in Germany and Canada. Most recently, Dr. Mello and Dr. Fire received the Nobel Prize in Physiology in 2006 for their work on RNAi, the highest honor in the world in the field of medicine and physiology. Dr. Craig C. Mello has instilled a sense of pride among the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Worcester with his research in the field of developmental gene regulation. Madam Speaker, I am sure that the entire U.S. House of Representatives joins me in thanking Dr. Craig C. Mello for his contribution to the field of genetic research and congratulating him on his achievement of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Clinton Exchange Club on the occasion of its 60th anniversary and to thank its members for the extraordinary contributions they have made to the greater Clinton community throughout the club's distinguished history. Exchange Clubs all across America are widely known for their efforts to prevent child abuse and nurture our nation's young people, however nowhere has the noble mission of this great service organization been more fully embraced by its membership than the Clinton Exchange Club. As a regular participant in the Memorial Day Exercises in the Town of Clinton, I have proudly marched behind the Exchange Club as they distribute American flags to the children lining the parade route. This public display of patriotism is an invaluable lesson for our young people to learn and I am grateful to the Clinton Exchange Club for making it an indispensable part of the town's Memorial Day tradition. The Clinton Exchange Club is a source of civic education, encouragement and support for the community's youth that extends far beyond one holiday a year. Through the sponsorship of local sports teams, the Freedom Shrine, the youth of the month recognition program and the numerous scholarships it awards, the Clinton Exchange Club is a positive force in nearly all facets of a child's development. A large number of Clinton's youth have responded to the example the Exchange Club has given them by establishing their own affiliated service organization at Clinton High School known as the Excel Club. The close collaboration between the Exchange Club and the Excel Club has ensured that service to others will endure as the hallmark of this tight-knit community for generations to come. Madam Speaker, the Town of Clinton enjoys a well-deserved reputation as one of the most compassionate communities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That is due in large part to the innumerable good deeds the Clinton Exchange Club has performed over these last sixty years. The greatest tribute I can pay them as they celebrate this important milestone is to humbly ask that they rededicate themselves to the club's mission and continue to better the lives of their neighbors and fellow citizens. This nation owes the Clinton Exchange Club a debt of gratitude for their legacy of service and the United States Congress congratulates them on this wonderful occasion.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. No, I will not. We sometimes report and file a special rule late one night, and the next morning the rule and the bill are on the House floor. There is just not much room for even minor clerical errors when you are under such tight deadlines. This rules change does not mean that the public will have any less access to what happens in the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker. We plan to include record votes in the Rules Committee reports and, even better, we intend to post committee votes on the Rules Committee Web site as soon as they have them, so that the American people will know what is going on. Even better than that, we plan to have more meetings during the daylight hours so that the public and the press know what we are doing in the Rules Committee. Well, let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you feel that the votes taken in the Rules Committee are not being made public fast enough, or are clear enough, you have my word that we will work to fix it, and we will work with you. You have my word on that. More importantly, Madam Speaker, after our business here in the House concludes today, we will have made historic progress. We will have ended the culture of corruption that has plagued this House for the past dozen years. We will have paved the way to accomplishing what the American people voted for, to give minimum wage workers a raise. Right now the average CEO of a Fortune 500 Company earns $10,712 in 1 hour 16 minutes. It takes an average minimum wage worker 52, 40-hour weeks, an entire year, to earn the same $10,712. It is wrong, and we are going to fix it. We will have paved a way to make college tuition and prescription drugs more affordable, to make our homeland safer, by implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and to invest in lifesaving stem cell research. All of these measures, Madam Speaker, have been the subject of hearings. Many of them have been voted on. But the majority on the other side has stalled and undermined these measure at every step. No more. Finally, Madam Speaker, let me assure my friends, including the distinguished gentleman from Florida, that we will conduct the business of this House in a much more fair, civil and open way than has been the norm of the last 12 years. Your views will be heard more than ours were. Your ideas will be given more consideration than ours were. Your voices will be more respected than ours were, because that is the right way to run the people's House.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I object.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me respond to my colleagues from Florida and Texas by simply saying you are wrong. Let me ask, has the gentleman yielded back all his time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the words of my colleagues from Texas and Florida. And I should remind my colleague from Florida when you are in the majority, you get to close debates. And he should have known that since he was in the majority for 12 years. And I think for anybody to talk about abuse of power, it takes a lot of chutzpah. I would suggest to the gentleman from Texas to look at what happened over the last 12 years in this Congress. Madam Speaker, this is the final title of the rules package. It consists of basic technical changes to the House rules. First, this title gives the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform authority to adopt a rule, allowing committee members and staff to conduct depositions in the course of committee investigations. Second, it shields the Rules Committee reports from a point of order if they are filed without a complete list of record votes taken during the consideration of a special rule. This provision allows the Rules Committee to publish recorded votes taken during committee hearings and committee reports and/or through other means, such as the Internet. Third, it allows for the consideration of several pieces of legislation that are part of the first 100 hours agenda, if special rules for those provisions are not separately reported. Fourth, this title continues the budget deeming resolution for the second session of the 109th Congress until such time as a conference report establishing a budget for the fiscal year 2008 is adopted. Fifth and finally, this title renews the standing order approved during the 109th Congress that prohibits registered lobbyists from using Members' exercise facilities, which is something I know is very important to the Members on the other side of the aisle. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have focused a lot of attention incorrectly on the second provision regarding the publishing of votes taken in the Rules Committee. Let me explain in detail what this provision actually accomplishes and why we have included it in this package. Section 503 is a straightforward clerical change to clause 3(b), rule XIII, that will make it a little easier for the Rules Committee to transmit its work product to the House in a timely manner. Despite what you may hear from the other side of the aisle, this section will not reduce the amount of information available to the public about what we do in the Rules Committee, and it will not stop us from taking public votes in the committee. Let me make something else clear. The House rules already require committees to keep a record of all recorded votes and to make those votes available publicly. That requirement has been in the permanent rules since 1953. The Rules Committee has always and will always comply with that rule. In fact, it is our goal to make Rules Committee votes available to the public more quickly than they do under the current practices. Our committee often meets on short notice and under severe time restrictions. Unlike other committees, which usually have several days to put together reports, our committee is often required to assemble large, complex reports in a matter of hours. The proper reporting and filing of these reports in the House is essential to the efficient operation of the House.