Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 for 9 years. A minimum-wage worker working full time earns about $10,712 a year. A minimum-wage worker has to work an entire day in order to be able to afford to fill their tank with gas. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress have awarded themselves eight pay raises since the last time we increased the Federal minimum wage. That is about $35,000 in pay raises. Mr. Speaker, 35 percent of workers who receive a minimum wage are their families' sole earners. Sixty-one percent are women and one-third of those women are raising children. Here is the deal, I say to my Republican colleagues: have a heart. And if you are not going to allow us to have a clean vote up or down on the minimum wage, then bring to the floor a bill that repeals your pay raise. It is not right for Members of Congress to get a pay raise while they force millions of Americans to continue to live in poverty.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today this House is considering the conference report for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act. This is a good bill, a worthy bill. This bill addresses the needs of America's changing workforce and hopefully it will help close the gaps that threaten our long-term ability to compete in the global economy. I want to express my appreciation and my respect for the leadership and hard work invested over the past 15 months by House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Buck McKeon and ranking member George Miller in moving these vital issues forward and that resulted in this strong, bipartisan supported bill. Mr. Speaker, the conference report successfully improves several aspects of the programs authorized under the Perkins Act. It provides for more effective accountability for these programs. It establishes stronger links to businesses and stronger partnerships between high schools, colleges and businesses, including small businesses. It creates better links and sequences of courses from high school to college and it promotes a much stronger academic focus, consistent with other Federal K-12 educational programs. Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of vocational, career and technical education, and I am not alone in Central Massachusetts in believing in the importance of vocational and technical education. Let me share with my colleagues an important milestone that took place just last month in Worcester, Massachusetts. On June 8, the last class to occupy the old Worcester Vocational High School graduated, ending an era that began in 1910 when the Boys Trade School opened its doors to 29 ironworkers and 23 woodworkers. That evening, 204 graduating seniors who attended classes in that 1910 building received their high school diplomas in subjects as diverse as telecommunications, cosmetology and hotel management. These students represent a well-educated workforce. In the past 5 years, in Worcester alone, the number of vocational technical graduates attending college has nearly tripled, from 24 percent in 2001 to 68 percent this year. It is not surprising, therefore, to know that the scores of these students on the Massachusetts mandatory State test, which has formidable high standards, have risen significantly, a testament to the hard work of students, faculty, school administrators and parents. This coming September, a new era will begin for Worcester's vocational and technical students when they start classes in a new state-of-the-art school, the Worcester Technical High School. I have had the opportunity to tour this new school, the first vocational high school in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be built in the last 30 years. I can assure my colleagues that the goals and programs outlined in today's reauthorization bill will find fertile ground and flourish at Worcester Technical High School. But, Mr. Speaker, it takes more than just a good framework like the one provided by this conference report to ensure a quality education. It takes resources. It takes money. And, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that worries me. I worry whether this House has the same bipartisan dedication and commitment that so successfully negotiated this conference agreement to make sure that these same programs are adequately funded in the future. Every year President Bush recommends the elimination of the Perkins vocational education programs in his budget. Every year, Mr. Speaker, every year he does this. Will the Republican leadership of this House pledge to organize a bipartisan effort and convince the President that he must include full funding for the Perkins Act in his budget? Each year when the President has eliminated the Perkins vocational and technical programs, the Republican majority of this House passes a budget resolution that matches the President's request, which means it also eliminates the funding for the Perkins Act programs. Where does that leave us, Mr. Speaker? It leaves us with an appropriations allocation for education that is so low it is impossible to adequately fund our Federal education programs. In order to restore $1.3 billion to the Perkins program, we are forced to steal money from other critical K-12 and higher education programs. This year is no exception. In the FY 2007 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act, which has been waiting in the wings for 6 weeks since June 13 for a chance to come to the House floor, we once again see damaging cuts in education funding. For the second year in a row, funding for the Department of Education has been cut, this time $404 million below FY 2006 levels and $1 billion below FY 2005 levels. While the appropriations bill provides $1.3 billion for vocational education programs, this is the same level as last year. This means vocational education grants will have lost $83 million in real purchasing power since FY 2005. Mr. Speaker, nearly half of all high school students and about one- third of all college students take vocational education courses to be ready for today's world of work. We cannot keep freezing the funding for these programs. The result is a de facto cut in resources at exactly the time when this authorization increases standards and accountability for vocational and technical schools. So I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will finally commit themselves not just to authorizing these critical programs, but to working in a bipartisan, all-out effort to make sure that they are adequately funded. Otherwise, nothing we do here today matters. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit I am a little bit confused. Only July 12, this House voted 260-159 in favor of a motion to instruct the conferees appointed to negotiate on this conference report to state clearly that when this authorizing bill describes as its purpose to prepare students for high wage jobs, that those jobs should, in no case, pay less than $7.25 an hour. 260-159, Mr. Speaker. That is an overwhelming vote. Sixty-four Republicans joined every single Democrat and Independent in this House in support of this language. But somehow, Mr. Speaker, it does not appear in the conference report. High skilled jobs are important, Mr. Speaker. High wage jobs matter. And so does raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage was established 63 years ago to alleviate poverty. Today, the minimum wage condemns workers and their families to a life of poverty. That is more than 6.5 million hardworking American workers. I thought that was why 260 members of this House voted 2 weeks ago to demand that the conferees include in this bill that the phrase ``high wage'' means no less than $7.25 an hour. Did the House conferees not take the Members of this House seriously? Did they fight during negotiations to include these words in the final conference report? Because, if so, then why isn't it there? Mr. Speaker, I have worked in this House for a while now, 10 years as a Member of Congress and 13 years before that as a Congressional aid. I remember when motions to instruct conferees were taken seriously by Members appointed to the conference committee. The Republican leadership will not allow this House to act on the FY 2007 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act because it contains an increase in the minimum wage. Every Health, Education and Labor Department program is being held hostage to the Republican majority's determination to keep 6.5 million hardworking Americans in poverty. Now they will not allow a handful of words, supported so strongly by Members of this House, to be included in this conference report. What are they so afraid of? As we take up the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act conference report, we can all be proud of our support of vocational, technical and career education. But with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, what we do today is meaningless. It is worthless if we fail to ensure adequate appropriations for these programs and if we continue to let the minimum wage stagnate and willingly and deliberately condemn more and more American workers to lives of poverty. In closing, I will support this bill because it does authorize a number of good programs. But let me repeat so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can hear this loud and clear: It is not enough to authorize programs. We need to fund them. And this President has consistently tried to eliminate funding for important vocational educational programs and this Congress passes budgets that also eliminate funding for these programs. And, quite frankly, the funding that we do provide is inadequate. Finally, let me repeat to all Members of this House, that it is a disgrace that we are about to recess for our August vacation without increasing the Federal minimum wage. It has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for nearly 9 years. During that same period of time, Members of this House have increased their pay eight different times, totaling about $35,000. If this Republican leadership does not want to allow Members of this House a clean, straight, up-or-down vote on the minimum wage, then they should at least have the decency to bring to the floor a resolution to repeal this pay raise. It is wrong to increase our pay and, at the same time, refuse to do anything about the millions of American workers who are stuck in poverty. If you work in this country, you should get paid enough so you don't have to live in poverty. Again, vocational education is important, but we need to fund these programs. That is something that this Republican Congress has failed to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the underlying bill. We will do that a little later on today. But, instead, I want to take a couple of minutes to speak about the rule and about what I believe is a flawed process that Members of this House are forced to operate within. It is easy in this Congress to get as much time as you want to debate trivial issues. We spend hours and hours honoring sports teams, we name post offices, we do all kinds of things like that. But when it comes to serious issues, all of a sudden there never seems to be the time. There were a number of amendments that were proposed in the Rules Committee last night. Some of them were not made in order, and I regret the fact that those amendments were not made in order. But a number of those that were made in order have been limited to 10 minutes, 10 minutes, to talk about issues dealing with nuclear proliferation and arms control, 10 minutes to talk about issues that impact U.S. treaty obligations, 10 minutes to talk about how we prevent this world from being extinguished in one terrible nuclear flash. That is what the leadership of this House thinks about issues of arms control and nuclear nonproliferation, 10 minutes; 5 minutes pro, 5 minutes against. My colleagues, Congressman Berman and Congresswoman Tauscher, have an amendment that restricts exports of nuclear reactor fuel to India until the President determines that India has halted the production of fissile material for the use in nuclear weapons. It is a serious issue. Regardless of whether you believe it should be part of this underlying bill or not, it is an issue that deserves debate and that the more debate that it gets on the floor the more of an indication we are going to send to our negotiators and to the Government of India that these issues are important to those of us in this Congress. Congressman Markey and Congressman Upton had an amendment that essentially would require the President to determine that the U.S. has received India's support in preventing Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. engages in nuclear cooperation with India. The President and Members of this Congress take to this well constantly to talk about how we are concerned about Iran possibly acquiring weapons of mass destruction. This seems like a reasonable amendment. It was not made in order, so now we are forced to use it as a motion to recommit. We get 10 minutes to debate that, 5 minutes in favor, 5 minutes against. We need to get our priorities straight in this House. We give resolutions honoring sports teams 40 minutes, 40 minutes; and we can only give 10 minutes to deal with amendments that are dealing with issues of whether or not we are going to see this arms race proliferate throughout this world? We need to get our priorities straight. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this rule. Regardless of how you want to vote on the final passage of this bill, we should demand, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, that serious issues that get debated, get debated with enough time on this floor, at least as much as we give to these trivial issues like honoring sports teams.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the International Relations Committee, one of the distinguished former co-chairs of the House India Caucus.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, sadly, the war in Iraq is escalating daily. In the first 6 months of 2006, more than 350 American soldiers were killed in action and over 2,400 wounded. This means the United States lost the equivalent of five battalions' worth of ground forces during the period Iraqi political leaders squabbled over how to form a government. And while forming a government was a positive step, it has made little difference in the daily lives of most Iraqis. Violence has escalated and claims more and more Iraqi lives. According to the U.N., over 14,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first 6 months of 2006, including 5,800 in May and June alone. States of emergency, curfews and military operations have not stabilized the country. There are more insurgents, more foreign fighters and more attacks. The signs of sectarian and ethnic cleansing are everywhere. President Bush has said he is going to deploy more troops into Baghdad. Mr. Speaker, 2006 was supposed to be a year of significant transition in Iraq. But the U.S. remains on the defensive, caught in a civil war. Mr. Speaker, this war is a miserable failure. It is time for a new direction in Iraq.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of this body is preparing to adjourn the House for a 5-week vacation at the end of this week without meeting the needs of America's working families. Republicans continue to block an increase in the minimum wage that would benefit 6.6 million people in this country, three-quarters of whom are adults over the age of 20 trying to support their families. This Republican Congress has refused to raise the minimum wage since 1997, causing it now to reach its lowest real value level in 50 years. The current pay of $5.15 per hour is simply not a fair or living wage in this economy. In fact, it now takes a minimum wage earner a full day's pay just to buy a tank of gas. What does that leave for housing and for food? Democrats believe that it is simply unacceptable in this great and wealthy Nation for an American who works full time to live in poverty while the Republicans in this body give handouts to the wealthiest 1 percent. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have had numerous opportunities to vote for an increase in the minimum wage; yet they continue to stall this critical measure while millions of Americans suffer the consequences. We should not leave this week without giving 6 million Americans a pay raise.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, every year I have taken the time to remember the Black Anniversary of the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. Thirty-two years ago, in 1974, Turkish forces invaded northern Cyprus and seized control of more than one-third of the island. In 1983, these illegal occupiers arbitrarily declared the territory to be an independent state. This so-called ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'' remains to this day shunned by the international community, recognized as legitimate only by Turkey. This year, an ``invasion'' of another sort is taking place during this anniversary. The Republic of Cyprus has opened its skies, its communities, and its facilities to thousands of European and American evacuees fleeing the fighting in Lebanon. By boat, by ferry, by airplane these French, Italian, British, American and other evacuees arrive safely on Cypriot soil. There they find peace for the first time in many days as they make arrangements to return to their own homelands and family members, anxiously awaiting their safe return. The Cyprus government has organized reception and hospitality for all foreign nationals arriving at the Larnaca Port from Lebanon. The Cyprus government is opening up hotels, and providing temporary housing in schools, exhibition spaces and prefabricated housing for evacuees while they arrange the next stage of their journey home. I am inserting a July 19 ANA-MPA wire story on the hospitality of the Cyprus Republic for all the evacuees landing on their shores. As I see the many photos and broadcast images of evacuees from Lebanon arriving safely in Cyprus, my heart is too full to speak this year about the dark events of three decades past. I only wish to say ``thank you'' to President Papadopoulos and to the people of Cyprus, thank you for the sanctuary you are providing and serving as a critical transit point for these shell-shocked individuals and families. The island of Cyprus remains divided because of the brutality and intransigence of just one country, Turkey. But this anniversary the world has witnessed the compassionate heart of the only true nation of Cyprus as it has embraced these evacuees and helped each of them find their way home. More Flee Lebanon via Cyprus Nicosia.--Organising the reception and hospitality of foreign nationals arriving in Larnaca from Lebanon is a coordinating committee set up by the Cyprus government, which oversees the activities of the various government services and other bodies involved. There is heightened activity and traffic at Larnaca port as hundreds of Europeans and Americans arrive on boats from Beirut. Arrivals on Wednesday included the Norwegian ship ``Hual Transporter'' with more than 1,100 people on board, mostly of American or Scandinavian origin. The U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus Ronald Schlicher said that several thousand U.S. citizens were expected to arrive on Cyprus, who would stay in hotels or--if there were not enough beds--in schools and an exhibition space equipped with tents and prefab housing provided by the Cyprus government. Thanking Nicosia, Schlicher said that the Cyprus Republic had offered significant assistance and that this could be a good opportunity to deepen U.S.-Cyprus cooperation. Later on Wednesday, the Panamanian-flagged ship ``Oriental Queen'' is expected to arrive at the port in Limassol carrying another 800-900 Americans, to be followed by the cruise ship ``Serenate'' that will left off passengers that were on a scheduled cruise to Port Said in Egypt and then depart immediately without passengers. The Greek ferry boat ``Ierapetra'', chartered by the French government, set sail for Beirut at dawn on Wednesday to pick up another 2,000-odd people, followed by the Greek Navy tank- landing craft ``Alcyone'' soon after it arrived from Greece. According to an announcement by the Greek armed forces general staff, meanwhile, the tank-landing craft ``Ikaria'' was expected to arrive in Beirut at 14:30 on Wednesday afternoon. The foreigners arriving in Cyprus are mostly leaving from Larnaca airport, or staying at hotels until arrangements for their departure can be made. Meanwhile, during the U.S. State Department briefing on the Lebanon evacuation efforts, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty expressed gratitude for help offered by the Cyprus Republic. ``We're so grateful to them . . . Cypriots have met every helicopter and ship with sandwiches and water and juice. They're just being fantastic. Department of Defense is meeting planes as well for security reasons and for protection purposes,'' she said. She also noted that the U.S. was trying to minimise the time spent by its citizens on the island and would try to coordinate the arrival of ships with chartered planes to take them home, as far as possible. ``We just want that throughput to be as efficient as it can be. So there is bottled water. There is a fair grounds that we have rented. There are some air-conditioned facilities. The Cypriot Civil Defense Force has been very helpful to us in what they have provided,'' she added.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, President Bush has not vetoed a single bill, even though this Republican Congress has passed some really lousy legislation. It is amazing to me that he would choose his first veto on a bill that is critical to finding cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, MS, and so many other diseases. H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act offers real hope, and the President should not veto it. Washington Republicans, worried that a veto of this important and popular bill will damage them politically, are also pushing two other bills. The American people will not be deceived. They know that H.R. 810 is the real deal, and that it deserves to become law. This week the American Medical Association and 92 other organizations sent out a letter stating, and I quote, ``Only H.R. 810 will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is the bill that holds promise for expanding medical breakthroughs. The other two bills are not substitutes for a `yes' vote on H.R. 810.'' They conclude by saying that H.R. 810 is the ``pro-patient and pro-research bill.'' Madam Speaker, President Bush has a choice to make. He can act on behalf of his extreme right wing, or he can act on behalf of millions of Americans who are suffering from terrible diseases. I hope he makes the right choice.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the Republican majority in this House has brought this bill to the floor. This bill, to put it simply and bluntly, is about adding discrimination and intolerance to the United States Constitution. This is about the Republican majority's once again trying to divide and polarize the Nation. It is about the Republican leadership's taking something that should be about love and turning it into a weapon of hate. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to be from Massachusetts, the home of the Nation's first State Constitution. In Massachusetts over 8,000 same-sex couples have been married since May of 2004, when it became legal. I should advise my colleagues that Massachusetts has not fallen off the map into the Atlantic Ocean. The sun still rises and sets in the Commonwealth. The Red Sox still play at Fenway, and life goes on. The only thing that is different is that couples of the same sex who love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together, and want to get married can do so. It means that men and women who happen to be gay are able to enjoy the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as men and women who happen to be straight. And, Mr. Speaker, that is how it should be. Those who have continued to advocate a ban on same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history. There are some here who claim that they are on some sort of moral crusade to protect the institution of marriage. To them I say worry about your own marriage. I do not need you to protect mine. I have been happily married to the same woman for 17 years without the help or interference of Congress. What we should be protecting are the civil and human rights of all Americans. The fact that same-sex marriage is legal in my home State has had no impact on my marriage except that we were invited to more weddings. Same-sex marriage is a threat to no institution, to no individual. The underlying bill before us would not only add discrimination to the Constitution for the first time in our history. It would repeal, it would actually take away, the rights of thousands of Americans. What do the supporters of this bill say to the gay couples in Massachusetts who are now legally married; our family members, our neighbors, our coworkers, the people who sit next to us in church? Do you say your marriage is now meaningless and we are going to take away your rights? Do you say we are sending you back to second-class citizenship? Do you say that we have so much hatred for who you are that we are willing to tarnish the United States Constitution? Marriage law in this country has traditionally been left to the States. Indeed, even in Massachusetts the same supreme judicial court that the proponents of this bill decry recently ruled that a referendum banning same-sex marriage can go forward. That referendum is currently working its way through the process. And I believe, of course, that the referendum should and will fail, that the citizens of Massachusetts would not vote to turn back the clock. But that should be up to us, Mr. Speaker, not to the people of Colorado or Georgia or anywhere else. In addition, this bill jeopardizes not just same-sex marriage in Massachusetts but domestic partnership and civil union laws in other parts of the country. The proposal before us is so poorly drafted that legal experts disagree on exactly what effect it will have on those laws. That means, of course, that the issue will end up back in the courts, which is ironic given the concept of court-bashing by the bill's supporters. Mr. Speaker, the impact of this debate goes far beyond constitutional arguments. The proponents of this bill are contributing to a climate of intolerance. We will hear protests from the other side today that they have no problem with gay people. Yet here they are arguing that gay people do not deserve the same rights as everybody else. Mr. Speaker, I am also terribly troubled by the hate spewing from some of the outside groups using the same-sex marriage issue to whip up emotions and raise money. Mr. Speaker, some of the rhetoric is just deplorable. But I doubt that we will hear any of the bill's supporters denouncing it here today on the floor. My colleagues, discrimination is discrimination, and it should find no sanctuary in our Constitution or in our hearts. It should find no sanctuary on the floor of the people's House. We all know why this proposal is before us. It is an election year, and if it is an election year, the Republican leadership will find a place on the agenda for gay-bashing. This proposal is worse than a distraction. It is not an assault on our fellow citizens. It is an attack on a piece of their humanity, and I urge you to stand on the right side of history and to defeat this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, there is no Federal challenge at this time in any Federal court to DOMA. So that not is not even an issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record at this time an article that appeared in the Economist magazine entitled ``The Case For Gay Marriage.'' I will insert into the Record an executive summary of the Cato Institute's policy analysis entitled: ``The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-federalist and Antidemocratic.'' I would also like to insert into the Record a letter from the Human Rights Campaign in opposition to the bill before us, a letter from the American Jewish Committee in opposition to the bill before us, a letter from the National Council of Jewish Women in opposition to the bill before us, and a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in opposition to the bill before us. [From the Economist print edition, Feb. 26, 2004] The Case for Gay Marriage It rests on equality, liberty and even society So at last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely ``Massachusetts liberal'' opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr. Bush must actually believe in what he is doing. Mr. Bush says that he is acting to protect ``the most fundamental institution of civilisation'' from what he sees as ``activist judges'' who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. An those ``activist judges'', who, by the way, gave Mr. Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v. Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that ``the Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code''. That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry. Let them wed That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries--Belgium and the Netherlands--have given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years ago (``Let them wed'', January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously. The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was ``traditional''. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be ``married''. But that is to dodge the real question--why not?--and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so? Civil unions are not enough The reason, according to Mr. Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage. But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends. The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage--a so-called civil union--is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a ``marriage''. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash--of the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr. Bush this week. Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation. [From Policy Analysis, June 1, 2006] The Federal Marriage Amendment Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti- Democratic (By Dale Carpenter) Executive Summary Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex marriages from being forced on the nation. That fear is even more unfounded today than it was in 2004, when Congress last considered the FMA. The better view is that the policy debate on same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states, without being cut off by a single national policy imposed from Washington and enshrined in the Constitution. A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment foreclosing it, on grounds of federalism, confidence that opponents will prevail without an amendment, or a belief that public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the constitutional level. There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem. Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law. Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights. Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I used to think that what was sacred in this country was defending civil rights and civil liberties and fighting against discrimination. Apparently I am mistaken, based on the comments that I have just heard. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. If all these States are doing what you want them to do, why do we need a Federal constitutional amendment?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) when he says that the American people are a good and tolerant people. He is absolutely right. Unfortunately, that doesn't extend in terms of the tolerance part of it to a lot of Members of this Chamber. I mean, we have listened to this debate for nearly an hour now, and we have heard the words from the other side, and they are words of exclusion, and even hate. We have heard talk about family values. Well, hate is not a family value. Discrimination is not a family value. Exclusion and denying people's rights are not family values. In Massachusetts, my home State, same-sex marriage is legal. It is legal. Gay couples can go to the town hall, city hall, fill out the forms, pay the application fee and legally get married; 8,000 couples have done so, and everything has stayed the same in Massachusetts. Life goes on. But what you want to do here today with this amendment is not only prevent other States from acting as Massachusetts has done, but what you are saying to those 8,000 couples is that we want to affirmatively go and take away your rights; we want to null and void your legal rights. That is shameful. It is insulting. It is discrimination. If your State wants to ban gay marriage, that is your State's right to do so, but the people of Massachusetts have a different opinion, and if the people of Massachusetts want to respect and honor same-sex marriages, that is our business. It should not be the business of the House of Representatives or the United States Senate to go in there and to go against and to void the will of the people of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is all about politics here today. The Senate has already defeated this. This is appalling that we are here today. This is about gay-bashing. It is about winning political points. Quite frankly, this is disgraceful.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act is a historic piece of legislation, one that seeks to ensure that all our citizens can participate in this democracy. And I want to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their work in crafting a bipartisan agreement to reauthorize this act. As Senator Kennedy often says, civil rights remains the unfinished business of America. Today, Mr. Speaker, should be a day for us to come together to celebrate the accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act, to affirm the fact that it works, and to remind ourselves that our work is not yet complete. Instead, what the Republican leadership has done is to guarantee that much of this debate will be divisive and ugly. They have decided that it is more important to placate a small faction of their base than to embrace a thoughtful, bipartisan agreement. And that is shameful. This House should be doing everything possible to prevent discrimination and to promote voting equality. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will pass this bill without any of the poison pill amendments allowed by this rule. These amendments will only weaken the Voting Rights Act in spirit and in practice. It has been just a few decades since many States and localities had discriminatory regulations on the books, things like poll taxes, literacy tests, and others. And, sadly, discrimination still exists in America. It is essential that today we not turn back the clock, that we not lose our focus, that we not declare ``mission accomplished.'' Mr. Speaker, it says a lot about the Republican leadership in this House and their priorities that a carefully considered, thoughtful bipartisan agreement was not good enough. It did not have to be this way, and I urge my colleagues to reject any attempt to weaken the basic civil rights of the American people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over the past decade, the cost of living in our Nation has risen sharply and continues to grow. Gas prices have doubled, college costs are up by 38 percent, fuel prices up 20, housing costs another 25 percent, and health care costs are up a whopping 75 percent, yet the millions of Americans who work full time struggling to support their families have just been dealt another blow. Last month, the Republicans in this body defeated a measure to raise the minimum wage, which has not been increased in an appalling 9 years. Instead of voting with Democrats to give a much needed pay raise to these workers, Republicans once again turned their backs on more than 6 million workers. You didn't see Republicans turning their backs on the wealthiest few last month when they repealed the estate tax that only impacts our Nation's wealthiest families. Mr. Speaker, it isn't too late for House Republicans to change their minds. Today, we will have another vote here on the House floor to give these hardworking Americans a much deserved raise. House Republicans know that the minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years. Today, we will see if Republicans are interested in expanding economic opportunity to all.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the rule before us. All germane amendments were made in order, but I rise because I do have a serious problem with the way this House is being run. There is something very, very wrong with this Congress when the Republican leadership refuses to recognize and appreciate the important contributions of workers in this country, and consistently, and I would add callously, refuses to raise the Federal minimum wage. The Federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. A full-time minimum-wage worker's annual pay is $10,712 a year. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage was 9 years ago, and during that same period of time, Congress has voted to increase its own salary nine times, totaling nearly $35,000. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Have a heart. Minimum-wage workers work every bit as hard as any Member of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, if the Republican leadership continues to block a minimum-wage increase, then it should repeal the congressional pay raise. Congress should not have a pay raise until low-income workers get a pay raise as well. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason whatsoever for us not to raise the minimum wage. I have heard some of my colleagues on the Republican side say that increasing the minimum wage will hurt job growth. Yet, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute, since 1998, States with higher minimum wages experienced better job growth than States paying only the Federal minimum wage. Among small retail businesses in those higher minimum-wage States, job growth was double the rest of the country. Mr. Speaker, even Wal- Mart, even Wal-Mart, hardly the champion of workers' rights, has come out in support of increasing the minimum wage, but not the Republican- controlled Congress. Republican priorities, in my opinion, are messed up. You pass tax cut after tax cut after tax cut after tax cut for millionaires, but you give a cold shoulder to millions of American workers. You give billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to big oil companies that are gouging Americans at the gas pump, but you will not do a thing for workers who can no longer afford to fill their gas tanks. And while all your giveaways to the rich and powerful add greatly, hugely to our out-of-control deficit, increasing the minimum wage costs nothing; and if anything, will help workers spend more and, in turn, will help improve our economy. Mr. Speaker, does any Member of this House believe that the Federal minimum wage, which is at $5.15 an hour, is enough for a family to live, pay their bills, pay for gas, pay for health care, and get above the poverty line? Is the majority of this House so out of touch that they do not realize the urgency of this issue? Is corporate greed part of your Family Values Agenda? It is time for this Congress to do what is right, to raise the Federal minimum wage. Let us make a statement that we value all working Americans, not just the ones that contribute to your campaigns. You will have an opportunity today to make a difference by voting against the previous question so that we can bring an increase in the minimum wage up for a vote. I urge my Republican colleagues to demonstrate to the workers of this country that you get it, that you care. The American people are tired of the indifference of your callousness, of your blatant disregard for their needs. This is supposed to be a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. It is time for this Congress to start acting like that.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something different today. I am going to commend the majority for this rule. Internet gambling is an issue that does not break along traditional partisan lines. There are Democrats and Republicans who support the underlying bill before us, and there are Democrats and Republicans who oppose it. This rule makes in order legislation that regulates Internet gambling, but it also makes in order an important amendment offered by Representatives Berkley, Wexler, and Conyers, Members who do not support the bill as it is currently written. This is a fair rule because it accommodates all the views expressed last night in the Rules Committee. This is how the legislative process should work, and I hope the Republican leadership will report more rules like this. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do feel compelled to point out that the Republican leadership has scheduled the last vote today for some time around 2 or 3 o'clock. Tomorrow and Thursday are both expected to be short voting days, and we are not scheduled to be in session on Friday. There is plenty of time for the House to consider other important legislation, for example, an increase in the minimum wage that is long overdue and is supported by, I think, virtually all Democrats and even some Republicans. So, Mr. Speaker, where is the minimum wage? To my friends on the other side of the aisle, why won't you allow this House to vote to increase the minimum wage? Yesterday's Washington Post featured a front page article detailing the wage disparity in the metropolitan D.C. area. High-skilled workers are making increasingly higher salaries, but lower-skilled workers are being left behind. We know this is true for workers all across this country. The minimum wage is not keeping pace with the cost of living in America today. Housing costs are up, energy costs are through the roof, low-wage workers need help; and Congress cannot and should not continue to ignore the plight of low-income workers in America. Families are living paycheck to paycheck. They are struggling to make ends meet as the minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years, as I said, with rising health care costs, energy, and college costs that they have to deal with. Poverty is getting worse in our country today. That is a fact. And it is frustrating that the leadership on the other side of the aisle seems indifferent to that sad reality. They pass tax cut after tax cut after tax cut after tax cut for millionaires, and yet they cannot find the time for us to consider an increase in the minimum wage. This leadership has allowed for regular increases in congressional salary. Now, I know Members of Congress work hard. I am not saying that people here do not deserve a good salary. But surely my friends on the other side of the aisle must recognize that low-wage workers work hard too. They have families to support too. They have bills to pay too. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to change this. The Republican leadership certainly cannot claim that we do not have the time to consider an increase in the minimum wage. And I am willing to stay in session after 3 p.m. today to vote on this. I am willing to stay here on Friday. I am willing to give up the August recess until we vote to increase the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of timing. We know there is enough time to consider a minimum wage increase. It is a question of priorities. And the priorities of this Congress always seem to ignore those who are struggling most. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.