Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House floor for an up or down vote. This bill will gradually increase the minimum wage from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 after about 2 years. The amendment also phases in coverage of the Federal minimum wage for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. Mr. Speaker, how long are we going to wait before we start helping American workers and their families? Instead of passing significant legislation week after week, or, even worse, enacting bills to make the richest of this Nation even richer, when are we going to do something that is meaningful for the average American worker? It is simply disgraceful that less than 1 month ago we passed yet another massive tax break for our Nation's multi-millionaires, but failed to help those American families who earn the least. In fact, the leadership of this House actually blocked consideration of a bill that contained an increase in the minimum wage. The leadership of this House actually and affirmatively went out there and blocked a bill that contained an increase in the minimum wage. It is getting harder and harder and harder every day for those making at or near minimum wage to make ends meet. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that paying $3 or more for a gallon of gas by itself can eat up a $5.15-an-hour paycheck. And we all know that, when gas prices increase, it has a ripple effect throughout the country, increasing costs for food and other necessities in life. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday The Washington Post reported on a new study that shows that in the Washington, D.C. area, wages are rising more than twice as fast for highly paid employees as they are for workers. These people need our help, and they need it immediately. Let's not allow any more time to go by before we do the right thing and adopt an immediate increase in the minimum wage. Let's show the American people that we are looking out for their best interests. And we can do this today, Mr. Speaker, if we vote down the previous question and amend the rule. I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can help the 7 million-plus American workers who will directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will urge all Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule and allow the House to vote on H.R. 2429, the Miller-Owens bill to increase the Federal minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade. We have the time. According to the schedule, we are out at 2 o'clock today. The American workers deserve a pay increase. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am the final speaker on our side, so I will proceed. May I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. McGOVERN. If I could inquire of my friend from Georgia how many more speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we don't have any problem with the rule that is before us today. We have a problem with the priorities of the Republican leadership in this House. As I look at the schedule today, as I said before, we are out at 2 o'clock today. We are dealing with the bill that we are talking about right now and then some suspensions that really aren't terribly significant. I am willing to stay till 5 or 6 if we could debate the minimum wage. Let's give the American workers an increase in their salaries. The average CEO in the United States earns 821 times more than the minimum wage worker, earning more before lunchtime than a minimum wage worker earns all year. I think it is wrong to have millions of Americans working full time and year round and still living in poverty. I would like to think if you work in this country you can get out of poverty. I think it is wrong to give Congress a raise when millions of workers have not had a penny raise in 9 years. Over 9 years, this House has given themselves something like $35,000 in pay increases, and we have not even addressed the issue of the minimum wage, and millions of our fellow citizens are locked into this minimum wage. It is wrong to give tax cut after tax cut after tax cut after tax cut to millionaires and to special interests when you do nothing for minimum-wage workers. Nearly 15 million Americans will benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour, 6.6 million directly and 8.3 million indirectly. Almost 60 percent of these workers are women. Forty percent are people of color. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour equals an additional $4,400 a year for a family of three. That is 15 months of groceries, over 2 years of health care, 2 years of college tuition at a public 2-year college. I could go on and on and on. It is astounding to me that we find ourselves back after the July 4 recess and we are told we will get to these important issues like the minimum wage when we can get to them. We have nothing going on this week that will keep us here beyond Thursday or keep us here until 5 o'clock today or even tomorrow. What we are asking for is the opportunity to be able to debate the issue of increasing the Federal minimum wage and letting people in this Chamber, both Republicans and Democrats, have an opportunity to vote up or down. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a champion on this issue.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today supposedly is part of the Republican Family Values Agenda. But going back to what my colleague from California (Mr. Miller) asked, shouldn't any family value agenda include guaranteeing working families a livable, decent wage? The fact of the matter is, if the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as the salary increase CEOs had received, it would now be $23.03 an hour. Members of Congress, as I have reminded my colleagues, have awarded themselves eight pay raises since they last raised the minimum wage. Thirty-five percent of workers who received a minimum wage are their family's sole earners. Sixty-one percent are women. And almost one-third of these women are raising children. Oftentimes we hear the other side say that this will somehow hurt small business. Well, the fact of the matter is, small businesses perform better in States with higher minimum wages. Between 1998 and 2004, the job growth for small businesses in States with a minimum wage higher than the Federal level was 6.2 percent compared to a 4.1 percent growth in States where the Federal level prevailed. The bottom line is, those of us on this side believe that increasing the minimum wage for working families in this country needs to be a priority, and we would prefer to have this discussion during a debate on the minimum wage. Unfortunately, the leadership on the other side continues to deny us that opportunity. So again I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who agree with us to press your leadership to allow us to have a vote on the minimum wage. We could do it today. Again, I would remind my friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) that according to the schedule that we are out by 2 today. We have plenty of time to do it today. We could do it tomorrow. We could do it Friday. We have the whole day on Friday we could do it. So again I would urge my colleagues to support any effort to increase the Federal minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise today to pay tribute to a long-time friend, Patricia Lewis, or ``Patsy,'' as she is affectionately known in my community. Patsy will be honored in the City of Worcester tonight for her outstanding work and unyielding service to the citizens of Massachusetts and our Nation. For 20 years Patsy has served as the Executive Director of the Worcester Community Action Council, Inc., an agency that was started in 1965 as the locally designated ``community action'' agency for the Economic Opportunity Act under the Johnson Administration. Today, WCAC serves as an umbrella agency for 25 education and social service programs. Since her arrival, Patsy devoted most of her time fighting the good fight, serving as an advocate for the poor and the needy with dignity and respect. She and her staff along with the Board of Directors are a force to reckon with in the fight against poverty. Mr. Speaker, Patsy's list of accomplishments is long. She doubled WCAC's annual budget; added and expanded services into Southern Worcester County; initiated new programs throughout WCAC's service area, including fuel assistance, Head Start, Americorps/Cityworks, Individual Development Accounts and Food Stamp outreach. Today, WCAC serves more than 11,000 households in Central and Southern Worcester County with an emphasis on developing self-sufficiency for low-income families. Patsy has served on numerous human service organizations, including the Greater Worcester Community Foundation, United Way Women's Initiative, and the YWCA. She has been a joint faculty member of Worcester State College and Clark University. She is an alumna of Manchester College, Ohio State University, and Boston University. Mr. Speaker, my friend Patsy is an individual who cares about people and I am truly appreciative of the work she has done for the residents of the 3rd Congressional district. As a result of her leadership and vision our community is a better place. For her outstanding service I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join me in honoring Patricia ``Patsy'' Lewis.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I just want to state that I deeply resent the gentleman from Texas deliberately mischaracterizing what I said here on the House floor; and let me repeat for him what I said: That no one in this House supports the disclosure of classified information that could endanger the lives of Americans. I would simply say to the gentleman from Texas that the American people are sick and tired of the smears that have gone on here. We can have a debate. You don't need to smear or mischaracterize what I said.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. That is not what I said.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. We are here today because there has not been enough red meat thrown at the Republican base before the Fourth of July recess. That is why we are here. So just in the nick of time, we have H. Res. 895. The rule for this resolution is of course completely closed. Not even a substitute is made in order. The Republican leadership of this House does not even make a pretense of being fair and open and democratic any more. Under their leadership, this House makes the old politburo look like a New England town meeting. It is disgraceful. This resolution purports to be about protecting our national security, about protecting the most sensitive secrets in the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, no one in this House supports the disclosure of classified information that could genuinely endanger the lives of Americans. But we all know that is not what is going on here. In reality, it is an attempt to punish and intimidate the New York Times and other newspapers for publishing a story about the administration's surveillance of international financial transactions. The Times reported on surveillance of transactions to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT. But as the Boston Globe recently reported, the Bush administration itself has publicly and repeatedly talked about this issue since September 11. Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003, told the Globe: ``There have been public references to SWIFT before. The White House is overreaching when they say the New York Times committed a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.'' Further, the Globe notes that a report to the U.N. Security Council in late 2001 said that SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearing houses ``are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.'' How many times have we heard the Bush administration talking about the need to monitor and disrupt terrorist financial transactions? How many times have we heard them bragging about their success in doing so? Too many to count. So it does not even pass the laugh test when Members of Congress start using words like ``treason,'' when they start calling for criminal prosecution against newspapers, when they circulate ludicrous Dear Colleague letters threatening to revoke the Times credentials to cover Congress. Even worse, Mr. Speaker, is the rank hypocrisy exposed by this resolution. The Bush administration and their Republican allies in Congress say they are outraged by leaks of sensitive information. Well, as the ranking member on the Rules Committee pointed out, where was their outrage when White House officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer in an attempt to smear her husband? Where was their outrage when White House officials leaked false and misleading intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to bolster their case for war? Those leaks, I should note, were made to the same New York Times that has their knickers in a twist today. Where was their outrage when General Casey's plan for potential troop reductions in Iraq suddenly appeared in the Times and in other newspapers? Now, I assume that given their outrage today, we will never again see sensitive information attributed to a ``senior administration official'' or ``a senior House Republican.'' What is really going on here, Mr. Speaker, is that the administration and their allies have no problems with leaks to the press when those leaks advance their political agenda. But if a leak contradicts their agenda, suddenly they call it treason. They suffer from a case of selective outrage. This administration is obsessed with secrecy, with controlling the flow of information in this country, with shutting out the other branches of government, with signing statements that make clear they have no intention of following the law, with bullying their critics into silence by questioning their patriotism. Time after time this Congress has acquiesced. For the Republican leadership, oversight is a four-letter word. Not since Richard Nixon has it been more important to have an unfettered and free press, because that is the only check left on the imperial Presidency in America today. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the American people will see through this. And I urge my colleagues to do the same. Reject this closed rule and reject this resolution. [From the Boston Globe, June 28, 2006] Terrorist Funds-Tracking No Secret, Some S (Binde (By Bryan Bender) Washington.--News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. On Monday, President Bush said it was ``disgraceful'' that The New York Times and other media outlets reported last week that the US government was quietly monitoring international financial transactions handled by an industry-owned cooperative in Belgium called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication, or SWIFT, which is controlled by nearly 8,000 institutions in 20 countries. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal also reported about the program. The controversy continued to simmer yesterday when Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican of Kentucky, accused the Times of ``treason,'' telling reporters in a conference call that it ``scares the devil out of me'' that the media would reveal such sensitive information. Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, requested US intelligence agencies to assess whether the reports have damaged anti-terrorism operations. And Representative Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has urged Attorney General Albetrto Gonzalez to pursue ``possible criminal prosecution'' of the Times, which has reported on other secret government surveillance programs. The New York Times Co. owns The Boston Globe. But a search of public records--government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001--describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist- linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT. ``There have peen public references to SWIFT before,'' said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.'' Victor D. Comrass, a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. ``A lot of people were aware that this was going on,'' said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task. ``Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume'' their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist group. ``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing.'' Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into. The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and other financial institutions that move money around the world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad access to its database. SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses ``are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information,'' according to the 33-page report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the UN Security Council in late 2001. ``The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.'' Some worry that the new disclosures will nonetheless hamper US counter-terrorism efforts. ``I worked this stuff and I can guarantee that [revealing the SWIFT] information made a difference,'' said Dennis Lormel, a retired FBI special agent who helped establish the bureau's Terrorist Financing Operations Section before leaving government in 2003. ``The disclosure will have an adverse impact on investigations. It was used in two specific instances where it helped to track terrorists. We also used it for lead value.'' But the White House has also been very public about its efforts to track the overseas banking transactions of Americans and other foreign nationals. Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Bush signed an executive order calling for greater cooperation with foreign entities to monitor money that might be headed to terrorist groups. The executive order was posted on the White House website. The document called for ``cooperation with, and sharing information by, United States and foreign financial institutions as an additional tool to enable the United States to combat the financing of terrorism.'' Richard Newcomb, the head of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control at the time, later publicly credited the president for enabling US law enforcement and intelligence agencies to nab suspected terrorists, including followers of ``Hambali,'' Al Qaeda's leader in Southeast Asia. The New York Times report said Hambali's capture in 2003 came with the aid of information gleaned from SWIFT. Administration officials have said this week that the disclosure of such details were particularly damaging to US security. Nevertheless, in July 2003--a month before Hambali was captured--Newcomb told the Senate Government Affairs Committee in detail about a program initiated after 9/11 between his office and the Pentagon to track Hambali's financial network in Southeast Asia. The scope of the project included Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore, focusing on the finances of Jemaa Islamiyah, the Al Qaeda group run by Hambali that was responsible for deadly bombings in Bali in 2002. He said the operation ``identified the key leaders, fund- raisers, businessmen, recruiters, companies, charities, mosques, and schools that were part of [Jamaa Islamiyah] support network. Thus far, we have imposed sanctions against two of these key nodes, and are coordinating action against several others,'' Newcomb told the committee. Other public documents have also detailed post-9/11 efforts to follow terrorist money. The Patriot Act approved by Congress after the attacks emphasized providing new authorities for the Bush administration to track and choke off terrorist funds around the world. One part of the act, dealing specifically with terrorist money, was described by the Treasury Department as the most ``significant [anti-money-laundering] law'' since a 1970 law requiring banks to report cash transactions over $10,000. That section of the Patriot Act required the Bush administration to ``adopt regulations to encourage further cooperation among financial institutions, their regulatory authorities, and law enforcement authorities'' to track terrorist-related money laundering. In testimony before Congress in early 2002, Juan C. Zarate, deputy assistant Treasury secretary in charge of terrorism and violent crime, discussed how the global exchange of information was a key element in choking off their source of funds. He cited a special international meeting hosted a month after the attacks by the International Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, ``to eliminate existing impediments to exchanging information'' between financial institutions and to find solutions to the challenges of tracking terrorist funds.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the ranking leader for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, once again this House will consider an estate tax cut for the wealthiest people in the United States. Once again the Republican leadership is forcing their chosen bill through the House without the opportunity for any alternative, even though Democrats asked for and presented a germane substitute before the Rules Committee last night. Last night, the Rules Committee rushed this bill through under ``emergency procedures.'' That is right, the Republican leadership considers it an emergency to pass a tax cut for some of the wealthiest people on the planet, a tax cut that won't take effect for 4 years. Mr. Speaker, the real emergency is what is happening to American workers. We are considering another estate tax cut for the wealthy during the same week that this Republican leadership killed an increase in the minimum wage for America's lowest-income workers. Last week, the Appropriations Committee approved an increase in the minimum wage and included it in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, but the majority leader quickly said that the House will not consider that provision. This week, the Appropriations Committee defeated a similar effort. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, nearly a decade ago, this Congress raised the Federal minimum wage to $5.15 an hour. Since the last increase, Congress has voted itself a raise nine times, increasing its own salary by $35,000. Now, in contrast, Mr. Speaker, a person earning the minimum wage over that same time continues to earn only $10,712 per year. The Republican leadership should ask the minimum-wage family whether their health care costs, their property taxes, their heating and gasoline bills, or tuition for their kids have stayed as flat as the minimum wage. Of course not. Here is what it boils down to: the Republican leadership has decided it is more important to protect estates that are worth at least $10 million instead of helping to increase people making just $11,000 a year in salary. Mr. Speaker, we have an emergency in our country. We do have an emergency in our country: working families are struggling each and every day. They deserve a raise more than millionaires deserve another tax break. We should be debating today an increase in the minimum wage for workers in this country. We should be doing something that will make a difference in the lives of people who are struggling in this country. And, instead, here we go again bringing the estate tax bill up again, a bill that benefits mostly people who are very well off. We can do much better than this. We need to get our priorities straight.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Mrs. Dore Van Dyke, an exceptional woman who is retiring after serving 9 years as the executive director of the Attleboro Arts Museum. I am proud to know Mrs. Van Dyke and to salute her many contributions to the arts community in New England. She took over the museum as executive director in 1997, shortly after it moved from a small stucco house in Capron Park to a much larger facility on Park Street, as part of the Attleboro downtown revitalization project. Mrs. Van Dyke successfully led the museum through an important phase of growth by improving the museum's finances, expanding educational programs and bringing nationally respected exhibits to its gallery. In addition, she increased the museum's visibility and credibility in New England, making it an energetic arts resource and a respected gallery venue. Without a doubt, Mrs. Van Dyke's dedicated leadership during the museum's period of growth built a sturdy foundation upon which future leaders can continue to flourish. In her retirement, Mrs. Van Dyke plans to return to her own art as a sculptor and venture into new media. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the entire House of Representatives joins me in congratulating Mrs. Dore Van Dyke for all she has accomplished and in wishing her the best in her retirement.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, June 6th was National Hunger Awareness Day, a day when our Nation acknowledged that more than 38 million Americans, including nearly 14 million children, still go hungry every day. As a Member of Congress and as one of the Co-Chairs of the House Hunger Caucus, I am committed to ending hunger in the United States and around the world. I know we can end hunger once and for all if we only have the political will to do so. Mr. Speaker, it is with gratitude and pleasure that I rise to specifically acknowledge the efforts of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) toward feeding the hungry in the United States and its jurisdictions. On Saturday, May 13, the NALC executed its 14th annual ``Stamp Out Hunger'' national food drive. Millions of American generously left food donations next to their mail slots for pick-up that Saturday. Local letter carriers throughout the country collected, processed and distributed 70,493,150 pounds of donated food along their regular postal routes. The 70.5 million pounds of food has gone to restock our Nation's food banks, pantries and shelters. This national network of agencies assist our children, elderly, working poor, disabled and unemployed who struggle to obtain nutritious meals for themselves and their families. Some of this food was donated by residents of the 3rd Congressional District of Massachusetts to the Greater Boston Food Bank and the Worcester County Food bank, Together, they serve 887 soup kitchens, food pantries, shelters and other agencies. This drive exemplifies the types of partnerships between government, the private sector and civil society that our country needs. The United States Postal Service and Campbell Soup Company teamed up with the NALC to deliver almost 118 million post-cards promoting the drive, and to enable the pick-up and distribution of donations. I commend the efforts of over 200,000 letter carriers, great American public servants on and off the job, toward helping our needy. Their efforts should serve as an inspiration and as a model to our fellow Americans and to the federal government. I hope that the work of our Nation's letter carriers spurs other Americans to work together toward the achievable goal of ending hunger in this wealthiest of nations.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Francis (Frank) P. Canali on the occasion of his retirement from the Worcester, Massachusetts Public Schools. The end of this school year marks the end of Frank's distinguished thirty-four year career as a teacher and administrator at Worcester Vocational High School. During his long tenure, Frank has gained a well-deserved reputation as a talented professional educator who is widely respected and admired for his unfailing devotion to Worcester Voke. The longevity of Frank Canali's career is not only impressive, it is also inspiring. In an age when loyalty is becoming an increasingly rare quality, Frank's steadfast commitment to the students, faculty and staff of Worcester Yoke reminds us all what one man can accomplish when he dedicates his life's work to the betterment of a single institution. When Frank walks out the doors of Worcester Voke for the last time, he will leave the school an infinitely better place than he found it. Frank began teaching at Worcester Vocational High School in 1972 as a graphic arts instructor in the evening program. He later taught offset lithography, both in the Career Educational Training Program and at Worcester Vocational High School, before becoming head of the graphic communications department in 1980. Along the way Frank furthered his own education by earning a bachelor's of science degree in education and a master's degree in administration of occupational education. He was subsequently appointed assistant principal in 2000 and ultimately principal in 2003. As Frank now prepares to end his career as principal, he leaves Worcester Vocational High School as one of the highest-performing public schools in the City of Worcester and with a new state-of-the-art facility that is the envy of every community in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Both remarkable achievements are due in no small part to the immeasurable and lasting contributions Frank has made during his career. His positive influence has benefited an untold number of young men and women, and his legacy will be that he tirelessly demanded that vocational education receive the attention, emphasis and investment it rightly deserves and that our nation so desperately needs. Mr. Speaker, as the brother of two Worcester public school teachers, I know well the great challenges and demands our educators face on a daily basis. For thirty-four years, Frank Canali has met and mastered those daily challenges. He enters retirement with the quiet pride and satisfaction of knowing that he has truly made a difference. I wish to offer my heartfelt appreciation for Frank's public service to the families of Worcester, Massachusetts, and I wish him and his wife Pattie, their children and grandchildren a happy and healthy retirement. He has earned it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, let me correct something that has been said on this floor. In the testimony before the Rules Committee, the Democrats not only asked for an open rule, we asked for a substitute. We were denied that. We were shut out. It is here in black and white in the testimony. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. McGOVERN. I think I made my point, Mr. Speaker.