Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Flake-Davis amendment. This amendment will help not the Cuban regime, but this is an amendment that will help the Cuban people. Mr. Chairman, for the past 5 years, this House and the other body have voted time and time again to lift various U.S. restrictions on travel and on commercial food and medicine sales. Yet this administration has moved with ruthless determination to tighten and increase restrictions on heretofore legal interactions between Americans and Cubans. Who have they targeted to be most affected by these new rules and regulations? Who is so subversive, so threatening to our national security that they must face tighter and tighter and tighter restrictions on their activities? Well, it is not members of the Cuban Government. Mr. Chairman, it is Cuban families that will suffer as a result of these new policies. The Bush administration has even gone so far as to redefine what the word ``family'' means for Cuban-Americans; and it does not include uncles or aunts or cousins or nephews or nieces, let alone your godparents or godchildren or any other member of your extended family. As far as the Bush administration is concerned, if these extended family members are beloved by a Cuban living in America, too bad. As the sponsors of this amendment have already described, the new Commerce Department policies demand that Cuban-Americans in the United States restrict humanitarian or gift parcels to just one per household in Cuba once a month, rather than a parcel once a month to each individual family member, and while the package may include food, it cannot include seeds so that the family might grow more of their own food or fishing equipment so that they might catch their own food or veterinary medicines and equipment so that a family might care for animals that help them supplement their diet or income. While the parcel may include medicines, it cannot include personal hygiene items or soap-making equipment; and I would say to my colleagues here, I have the regulations. They are right here in black and white. I am happy to show them to my colleagues and give them to them so they can read. While Cuban-Americans can send their family members receive-only radios, they cannot send them clothing. Clearly, in the minds of officials at the Commerce Department, listening to Radio Marti is a greater priority for Cuban families than adequate clothing. Mr. Chairman, our Nation has always placed an emphasis on families, on family values, on the reunification of families. As a Nation of immigrants, we have thrived on supporting our extended families, both those living in the United States with us and family members still struggling to survive in their mother countries. The new restrictions issued by the Commerce Department make a mockery of this common heritage that binds all Americans together. No matter what any Member of this body believes about the rightness or wrongness of our current policy toward Cuba, and for the record, Mr. Chairman, I believe that our policy is a miserable failure, but no matter what one believes, we should not place the burden and price of those beliefs on Cuban-Americans and their relatives still living on the island. No constituency in America has fought more fiercely for a free Cuba. Yet, these are the very families Commerce is going to punish. These new policies were specifically made to isolate Cubans on the island from their relatives in the United States. They were specifically made to increase the hardships faced by those families. Mr. Chairman, these new policies are cruel, these new policies are inhuman, and these new policies are cold-hearted and their enforcement should not be funded. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Flake- Davis amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. McGovern asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friends, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their hard work and cooperation in drafting the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) took an absurdly low Presidential budget request, worked with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to produce a decent allocation and made the best of a bad situation. For example, I am pleased that the bill restores funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report cut the program by 60 percent to just $39.6 million, and the President's fiscal year 2005 budget requested $39.2 million for the program. The M-E-P program serves small businesses, and these small businesses would be severely hurt if last year's cuts were extended. I have firsthand knowledge of the value and importance of the M-E-P program, because the Massachusetts M-E-P is headquartered in my congressional district. Earlier this year, I joined 157 of my colleagues in a letter to the Committee on Appropriations requesting $106 million for the M-E-P program. The restoration of this funding in this bill will help ensure the sustainability of our domestic small manufacturing industry and its high-quality jobs, and I want to again thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for working to support this important program. But even though the entire fiscal year 2005 CJS appropriations bill provides $240 million above President Bush's overall request, still some serious deficiencies remain. For instance, I am deeply concerned about the lack of funding for the Economic Development Administration. EDA is an agency that is chiefly responsible for providing assistance to urban areas for revitalization. Any cuts to this program, especially in these difficult economic times, will seriously jeopardize the revitalization efforts that are currently under way in urban areas, like Attleboro, Massachusetts, in my congressional district, as it continues to move through the legislative process and into conference negotiations. I am also disappointed that this bill zeroes out funding for the Small Business Administration's 7(a) subsidy program and the SBA's Microloan Technical Assistance program. The microloan program helps low-income and unemployed individuals become self-sufficient. There is strong data showing that the household income for low-income recipients increased by 72 percent over 5 years and that more than half of these entrepreneurs moved beyond the poverty line during that time. The microloan program should be maintained, not sacrificed. Additionally, Congress created the 7(a) program to help small businesses with the high costs associated with starting a new business. It is the largest SBA financing program and is a real lifeline for small businesses. The gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) offered an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations that would have restored funding for this important program. Unfortunately, it was defeated by a party-line vote. Later this afternoon, a bipartisan amendment will be offered to restore funding for this important small business program, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this effort on behalf of our small businesses and entrepreneurs. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that this bill reduces funding for the COPS program and for State and local law enforcement grants. Although the fiscal year 2005 CJS appropriations bill provides $3 billion for these programs, it is $103 million less than last year's funding level. While this is an improvement, a vast improvement, over the President's request, which zeroed out many of these programs, I think we can still do better. These grants are vital for the safety and the protection of our cities and towns all across this country. More than 118,000 officers around the country have been funded through this program. Community policing and neighborhood activism make a real difference in the battle for public safety. During these difficult economic times, our State and local budgets are very, very tight. It is critical that the Federal Government act as a partner in the area of public safety. In my congressional district, for instance, the COPS program recently provided $3.75 million for 50 new police officers in Worcester, $225,000 for three new police officers in Attleboro, and $75,000 for an additional police officer in Seekonk. Homeland security starts with hometown security, and we should be doing more for the COPS program, not less. Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is a good one. The funding deficiencies in this bill I hope can be worked out in the conference, and I am confident that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano), two Members who I have extremely high regard for, will work with the other body to provide the necessary funding for these important programs. I want, once again, to commend the committee for its hard work, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have no other requests for speakers, but let me just close by again saying that while I wish the overall funding level for this bill were higher and I wish there was more money available for the COPS programs and for a number of other small business programs, I nonetheless want to again commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, for really an excellent job. They have worked together in a bipartisan way, and the entire subcommittee deserves credit for the final product that is before us, a bill which I will support. Let me also conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying something that I rarely get an opportunity to say, but I gladly say it today, and that is, I support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said at the beginning. We have no problem with this bill. We congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for a job well done. We are just frustrated the Committee on Rules, when it comes to amendments of substance, continues to shut us out. That is what we are upset about today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I am going to call for a no vote on the previous question so this body can consider and vote on the Eshoo amendment. We all remember the horror stories of the energy crisis in California in 2000 and 2001. Virtually overnight, energy prices went through the roof, causing a fiscal crisis and chaos due to energy shortages. Energy became prohibitively expensive. Electricity that had cost under $50 the previous year was suddenly costing over $1,000, and some days peaked above that. Energy disruptions brought enormous disruption to the everyday lives of the people of that State. There were rolling brownouts that shut down traffic signals and crowded intersections, endangering those stuck in the gridlock. Even some hospitals suffered temporary power loss with little or no notice. To add insult to injury, we found out months later that this so-called energy crisis was a fraud on the part of the companies that sold the energy. They created a fake shortage and jacked up energy prices. Mr. Speaker, we need to do something to make sure that this never happens again. The Eshoo amendment is a step in that direction. It deserves consideration in this House. A no vote on the previous question will not stop the House from taking up the energy and water appropriations bill, which is a good bill. However, a yes vote will prevent the House from considering the Eshoo amendment. Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what we did yesterday on the House floor, but it was a complete waste of time. Overwhelmingly, the bill considered yesterday and all the amendments were rejected. We have an opportunity today to actually debate something meaningful that will make a difference in people's lives. I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us in voting no on the previous question. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are outraged by Enron and Enron-style companies that ripped off the consumers in California. If they are truly outraged, then they should put their action where their rhetoric is: Vote no on the previous question and allow us to have a meaningful debate that will make a real difference in the lives of the people of this country and allow us to vote on the Eshoo amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the Eshoo amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member and the subcommittee Chair and the ranking member for their hard work and diligence in bringing this appropriations bill to the floor in a timely fashion. Specifically, this bill provides a total of $27.9 billion for the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy and a handful of independent agencies including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am especially pleased that this bill soundly rejects the administration's continuing efforts to dramatically reduce funding for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers was actually $460 million less than the Corps received in fiscal year 2004 and $578 million below what it received in fiscal year 2003. This is tantamount to a systematic attempt to cripple the Civil Works program. As a Member with mainly inland waterways in my district, I value and appreciate the extraordinary work the Corps performs on behalf of the cities and towns we represent. In this bill, the committee has wisely given both the specific guidance and the sufficient resources the Corps needs to address the projects it is presently charged with completing. Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the committee for plainly exposing the administration's funding scheme for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This project is riddled with scientific uncertainty and threatens millions of Americans, both in Nevada and in communities along the transportation routes. Notwithstanding the many health and safety concerns that should stop the Yucca Mountain project from going forward, OMB's attempt to use a budget gimmick to leverage $749 million of the administration's $880 million request is a cynical and shameless attempt to cook the books on the total budget deficit. By refusing to loosen the purse strings on funding for the Yucca Mountain project, this appropriation bill rightly tells the administration to go sell stupid somewhere else. I also want to commend the chairman and the committee for its actions on nuclear weapons development. The bill strips out funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapons, also known as ``bunker busters.'' I share the chairman's frustration that the Energy Department seems to be totally ignoring the restrictions Congress has placed on this research. The bill also eliminates funding for the Advanced Concepts program to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and zeros out the funding for siting a new Modern Pit Facility to manufacture new triggers for nuclear weapons. In addition, the bill does not provide funds to move test readiness at the Nevada test facility up from 24 months to 18 months. Mr. Speaker, instead, the bill has placed emphasis on the consolidation of bomb material for greater safety and security and on the disassembly of surplus nuclear weapons. On these matters, I believe the bill reflects realistic national security and budget priorities, and I commend the chairman and ranking member for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, while I support this bill on the whole, I feel compelled to express my disappointment in the funding levels for renewable energy technologies. Just 2 weeks ago senior officials from the United States and 153 other nations met at a conference in Bonn, Germany, where they unanimously endorsed a communique committing to a substantial increase ``with a sense of urgency'' in the percentage of renewable sources to meet global energy needs. Reportedly, the delegates of the conference did not set specific targets or timetables as a concession in order to get President Bush's administration on board. The President has said he favors the invisible hand of the free market over government regulation. Sadly, this appropriations bill does not reflect the sense of urgency which is needed in increased funding for renewable energy sources. I can tell you that my constituents in Massachusetts, who are paying on average $2.10 per gallon at the pump, do not have much faith that ``the invisible hand'' of the free market is going to show up any time soon and drive gas prices down either. Mr. Speaker, this Nation cannot afford to wait any longer. We cannot afford to continue underfunding renewable energy and efficiency programs while our dependence on foreign sources of oil grows and our natural gas shortage worsens. We need to move with all deliberate speed to significantly increase funding for renewable sources of energy. I have start-up fuel cell companies and established photovoltaic manufacturers in my district like Mechanology, Protonex, Cell Tech Power and Evergreen Solar that are doing remarkable things, but they are struggling to compete with other countries who are leaving us behind in the race to a new energy economy because they cannot get the Federal funding support they need to continue research and development. And the invisible hand of the free market economy is not helping them out either. Meanwhile, we spend our time here passing ill-conceived energy bills for a second time that grant $23 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Surely, if we can do that, then we can do better in funding our renewable energy technologies. Mr. Speaker, the appropriators have done their job, and while I would like to see a more comprehensive bill, I believe that the appropriators have done their job well. Let me be the first to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their work. With that being said, my main regret is that the Republican leadership decided not to make in order the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). The Eshoo-Lofgren amendment is simple. It would require that the Federal Emergency Regulatory Commission order refunds whenever sellers of electricity charge rates that are not just and reasonable. This will require FERC to order refunds stemming from the market manipulation that occurred in California and the Pacific Northwest in 2000 and 2001. It would also require FERC to disclose documents and evidence that it has obtained in its investigation of Enron in manipulation of the western energy market; and it would require FERC to allow States to fully participate in FERC proceedings and negotiations on market manipulation. At the end of this debate, I will offer a motion to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) will offer their amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. This is an important proconsumer amendment, and it deserves to be considered today. Mr. Speaker, when is enough enough? It is sad that the Republican leadership feels compelled to continue to protect the Enrons of the world. It is time that we hold these companies accountable, and the Eshoo-Lofgren amendment is the right prescription for this ailment. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we engaged in a colossal waste of time as the leadership of this House forced the Members of this House to spend an entire day to debate a bill and amendments that were defeated by substantial margins; and yet the leadership of this House is unable to allow us to have the opportunity to debate an amendment that will actually make a real difference in the lives of the people of this country. We can do much better than this, and I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, currently over 170,000 National Guard and Reservists are on active duty serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. President Bush just activated an additional 47,000 Reservists. Most are serving extended tours of duty, deployed for longer periods than their families or their employers expected. Seventy percent of these Guard and Reservists work in small or medium-size businesses. When called to active duty, their civilian job and salary is put on hold. They begin receiving military pay, which is often less than their civilian salary, placing undue hardship on families already suffering the absence of a loved one. Yesterday, I introduced H.R. 4655, the Patriotic Employers of Guard and Reservists Act. The bill provides tax relief to those employers who close the pay gap of Guardsmen and Reservists serving overseas and tax credits to defray the cost of training new workers to fill these temporary vacancies. H.R. 4655 helps our troops and their families and encourages more companies to keep their employees on payroll when serving our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4655. And I urge that it move rapidly through this House. Basic Facts and Background Information on H.R. 4655, the Patriotic Employers of Guard and Reservists Act of 2004 Since September 11th, more than 350,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves have been called to active duty, and the Pentagon increasingly relies on the Army, Navy and Air Force Reserves and our National Guard to achieve its missions. Currently, over 170,000 are serving on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. President Bush recently activated an additional 47,000 Reservists. Not since World War II have so many National Guard members been called to serve abroad. The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce estimates that 70 percent of military Reservists called to active duty work in small- or medium-size companies. Most Guard and Reservists are serving extended tours of duty and have been deployed for longer periods than they, their families, or their employers expected. The continuing, extended activation of Guard and Reserve members has imposed a tremendous burden on many companies, small businesses and manufacturers, as well as placing an undue financial burden on families already suffering the absence of a loved one. Currently, more than 41 percent of military Reservists and National Guard members face a pay cut when they are called to active duty. In January, the Commander of the Army Reserve, Lt. General James R. Helmly, warned of a recruiting-retention crisis in the future for the National Guard and Reserves. A recent U.S. military questionnaire of returning Army National Guard soldiers projected a resignation rate of double what it was in November 2001. From October to December 2003, almost one- quarter of National Guard members who have had the opportunity to re-enlist have opted not to do so. Recently, the U.S. Army developed a plan to pay Reservists up to $10,000 to re-enlist in order to stop a developing problem. H.R. 4655 encourages all employers, especially small businesses, to pay their reservist employees when they face a reduction in salary due to their military activation. Employers who continue to pay their reservist all or part of their civilian salary will be eligible to receive a tax credit up to $15,000 of the wages they pay per employee who has been called up to active duty by the National Guard or Reserves for as long as the Reservist is on active duty status (up to a maximum of two years). Additionally, many small employers currently have a difficult time hiring and training temporary workers to fill the temporary vacancies caused by employees called to active duty. H.R. 4655 provides a tax credit of 50 percent up to $6,000 to help companies defray the costs of hiring and training a replacement worker, and up to $10,000 for small manufacturers. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this measure would cost $2 billion through FY 2014, or approximately $200 million annually; $1.2 billion of those costs would occur in FY 2005 through FY 2009, given the current unusually large- scale and extended deployments of National Guard and Reserve forces. The proposal to provide tax credits to employers and close the pay-gap for Reservists and National Guardsmen is supported by the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Reserve Officers Association of the United States.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to honor one of Massachusetts' most outstanding and dedicated Athletic Directors, Jeff Long. After almost 40 years of coaching and directing, Mr. Lewis has certainly deserved his retirement years. He began his commendable career in 1966, coaching football at Norwich University after having graduated from Norwich that same year. Serving as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army did not stop him, as he continued to coach football in Germany in 1967. Mr. Lewis kept on coaching both track and football at Dedham High School until 1973 when he began his run at Marlboro High. Ten years later he was appointed as the School's Athletic Director, and took on an array of other leadership roles. Some of these roles included serving on the Executive Board of the Mass Secondary School Athletic Directors Association to which he was appointed president in 1997-98, as well as being appointed President of the MIAA in 2002. All of his hard work has paid off over the years as he has been recognized with several awards and nominations--a few of which include Athletic Director of the Year in 1991, the National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame Distinguished Service Award in 1994, and the National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association State Award of Merit. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize such an outstanding professional, so passionately committed to his work. With the retirement of Jeff Long Marlboro High says goodbye to one it's most effective and talented leaders, and I along with my colleagues wish him and his family all the best in the years to come.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Central Massachusetts' most devoted athletic directors and community members, Richard Lewis, who is retiring from his position as Athletic Director of Wachusetts Regional High School. After graduating from the University of Massachusetts in 1966, Mr. Lewis went on to receive his Masters in Education from Worcester State College. He began his career in Western Massachusetts, followed by 10 years at the Marlboro Public Schools, before he graced Wachusetts High School with his services in 1978. Throughout his years at WMS, Mr. Lewis has left an outstanding legacy, not only as the MIAA District E Athletic Chair, but also assisting on several committees such as the MIAA Baseball Committee. Furthermore, he served as the director of both the Softball Tournament in Central Massachusetts as well as MIAA State Softball. Along with the many committees Mr. Lewis has devoted his time to, his contributions to both the Massachusetts Secondary School Athletic Directors Association as well as the community of Central Massachusetts have earned him well deserved recognition. He has received the National Interscholastic Award of Merit both statewide and nationally, as well as two John E. Young Awards. Today I, along with the rest of my colleagues would like to pay tribute to this strong community leader and outstanding Athletic Director, Richard Lewis and we wish him and his family all the best in the years to come.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the sales tax deduction provision phases out in 2 years. It is not permanent. And this morning the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and other Republicans voted against making it permanent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means refused to show me or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) the same courtesy that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) showed the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and he refused to answer the question as to whether or not the Committee on Rules would have made in order the Crane-Rangel alternative, in whatever form it would have been in. The answer is clearly they would not have. The gentleman mentioned American democracy. Twenty amendments were denied in the Committee on Rules. That is not democracy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. How many of those amendments were made in order?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.