Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Texas, he went through a series of quotes, and I think what Democrats were responding to was the crisis that the President was talking about. The President, as you know, Mr. Speaker, for years has been railing against immigrants. He talked about an infestation of immigrants. He has characterized immigrants in the most derogatory and the most hateful terms possible, that we were being invaded. That is not the crisis that we are talking about here today. The crisis we are talking about here today is the one the President created, the mistreatment of children in U.S. custody. There is no denying it. Read the press accounts. Read The New Yorker; read The New York Times; and read The Washington Times. They talk about how little children have been mistreated at the border under U.S. custody, and that should offend every single person in this Chamber; and that this administration created and manufactured this crisis in order to make political points, I think, is unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say, I am so sorry the gentlewoman was inconvenienced, but I think she misspoke when she said that Republicans--or she--just received the bill at 5:00. The bill has been available since last week. The only thing that was different was there was an amendment, a manager's amendment. It was seven pages long, double spaced, on single sides. It didn't take that long to read. So, I am sorry whether or not she couldn't get through it all, but it is not a new bill. This bill has been around. Let me also say, again, for the record: We don't agree. We don't agree with the crisis that the President has been talking about for years and years and years and years, the derogatory fashion and way in which he refers to immigrants. We don't agree. He talked about there being an infestation of immigrants, that we are being invaded. No, that is not the crisis. The crisis that he created, that this administration created, which should, quite frankly, cause more outrage on the other side of the aisle, was separating children from their parents. And, as we gather here today, there are countless children who may never be reunited with their parents. The crisis that he created was denying these children in our custody basic things--basic necessities like soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes-- and where little kids were being taken care of by other little kids. This is an outrage, and it is a crisis that he manufactured, that he created. And we need to fix it. So, that is what this bill is trying to do. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to support it, fine. But we are going to do what is right. That is why we ran for office. That is why we won the last election, because people were horrified by what was happening at the border, the way we were treating other human beings. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Arizona. He talks about ICE. He wants more funding for ICE. The previous speaker talked about more money for the Department of Defense. We are talking about children here. That is what this bill addresses: money for State-licensed shelters, legal services, child advocates, post-release services, Federal field specialists, case management services, and money for the Office of the Inspector General. The humanitarian crisis is that children are being mistreated at our border and we need to address it, and that is what we are trying to do with this bill. So, I appreciate all the other things that my Republican friends want to fund, but the crisis that we need to address right now is the mistreatment of children at our border. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman did offer an amendment in the Rules Committee. He is a member of the Rules Committee. He knew there was a budget point of order against it, so it was not compliant with the rules of the House, so it wasn't made in order. I am not sure what the gentleman was talking about, about these young children--2, 3, 4 years old--what? To request that they be sent back to their homes, that they could somehow just walk out of where they are being held right now? I am not quite sure what he is talking about. The bottom line is, there is also money in here for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. My friends know that, if they have read the bill. So I just have to say, I think where the outrage is here is that this administration has overseen an immigration policy which does not reflect the values of this country, where children have been separated from their parents, and now we see children being held in the worst conditions possible. It does not reflect the values of the American people, and we need to pass this bill to try to remedy that. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have great respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma. We don't always agree on everything, but there are some things we do agree on. I want to say this with great respect for him and for the gentlewoman from Arizona, and I am sorry if I offended her in the way I responded to her comments. But my friends had the bill for quite some time. What is new today is the amendment, the 7-page amendment. It is not correct to say that the bill was just given to the minority at 4:30 or 5 today or whenever, right before we met. The bottom line is that Members have had it for a while. The amendment, which is 7 pages, is something new. The amendment has been characterized as us moving to the left. Let me remind people what is in this amendment. There are stronger requirements for care of unaccompanied minor children, tightened restrictions on influx shelters, accountability for contractors violating standards at influx shelters, funding for the Immigration Court Help Desk program, ensuring access to translation services. That is not left or right or middle of the road. To me, it just sounds like common sense. To characterize this as a move to the left, I just don't get it. Mr. Speaker, this administration's actions at the border should not be ignored. What these children are going through should not be minimized. But that hasn't stopped some on the other side of the aisle from trying, as they continue to defend any move that this administration makes. I mean, we didn't hear a lot of talk about the children in the debate on the other side. Some did raise the issue, but most of the talk was on other things. Last night, I heard one of my friends on the other side of the aisle defend the conditions at these border facilities in an interview, and he came to the floor again today. He said that there was ``no lock on the door,'' and, ``Any child is free to leave at any time. But they don't, and you know why? Because they're well taken care of.'' Mr. Speaker, is he really suggesting that a 3- or 4-year-old unaccompanied child should just get up and walk out of one of these facilities? Come on, what are we talking about here? I don't know how anybody could say being denied soap or being denied toothbrushes and medical care is being well taken care of, because these are inhumane conditions, and I think it is child abuse. America is better than this, and we must demand better for these kids. Let's vote on this rule and on the underlying bill so that we can get this aid where it is needed as quickly as possible and hold this administration accountable.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 445 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will be asking unanimous consent to make a technical correction to the rule. The page containing the text of an uncontroversial amendment, No. 64, to division B was inadvertently omitted from our 645-page report. Modification Offered by Mr. McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I have placed at the desk be considered as though printed as amendment No. 123 in part B of House Report 116-119, if offered by Representative Lee from Nevada or her designee, and that the amendment be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The Speaker pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his kindness. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 445. It provides for consideration of H.R. 3055 under a structured rule that makes 290 amendments in order. It also provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Madam Speaker, this appropriations process represents a clean break from the way the Republicans ran this place. They furthered an agenda that was like Robin Hood in reverse, giving to the rich by stealing from the poor. This Democratic majority has a radical idea that the people's House should, instead, work for the people, not the wealthy and the well- connected, but all Americans. You can see these values in the underlying appropriations measure. We support SNAP, our Nation's premier anti-hunger program, by providing both stable funding and investments in the SNAP reserve fund. This will give a helping hand to many of the 40 million Americans who are struggling to put food on the table in America today. That includes a lot of working families. It includes veterans. It includes seniors. It includes those who are disabled. Because the truth is, there is no plan B for many people who have fallen on hard times. Food pantries are important, but many are already stretched too thin and can't meet the demand. We need to invest in SNAP. This program is a lifeline as families work to get back on their feet. For the life of me, Madam Speaker, I don't understand why investing in SNAP has been a controversial subject for many of my colleagues on the other side, why some have demonized the poor and traded in stereotypes year after year. On average, and I think it is important to make this clear for my colleagues, SNAP households receive about $259 a month. The average SNAP benefit per person is about $128 per month, which works out to just $1.40 per person per meal. Madam Speaker, $1.40 can hardly buy a cup of coffee for someone, let alone a healthy, nutritious meal. That is what we are asking people to live on, and it is a shame. I hope, in the future, we can find a way to expand the SNAP benefit for those who are in need. This bill also provides major funding to help stem the tide of opioid abuse, which is ravaging communities across the country, through grant programs that we know work, things like prescription drug monitoring, overdose-reversal drugs, and at-risk youth programs. We are not waiting around for this administration's long-delayed transportation plan. The President has been rolling it out 2 weeks from now for the last 2 years. We have an infrastructure emergency in our country today. I have bridges in my district that are old enough to qualify for Medicare. Others are older than some of the other States in this country. It is the same old story all across the country. That is why the American Society of Civil Engineers has given our Nation's infrastructure a D-plus. This is appalling, Madam Speaker. We owe a lot to those who built our roads and bridges a century ago, but we cannot expect them to last forever. H.R. 3055 would provide real funding now to rebuild crumbling infrastructure. There are also badly needed investments here in our Nation's digital infrastructure because the sad reality is that in America today, 25 million people in rural communities don't have access to high-speed internet. Some are in my State. Massachusetts has made significant strides in bringing high-speed internet to the rural parts of western and central Massachusetts, but there are still pockets where connectivity is still a problem. This bill would fund an expansion of rural broadband services that would allow more kids to do homework at home, expand economic opportunities, and improve health outcomes. Affordable broadband should be available to everyone, regardless of their ZIP Codes. This bill also helps combat the gun violence epidemic by increasing resources for programs that help reduce crime. This includes things like fully funding the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, making schools safer, and investing in mentoring programs for at-risk youth. This follows language in last week's minibus appropriations bill that provided funding to research deaths and injuries caused by gun violence for the first time in more than 20 years because this majority isn't afraid to stand up to the NRA to protect the people we represent. We know the will of the American people is stronger than the might of the gun lobby. There is also language in this bill that prohibits President Trump from diverting important military construction projects to build his unnecessary border wall. This is a wall, by the way, that the President claimed time and time again that Mexico would pay for. Now he is using a bait-and-switch to force taxpayers to foot the bill. This wall was preposterous when it was just a campaign talking point. It is even more absurd as an actual policy paid for by the taxpayers of this country. These are just a few of our priorities in the bill. We are delivering on our promise to invest in the things that matter to people. Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, the entire Appropriations Committee, and their staffs have done an extraordinary job. Their work deserves a great deal of praise by both the Democrats and Republicans. They are trying to fund our government in a timely way. I don't know what the Senate is going to do on appropriations. They haven't done much of anything on anything so far. But I do know this: These bills are an investment in our future. They are tailored toward providing opportunity for all Americans and delivering on our pledge to make this place work for them again. Fixing our infrastructure, reducing gun violence, providing economic opportunity for small businesses, ending hunger, these are the kinds of things our constituents want us to address. I urge all of my colleagues to show the American people that we are listening by voting for this rule. Let's keep bringing forward appropriations measures that truly represent the will of the taxpayer. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I enjoy listening to the gentleman engage in debate, but I will say this, that when I look at this rule and all the amendments in order, I think I want to waive this rule because there are so many amendments that we are making in order here. The gentleman, I appreciate his praise saying that we made a lot of good ideas in order, but I would say to the gentleman that he also made some bad ideas in order. The gentleman referred to his amendment, which I disagree with. But we also made amendments from other Republicans; I am looking at the rule here: Mr. Burgess, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Scalise, Mr. King, Mr. Posey, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Gosar, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Hudson, and Mrs. Walorski. I could go right through this and continue to read the Republican amendments that we made in order. In the Rules Committee last night during the markup, my friends offered a number of amendments. Of the amendments they offered, nearly half of them violated House rules or were duplicative. When people draft amendments in a way that legislate on appropriations bills or violate any of the House rules, it has been customary for Democrats and Republicans to not make them in order. We try to work with them to fix them, but last night, many of the amendments, including a Democratic amendment that the minority offered we could not vote for because it was not complying with the House rules. I am sorry that that is the case, but people need to know that, when you are amending appropriations bills, you need to draft them in a way that is compliant with the House rules. A lot of the amendments that were offered by my friends were the oldies but goodies. We have wall amendments, abortion amendments, and stuff that we have voted on time and time and time and time again; and I appreciate they want more time to vote on it, but we need to get our work done here. As the gentleman referred to, there is a Member on the other side who has decided to have a little bit of a temper tantrum and call for a vote on every single amendment and try to invoke every single procedural measure so that everything is dragged out and moves at a snail's pace. That is his right. I don't think it is a particularly effective tactic, but if it makes him happy, he can do whatever he wants. He has that right to do that on the House floor. I was in the minority in the last session, and I lived through the most closed Congress in the history of our country when the Republicans brought more bills to the floor that were completely closed and that were unamendable. Nobody could offer an idea. They did that more than any other Congress in history. So we are trying to do this better. I think we are, in many respects, doing it better, and we are going to continue in that spirit. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who is a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Maine an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just address the issue of the Endangered Species Act that the gentleman referred to. It is not a ``Washington knows best'' and is certainly not a ``politicians know best'' approach. It is based on science, on available science, not on a special interest that is trying to get a different outcome. If you don't believe in the direction of the act, if you don't believe that it should be adhered to, then the remedy is to introduce an alternative law. I would certainly vote against it, but the gentleman has a right to do that. The Endangered Species Act already ensures there is public notice and public participation. There is an opportunity to comment on listing and delisting decisions. It is our view that Congress should not interfere in the process outlined by the Endangered Species Act because it then becomes about politics--not science, but politics--and it should be science that determines the survival of a species. I know science is a tough subject for my friends on the other side to deal with, because so many of them don't even believe that we have a climate crisis. But, in any event, I just wanted to respond. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that this legislation contains the largest increase to combat Asian carp in years. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Iowa that we made in order last night one of his amendments related to the census question. And I strongly disagree with him on that. I hope we can defeat the amendment with a strong bipartisan vote. But, nonetheless, we made his amendment in order, and I look forward to the debate on the floor and, again, look forward to voting ``no'' on it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for the constructive way that he has brought his concerns to the floor. I am very sympathetic to what he is trying to do. The Appropriations Committee believes that the funding level in the bill will support hiring the maximum number of immigration judges who can be brought on board in a single year. Nonetheless, we are going to have to invest significantly more because there is a backlog. I think the problem with his amendment, and we talked about this last night, was the offset. He wanted, basically, to take $71 million from the general legal activities, which funds Justice Department divisions such as the Civil Rights Division; the Civil Division, which includes funding for cases involving consumer and elder fraud; the Criminal Division, which includes mutual legal assistance reform; and the Environment and Natural Resources Division. These litigation components do a great deal of important work. I think the conversation should continue, and we should, hopefully, be able to build consensus around an offset that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio very much. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman appreciates the staff who have been forced to remain here late into the night and into the early morning while he has insisted on vote after vote after vote. I am willing to venture a guess that the staff doesn't appreciate him very much. I appreciate that the gentleman wants to do something about the here and now, about what is happening right this second. I wish the gentleman had that same attitude before he voted to delay the implementation of the emergency supplemental bill to deal with the disasters that hit Texas and a number of other States. Let me assure the gentleman that we are very concerned about the humanitarian crisis at the border, and we are engaged in negotiations with the Senate and the White House, trying to resolve this. There are serious humanitarian needs at the border, many of which have been exacerbated by the Trump administration's cruel immigration policies. I mean, House Democrats understand these urgent needs. We want to address them, and negotiations continue. Appropriators are continuing to have important conversations about how best to balance funding to address the humanitarian needs of the border with the imperative to hold this administration accountable. If Republicans work with us, I am told that, by July 4th recess, we can pass a bicameral, bipartisan bill to provide humanitarian funding and protect the rights and the dignity of migrants. It is hard for me to accept that the heart of what this administration is doing has anything to do with being humanitarian, with caring about the plight of these migrants. I have seen the separation of children from their parents, the cruel separation of children from their parents at the border. I have listened to this President go on a rampage, diminishing the plight of these refugees, in many cases, fleeing for their lives. We are working, hopefully, in a bipartisan, bicameral way to get this done. But I would say this: If we care about doing what is right from a humanitarian perspective, it is not embracing the policies of this President. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who is my friend, and all those who participated in the debate here today. Let me just make one observation about the previous question and this debate on the border crisis. I am looking at a Politico column that just appeared at 12:58 p.m. It says: House inches toward 11th hour deal on funding the border crisis. We probably would have reached a deal already, because the negotiations have been ongoing, but instead, Members have had to spend an inordinate amount of time on the House floor voting on amendment after amendment that passed almost unanimously. One of the things I have learned about this place is that we have a lot of people who like to embrace the theater of Washington, and sometimes it becomes the theater of the absurd, people who know that issues are about to be solved, but who then stand up and demand that it gets solved so that when it gets solved, they can take a bow and take credit. The bottom line is what has gone on on this House floor has delayed, I think, a solution here that we all want, and my hope is that Politico is correct and that we will get to this resolution soon and that there will be a big, strong, bipartisan support of whatever the agreement is, but I assure you about one thing, no deal is coming to a conclusion because of the theatrics that have happened on this House floor with demanding vote after vote after vote. It really has become silly, it has become absurd, and I think we are better than that. If people want to solve issues, they ought to support the negotiators of both parties that are trying to work out a deal, and that is the way this place should operate. When it doesn't, it becomes silly, and that is what has been going on here. Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question. I would also say that there is no such thing as a perfect rule or perfect bill, but this is it. There are 290 amendments that are going to be debated on this. That is not clamping down on the process. There are 290 amendments. There are a lot of amendments here. I started reading some of the Republican amendments that have been made in order. I have got to be honest with you, a lot of them, I think, are really terrible ideas, and I am going to fight like hell to try to defeat them because they are so bad. But they are going to have their day on the floor and they are going to be able to debate them. That is not counting all the bipartisan amendments that have been made in order where Democrats and Republicans actually came together and forged a collaboration and a coalition to try to get stuff done for the good of our country. Now, Madam Speaker, I understand that some watching this debate might find the appropriations process to be a little arcane, but it is actually incredibly important. It is about whether Congress is going to make investments that give everyone in this country a shot at a better life. That is even more important today, especially with this administration in power. Republicans have claimed for years to want a government so small that they could drown it in a bathtub. Well, this administration is taking it one step further, and wants a government small enough to leave millions of poor and working Americans with nowhere to turn. That is why it has released one extreme proposal after the next that would cut government spending to the bone for hardworking families, all while the wealthy get a windfall. I have heard from so many in my district that are rightly frustrated by this approach. They want to see investments made in our communities that help all Americans, and that is what this does. Let me say it again. The Appropriations Committee, the Democrats and the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee and their staffs, deserve bipartisan praise for the incredible amount of work they have put into this. If you want to grow our economy and you want to combat gun violence, you want to rebuild our infrastructure, and more, then you should support this bill. My friends on the other side who talked about wanting to debate more Republican ideas on the House floor should also support this bill, because, again, we are making 290 amendments in order for this bill. Again, some of them I agree with, some of them I plan to vote against, but they are all going to be debated. Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying, in addition to thanking the Appropriations Committee and their staff, I want to thank the Rules Committee, the Democrats and the Republicans, and our staffs, for all the time that they have put in during, not only this week but last week as well. It is like final exam week. These are all-nighters for the staff, and oftentimes that gets overlooked, so I want to thank them for their patience and for their diligent work. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' on the previous question, ``yes'' on this rule and on the underlying resolution.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. today for morning- hour debate and noon for legislative business.