Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am looking at a headline here today. It says: ``U.S. stocks clobbered, with Dow losing nearly 500 points, amid White House drama over government shutdown.'' Mr. Speaker, creating chaos in the stock market is how a drama queen might act, but it is not how any President should behave. This is totally manufactured by the White House crisis. This is ridiculous that we are at this point, after all the agreements that have been reached in the Senate and, we thought, here in the House. The President turned the TV set on and started watching FOX News and got carried away and now is reneging on his agreement. That is unfortunate. But I would again say to my colleagues: Let us defeat the previous question, and we will bring up a clean CR. We will keep this government open, and we will do the right thing by the American people. And most importantly, we will make sure that the men and women who are protecting our border get paid during this Christmas holiday. It is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just need to correct the Record on a few things here. It was the President who said he would be proud to shut the government down. My colleague may recall not too long ago the President had a meeting with Speaker-designate Pelosi and Leader Schumer over in the Senate. He bragged about it on camera. The President invited the cameras in, and he said: I would be proud to own a shutdown. That is what he said. So we know where the President stands on this. He doesn't care about shutting the government down. We should. The gentleman said that votes on rules are always partisan. Well, for the most part they are, but not this morning--not this morning. My Republican friends brought a martial law rule to the floor, which we don't really like because it basically condenses the process and we don't have a lot of time to look at things. But nonetheless, we said we would vote for it. Almost every Democrat voted with Republicans to move this so-called martial law rule forward so that we could bring up the Senate-passed continuing resolution today and keep the government running and be able to pay the men and women who protect our borders. So we came in good faith, and we did that. We want border security. We just think wasting billions of dollars on a stupid wall that doesn't do anything to protect our country is the wrong way to go. So if you want to vote to keep the government open, then you should vote with us to defeat the previous question because, if we defeat the previous question, then I will bring up the Senate-passed continuing resolution, and we can all vote for it. We can all keep the government running. We can all go home and have a merry Christmas and a happy new year. That is how simple it is. My Republican friends are bringing a rule to the floor that says that, if you vote for this rule, there is no separate vote on the border wall. It is all together. They know what is going to happen. If it passes the House, it will go over to the Senate, and they are not going to accept this. They have already had a bipartisan compromise. They had a deal with the President until he changed his mind. So if you want to keep the government open, then vote with the Democrats on defeating the previous question, and we will bring up a clean CR and we will do the right thing. We will do what we thought we were going to be doing this morning until the Republicans got into a fight with one another, and here we are. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just respond to the gentleman that we are all for compromise. This 7-week CR is a compromise. The clean CR is a compromise. In a bipartisan way, unanimously in the United States Senate, they accepted it. The President said he was for it. Then he changed his mind after watching ``Fox and Friends'' or listening to some right-wing radio host. The gentleman talks about protecting the border. We want to protect the border. We want to invest money in things that will actually protect the border, not in a press release, not in a sound bite, not in something that is a total waste of money, like a wall. But what about the fact that the President is going to shut the government down over a stupid wall and that means that the men and women who work for the Department of Homeland Security, the people who protect our borders, will not get paid, and we are not going to support them? One of my Republican colleagues, when he was faced with that question, said: ``It's actually part of what you do when you sign up for any public service position.'' Really? That is how we treat and respect the men and women who are charged with protecting our borders? We turn our backs on them during the holiday season? Merry Christmas. We are not going to pay you. What they need, if you go to the border and talk to them, are more personnel. They want us to invest in more electronic equipment to help them surveil the border. They will tell you that this idea of a wall is dumb. It doesn't work. It is not going to protect this country. It is a waste of money. We had a deal to move this CR forward, and the President changed his mind. He reneged on his word. He didn't keep his promise. And here we are. So, as Republicans fight with Republicans here in the House, thankfully, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, came up with a solution. There was a compromise. Democrats are willing to support that compromise. But, somehow, it is not enough. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by again thanking my colleague from Oklahoma for the work that he and other appropriators did to try to keep the government running. We are here right now not because of the appropriators. We are here right now because Donald Trump has made a mess of things. Mr. Speaker, it is surreal that we are here today, days before the end of a Congress, hours before one-quarter of the Federal Government runs out of money, scrambling to keep the lights on at the brink of the third Republican government shutdown this year, because we are not dealing with divided government. Republicans today control not only this Chamber, but also the Senate and the White House. They have been fighting among themselves for weeks over whether and how to keep the Government of the United States open for business. It would be comical if it weren't so serious. This proposal that we are being given right now is not a solution. It is a political temper tantrum all to please one man: the person sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't solve the disagreements in this Chamber or the Senate, and it doesn't prevent the shutdown America is facing. This President and this majority ran on fear during the last election: fear of immigrants, fear of those seeking asylum, and fear of anyone who doesn't look exactly like them. What happened, Mr. Speaker? They were resoundingly rejected. The American people chose a different course. They don't want a government that reacts only to the wants of the President's ever-shrinking base, the small segment of society that actually supports his offensive border wall. Let me remind my colleagues, according to polling, Americans, by a 2- to-1 margin, want the President to compromise on the wall to avoid a shutdown. This proposal is exactly what the President may want, but it is precisely what the American people rejected. The Senate passed a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the lights on. This House was prepared to pass it until the President's latest outburst. Governing by tweet isn't governing at all. If the President's most senior advisers are Fox & Friends and Rush Limbaugh, maybe we shouldn't be surprised when we find ourselves here today. But this morning, this House came together to pass same-day authority so the majority could move quickly on a bipartisan, short-term continuing resolution. Democrats joined our Republican colleagues in this effort to provide the tools needed to keep the lights on. This is how you are using them? This isn't a serious plan. To even vote for disaster relief, this bill requires you to support the President's offensive wall. Democrats and the American people have already rejected this false choice. This wall is a medieval solution to a 21st century problem. What is next, Mr. Speaker, money for a moat around Mar-a-Lago? This will not become law, what we are doing right now. This is a waste of time. If it even passes here--which is a big if--it is dead on arrival in the Senate. I say to my friend: The clock is ticking. Let's get to work on a clean bill that can make it to the President. This isn't that. This is just offensive. Again, let me remind those in this Chamber the Senate, in a bipartisan way, came together by a voice vote and supported a continuing resolution, a clean CR, to keep the government running for 7 weeks. That is it. It is all we are proposing here today. This Chamber can't even do that. This is a disgrace. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to my colleague, if I thought for one second building a stupid wall would somehow secure our borders, I would be for it. But every expert I have talked to, including people on the border, say they need more personnel and say we ought to invest more in electronic equipment to surveil our borders. I don't know of a wall that has ever been built that people haven't climbed over or dug under. This is ridiculous. By the way, when the President campaigned, he said that he wanted to build a wall and that Mexico was going to pay for it. Now he wants to build a wall that by all accounts is going to be useless in terms of protecting our borders, and he wants the American taxpayers to pay for it. Well, you have $5 billion. How about rebuilding our roads and our bridges that are crumbling in this country? If you have got $5 billion that you don't care what you do with, how about investing it in affordable housing? Or how about dealing with the issue of climate change? Or how about making sure that some of the 40 million-plus Americans in this country who don't have enough to eat have food? Wasting money on something so ridiculous is offensive. So we want border security. We are happy to work with you on enhanced border security, but this isn't it. This is a campaign slogan. This is a waste of taxpayer money. It is ridiculous. It is embarrassing. For the President to want to shut down the government over this is disgraceful. By the way, on the disaster package, just so my colleagues understand this, the disaster package in this bill does not include $600 million in nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico. So unless this Congress takes immediate action, 1.4 million of our fellow citizens of Puerto Rico stand to suffer deep cuts in food assistance, causing many of them to go hungry. That is shameful. Where is the help for them? Of course, we should pass a clean CR to ensure that our government remains open. But my friend talked about disaster assistance, and I just wanted to point out that one thing that is missing in their disaster package is the nutrition money for our fellow citizens of Puerto Rico. I am sure there are others. We are rushing this thing through. There is no transparency here. We thought we had a deal to keep the government open for 7 weeks. Then, all of a sudden, I guess the President tuned into ``Fox and Friends'' and changed his mind. You don't know where this President is going to be day-to-day or hour-to-hour or minute-to-minute. But he is the guy who said that he would be proud to own a shutdown. Well, I think it would be a disaster for this country to have another shutdown. I think it would be expensive. I think we should to do everything we can to avoid it, and that is why we ought to send a clean CR back to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't really want to prolong this debate much longer here. Every day with this administration is another self-made crisis, another demonstration of bad faith. No one can trust what comes out of the White House, what the President says. His word is worthless. And here we are, as evidence of that fact. Mr. Speaker, the government is set to run out of money tomorrow. We are running out of time to act. But, apparently, this is exactly what President Trump wants. Last week, he said he would be ``proud to shut down the government.'' Today, he confirmed he wouldn't even sign a clean CR to keep our government open for just a few more weeks. It is irresponsible and abhorrent to attach funding for his offensive border wall to a bill to keep the lights on. That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Senate amendment to H.R. 695, which is the clean CR that has already passed the Senate by a voice vote. Every Democrat and every Republican stood together and passed the CR. It wasn't controversial over there. Somehow, it is controversial here. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma made such a compelling argument for this rule--I can't believe I am saying this--I am going to vote for this martial law rule. It is a shame that we are at this point, rushing to meet deadlines that have been staring us in the face for weeks and hurrying to finish up important legislative business in the waning days of this Congress. But we are where we are, and we need to be responsible. When it comes to something like funding the government, it is appropriate to use all the tools in our toolbox to keep the lights on. So, while I think rules granting same-day authority should be avoided whenever possible, times like this are why they exist. There is also suspension authority in this rule that would allow this House an opportunity to take up criminal justice reform, a bipartisan first step that our Republican President has already promised to sign. With so much work in front of us today, I am not going to waste time on process. I won't belabor the President for his words and tweets, which made completing our business tougher than it needed to be. And I will even spare my friends in the majority further conversation about how I wish we weren't, once again, standing on the brink of another shutdown. Consider it my gift to them for this holiday. This House needs to move quickly and responsibly. Everyone understands that, so I will simply say that I will be voting for this rule. I urge my colleagues to do the same, so we can finish our business and prevent another government shutdown. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else to say, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I have reminded my colleagues many times, there is not a congressional district in America that is hunger free. Hunger in America defies stereotypes. Many families that grapple with food insecurity are working but still don't make enough money to buy sufficient food after all the bills are paid. That is why, on the Monday and Tuesday before Thanksgiving, I participated in the ninth annual Monte's March, a 43-mile walk to raise awareness about hunger in our community and to raise money for the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. The leader was Monte Belmonte, a well-known radio personality and a committed activist on behalf of those who are vulnerable. I was so proud to join him again this year to walk the 43 miles. I am even more proud that he raised nearly $300,000. This translates into nearly 3 million meals for people struggling with food insecurity. Mr. Speaker, I was so impressed by the incredible generosity of our community. It was inspiring. While food banks, food pantries, and charitable organizations are vital in our efforts to combat hunger, they cannot do it alone. We need a strong commitment by our government to do its part. Indeed, I would argue that we have fallen short of doing what is needed. Those who I had the pleasure of marching alongside during Monte's March understand that, and they understand what it means to be part of a community. Today, I would like to thank them for their work. First and foremost, to Monte Belmonte and all the people at WRSI, The River--Mark Lattanzi, Joan Holliday, Kaliis Smith, Kelly Sykes, Betsy Cortis, Matt Peterson, and Steve Trumpy--thank you so very much. You are all wonderful. I would like to thank Andrew Morehouse, the executive director of the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, and everyone at the food bank for all the incredible work that they do. I would like to thank Sean Barry from Four Seasons Liquor in Hadley, who was Monte's right-hand man for 2 days. I would like to thank all the elected officials who joined part of the march, including Congressman Joe Kennedy; State Representative Aaron Vega; State Senator-elect Jo Comerford; and State Representatives-elect Natalie Blais, Mindy Domb, Dan Carey, and Lindsay Sabadosa. And, of course, I would like to thank Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan. I would like to thank Easthampton Mayor Nicole LaChapelle, Northampton Mayor David Narkewicz, and Chicopee Mayor Richard Kos, who have always been key partners in the fight to end hunger. I want to thank Tim Garvin of the United Way of Central Massachusetts; Ronn Johnson, CEO of the Martin Luther King Jr. Family Services in Springfield; Ruben Reyes, operations manager at Lorraine's Soup Kitchen in Chicopee; and Jasmin Colon, Kate's Kitchen in Holyoke. Each of them has done so much to help those who are struggling with hunger. A special thank you to the sheriff's departments in Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin Counties, as well as the Deerfield Police, who provided escorts for us during all 43 miles. We are so grateful for all they do to keep us safe every day. Thank you to the Expandable Brass Band, the drum corps from Franklin County Technical School, and performers from Double Edge Theatre in Ashfield for keeping us jazzed up during the entire march. I want to thank everyone who gave us space to rest and good food along the way: The Bistro at Gateway City Arts in Holyoke, Sierra Grille, BridgeSide Grille, Berkshire Brewing Company, Ben Clark of Clarkdale Fruit Farms, Tea Guys, Stone Soup Cafe, and the Hope & Olive and Magpie in Greenfield. Thank you to the schoolchildren who greeted us and raised funds to support our cause, including Nurse Meg and her team of marchers from Conway Grammar School, Steph Barry and Erving Elementary, and Mr. Brooks and Smith Voc-Tech for their help with the carts we used to march. I want to, of course, thank my son, Patrick, who marched with me the entire second day. Finally, to our VIP marchers--Chia Collins; Steve the Hippie; Rick and Georgiann Kristek; Andrea Ayvazian; Marina Goldman; Leigh Rae; Kristen Elechko and her baby, Elizabeth Dunaway; Marianne Mahoney; Michelle Spaziani; Amy Proietti; Neftali Duran; Margot Wise; and Terry Wise--we simply could not have done this without you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Mr. Speaker, I was glad to be part of this, but I close by expressing my deep concern about the future. With so many people in need of assistance, any cuts to SNAP would be devastating for families across this country. This next Congress needs to stand firm against any more cuts to SNAP. We ought to stand firm against any structural changes to the program and any more burdensome requirements. We must protect this program and other programs that provide people nutrition. Food ought to be a fundamental right for everybody in this country. We live in the richest country in the history of the world. Nobody should be hungry. In the spirit of all those who took part in Monte's March, we in this Congress can and will do better. We must end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), my good friend, for yielding time and for his leadership on this and so many other important issues. Mr. Speaker, I have no concerns with the underlying bill before us today, and I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), whom I have the great honor to serve with on the House Rules Committee, for his efforts on this bill. However, I am very concerned--and I can't stress that enough, very concerned and disappointed--that this majority has refused to allow an important bipartisan bill affecting a Tribe in my home State of Massachusetts from coming to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for all the hard work my fellow Massachusetts delegation members Joe Kennedy and Bill Keating have done to advance that bill. The Federal Government formally recognized the Mashpee Wampanoag in 2010. In 2015, the previous administration agreed to hold several hundred acres of land in trust. Yet, despite these actions, the status of the Native American Tribe that greeted the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock nearly 400 years ago is in question. In September, the Department of the Interior unjustly reversed its prior decision to hold the Mashpee land in trust. The review of the Department's prior decision came due to a quirk in a 1934 Federal law, but that minor quirk could have major implications for this Tribal community. Schools could be shuttered, healthcare access could be restricted, and its economic sovereignty could be limited. H.R. 5244, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act, was introduced by my good friend Bill Keating. This bill would reaffirm the Mashpee land as being held in trust in Massachusetts, effectively overturning this unjust decision by the Department of the Interior. Mr. Speaker, Congress has acted time and again to correct unjust actions taken by our government with respect to Native American Tribes across the country. We must do so again to protect the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, and I urge my colleagues to bring this legislation that will do just that to the House floor for a vote as soon as possible. Now, if that doesn't happen in the remaining hours of this Congress, I will look forward to working with the distinguished incoming chair of the Natural Resources Committee to make this bill a reality. This is the right thing to do, and, quite frankly, it is just inexcusable that this House hasn't moved this issue forward. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire of the gentleman from Washington whether he has any additional speakers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any more speakers?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) to control.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to yield 2 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) to have an additional 2 minutes. If there is no objection, is that----

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman has additional speakers over there. Would it be appropriate to ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman an additional 2 minutes? I have 3\1/2\, but I am going to use that, but could we give them an additional 2 minutes?