Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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, it is the Christmas season, so I do want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Georgia and the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for always being so polite to me and to other Democrats on the committee. But I want to say, in all candor, that, in spite of that, we are disrespected each and every day when our ideas are shut out and, in turn, our constituents are disrespected. I represent the same number of people as the Speaker of the House, as any Republican and any other Democrat in this Chamber, and yet, routinely, we are told that our ideas are not welcome. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that every Member of this House, Democrats and Republicans alike, are entitled to basic respect. We have just gone through the most closed session in the history of our country, more than 58 closed rules in this session. Over 1,500 amendments, both Democratic and Republican amendments, were blocked. That is not what we were promised by the leadership of this House. We are disappointed with what we are dealing with today. We are disappointed with the inaction and lack of support for the CHIP program and the community health centers funding. We think that is inadequate. We are disappointed that more funding isn't provided to deal with the opioid crisis. I could go on and on and on, but today, we are asking the Speaker to allow a vote to help the DREAMers, men and women who came here as children, who have served in our military, who have been first responders saving lives in these disaster relief efforts, 91 percent who work and pay taxes. They are important. They are valuable. We should celebrate them. I would say to my colleagues this is a matter of decency. The right and decent thing to do is to help them, not rationalize inaction. Please, please, for the sake of all that is good about our country, join us in defeating the previous question so we can have an up-or-down vote on the Dream Act, so we can actually help these 800,000 people, these young individuals who are giving so much to our country. It is the right thing to do. This is the Christmas season. I hope you are all moved to joining us and to helping these people because, as we have learned, each and every day that we wait, more and more of them lose their status. They lose their jobs. Their lives are thrown into deeper turmoil. It is wrong for us to go home and not deal with this. The decent thing to do is to vote on the Dream Act. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman has any time to share.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of concerns about the way this process is unfolding. And, yes, the gentleman is right. I am exorcised. I am exorcised that we have gone through all of these gyrations, including being on hold trying to figure out what we were going to bring to the floor all night last night, and we end up with this: basically kicking the can down the road for a few weeks and not dealing with some essential emergency priorities that are a concern to most people in this country. Again, going back to this tax bill, that is an example of where bipartisanship might have been helpful. I don't recall a tax reform package--I don't even want to call it reform because, basically, it is a giveaway to big corporations and to wealthy special interests--that has been rammed through Congress purely on a partisan basis. But maybe it had something to do with the fact that Democrats weren't welcome to the table. Maybe it had to do with the fact that Democrats were locked out. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that this so-called conference committee was a sham and, when Democrats showed up, a deal had already been struck. That is not bipartisanship. And maybe we are a little bit exorcised because, time and time again, when people go before the Rules Committee looking to offer legitimate, germane amendments to try to improve legislation, rather than being able to have the opportunity to offer those amendments on the floor and have a debate, we are shut out all the time. Again, this Congress, this Republican Congress, this session, has the distinction of being the most closed session in the history of our country. That is the distinction. So, yes, we are exorcised. And we are exorcised over the fact that, as we are about to adjourn for Christmas, hundreds of thousands of people, DREAMers in this country, their lives have been thrown into turmoil. These are people who have served in our military. They have led rescue efforts during these recent hurricanes. They contribute greatly to our community. A majority of people in this country want them to remain here, and we can't even get a vote on the House floor, notwithstanding the fact that we all know that, if we brought it to the floor, we would pass it. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has prioritized their tax scam bill over reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, community health centers, helping DREAMers, and even funding our government, which brings us to where we are now, days before Christmas, scrambling to fulfill our most basic responsibilities. But we should be doing more here than just trying to keep the lights on. We also have a responsibility toward the hundreds of thousands of young Americans--they are Americans in every way except on paper--who have been betrayed by this administration. We need to pass the Dream Act, and we need to do it now. Thirty-four of my Republican colleagues have already spoken up and urged Speaker Ryan to help these young people. The majority of this House is ready to do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, here is our chance to do just that. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. The bipartisan, bicameral legislation has the support of the majority of this House and would pass if it were brought up for a vote. 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. Speaker, we are strongly opposed to this rule. Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleagues that this is really a sad day, not only for the institution, but for the United States of America. It is frustrating that we are here today doing a third continuing resolution. For those who are watching these proceedings, we should be actually passing appropriations bills that fund the government for an entire year. We shouldn't be funding the government week to week, month to month. Yet my Republican friends have ended up doing just that. They can't seem to get their act together, notwithstanding they are in control of the House of Representatives, they are in control of the United States Senate, and they are in control of the White House. They simply cannot govern. They are lucky that the American people can't sue them, because they would be sued for political malpractice. The one thing that they are supposed to do is to keep this government running and to keep the lights on, yet we lurch from one crisis to another crisis to another crisis to another crisis. Today, what they are saying is: Let's kick the can down the road until January 19. You know what will happen then? Another crisis. Then we will be in the same situation, and we will probably kick the can down the road another few weeks. That is not the way government is supposed to run. People need certainty, and this Congress has delivered anything but certainty. It has to stop. It is frustrating. A solution, if I can be so bold as to suggest a solution to dealing with some of the problems that the Republican leadership is confronting, might be a little bipartisanship, might be opening up this process a little bit, might be a little bit more deliberation on the floor of the House of Representatives. There are a couple of ways they can govern. One is, they can govern in a way where they respect all points of view, where they actually respect the viewpoint of the minority, where they open the process up so the minority can, every once in a while, offer some amendments and offer some alternatives, where they negotiate on spending bills in good faith, where they know they are not going to get everything and the minority knows they are not going to get everything, but they end up in a compromise that is good enough to get bipartisan support. That is the way things used to be done around here. I don't know why it is so difficult to get back to those days, but if they want the government to run better, that is what they need to do. They have to stop this my-way-or-the-highway approach to every single piece of legislation that comes before this body. My friends have had more closed rules than any other session of Congress. This is the most closed session in the history of the Congress. That is what this session will go down in history as being: the most closed session in the history of Congress. They have used martial law, they have used closed rules, they have had emergency meetings, all to try to get us to this point where we are kicking the can down the road for a couple of weeks. That is it. What we should have been doing is working together not only to keep the government open, but we ought to have been working together to raise the caps. Democrats want a strong national defense. We also need an equal increase in our domestic budget, which includes critical national security functions and commitments to hardworking families. My friends ought to know that one-third of the nondefense domestic budget goes to national security, veterans, homeland security, and the State Department's and the Justice Department's counterterrorism initiatives. I would also say that supporting housing initiatives and investing in education and environmental protection so that our fellow citizens don't have to drink water that is contaminated with lead is also a part of our national security. We ought to have been working in a bipartisan way to resolve all of these issues together. We need to work to fund the opioid epidemic. What we have done in this Congress is given lots of speeches about how terrible this opioid epidemic is. We have talked about the need to support our local communities. We have done a lot of talking, but what we need to do is appropriate the necessary money so that local communities can implement the strategies to effectively deal with the opioid crisis in their areas. We ought to have been focusing on that. We need additional veterans funding. Democrats are urging Republicans to join us to provide urgently needed resources to veterans facing a dire shortfall at the VA, meeting our responsibility to ensure that no veteran is left behind or denied the care and opportunities they deserve upon return from the battlefield. CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and community health centers are incredibly important to us and people throughout this country. We are calling for immediate reauthorization of these vital initiatives, one that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul, one that doesn't say we are going to fund CHIP by taking money away from the prevention program that provides moneys for immunizations and dealing with issues like lead paint and other issues that affect our kids. We need emergency disaster relief that is adequate to meet the needs of all the States and localities and territories that have been impacted by these terrible natural disasters. We need to save Americans' endangered pensions. Millions of hardworking Americans' pensions are at risk, and we are calling for bipartisan action to enact a responsible reform plan to ensure that these struggling pensions will keep on going. We also believe that we ought to pass the bipartisan Dream Act that we spent a lot of time in the Rules Committee talking about today. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi; Minority Whip Steny Hoyer; and the head of the Hispanic Caucus, Michelle Lujan Grisham, spent many hours at the Rules Committee today. Leader Pelosi was there for 2\1/2\ hours testifying on the need to pass the bipartisan Dream Act. We ought to do that before we go home for Christmas. There are 800,000-plus people whose lives are in the balance because, on September 7, Donald Trump decided to end protection for the DREAMers. Here is what the President I don't think appreciates and what some of my colleagues I think don't appreciate, but we learned about this today in the Rules Committee: we don't have until March to deal with the Dream Act. Each and every day, people are losing their status. On average, about 122 a day, we are told. So there are people who are here who had the protections under DACA who are losing their status, losing their jobs, losing their livelihoods, and their lives have been thrown into turmoil. Why in the world would we do that? The majority of Americans, overwhelmingly Democrats and Republicans and Independents, all believe we should protect the DREAMers. We heard in the Rules Committee: Well, we need more committee deliberation. Again, the President took their protections away on September 7. It is now December 21. What have you been doing? They said: Well, the Judiciary Committee needs to do more hearings. Well, what have they been waiting for? The Judiciary Committee recently set up a bill, the concealed carry reciprocity bill, which allows people from States that have almost no standards to issue permits for people to carry concealed weapons to be able to go to any State in this country, no matter what those States' standards may be, basically endangering my constituents. They brought that to the Rules Committee. They had time to bring that before the Rules Committee and before the House. There was not a single hearing. None. We had this tax scam bill that we just voted on where 83 percent of the tax breaks go to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest in this country. Remember that bill that the President just celebrated with all my Republican friends? That came before this House, and there wasn't a single hearing on it. But now we need to have hearings when it comes to protecting the DREAMers. It is outrageous. These DREAMers are contributing to the betterment of our communities. We should celebrate them. We should value them. They have served in our military. They are out front leading disaster relief efforts, saving lives. They are working in Fortune 500 companies. They are going to school. They are valued members of our community. And we treat them like this? Come on. If we brought the Dream Act to the floor, it would pass with Democratic support and a big chunk of Republican support. There is absolutely no reason to continue to stall on this issue. All that will happen as a result of our stalling is that more people will lose their status, more lives will be thrown into turmoil. I would just say to my colleagues: It is the Christmas season. This is a time, if ever, where the spirit ought to take over, and we ought to do something good for the American people, not just for the donors, but for the people. Giving a tax break to corporations and wealthy people will help with the fundraisers, but what we need is to help these people, these DREAMers whose lives are in the balance. We can't wait. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, allow us to bring up a standalone Dream Act or an amendment that would allow the Dream Act to be made in order, and I hope that we can get back to regular order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this week, people all around the world are commemorating Human Rights Day, the annual celebration of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 13 of the declaration affirms that everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country. I have that right. As a citizen of the United States, I can leave my country whenever I choose, and I have the right to return whenever I like. For me, this right is not theoretical. I exercise it every time I travel abroad and every time I return home. But, Mr. Speaker, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, born and educated in Tibet, has not seen his homeland since he was forced into exile in 1959. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet, describes himself as a simple Buddhist monk. He was recognized as the reincarnation of the previous Thirteenth Dalai Lama when he was only 2 years old, and he was only 6 when he began his monastic studies. But well before he finished his education, at the young age of 15, he was called upon to assume political leadership after China's invasion of Tibet in 1950. For the next 9 years, he worked to preserve Tibet's autonomy and Tibet's culture. But after years of growing resentment against restrictions imposed by the Chinese Communists, a full-scale revolt broke out in March 1959, and the Dalai Lama was forced to flee as the uprising was crushed by Chinese troops. On March 31, 1959, he began a permanent exile in India, settling in Dharamsala in northern India. Since then, he has not returned to Tibet, or, more accurately, he has never been permitted to return. He has spent more than 60 years in exile. Today, the Dalai Lama is 82 years old, a man renowned all over the world for his commitment to peace. He has consistently advocated for policies of nonviolence, even in the face of extreme aggression. In 1989, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of what was then his nearly 30-year nonviolent campaign to end China's domination of his homeland. In 2007, the Congress awarded him the Congressional Gold Medal, and at the time, then-President George W. Bush called him a man of faith and sincerity and peace. Now, I have long believed that the Dalai Lama is part of the solution to resolving Tibetan grievances. There was a time, from 1959 until 1979, when the Tibetan goal was independence. But since the 1970s, the Dalai Lama has been looking for a way to resolve the situation of the Tibetan people through negotiations. In the late 1980s, he proposed the Middle Way Approach as a path toward Tibetan autonomy within China. His commitment to nonviolence and his recognition as the spiritual leader of Tibetans worldwide confers on him an undeniable legitimacy that would be of great benefit were China willing to restart the dialogue that has been suspended since 2010. But the Chinese Government has not recognized or taken advantage of this opportunity to achieve a peaceful resolution. Instead, Chinese authorities continue to view the Dalai Lama with suspicion, disparage him, and accuse him of fomenting separatism. They seem to believe that, with his inevitable death, they will be assured of consolidating their hold on Tibet. Well, I would not be so sure. Today, all around the world, we are seeing the consequences of repression of religious and ethnic minorities. For the Chinese, there is still time to recognize that inclusion and respect for human rights of Tibetans offers the best path to security. So today, I call on China to follow a different path. I call on the Chinese authorities to affirm the right of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama to return to his homeland, whether to visit or to stay. I call on them to welcome him home, afford him the respect he deserves as a man of peace, and sit down with him to resolve Tibetan grievances so as to prevent the deepening of tensions and eruption of conflict. Were China to take such a step, I believe the international reaction would be very positive. I would be among the first to recognize and congratulate an important gesture. Mr. Speaker, we need to be in the business of preventing and transforming conflicts instead of being forced to respond to their consequences after the fact. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in calling on the Chinese authorities to allow the Dalai Lama to return to his homeland. The Chinese Government should allow His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who is revered all around the world, the ability to go back to his home, to go back to where he was born. This is a time for bold action, and I urge my colleagues to speak out along with me in urging the Chinese Government to do the right thing. Now is the time to raise our voices--now, before it is too late. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend and tireless auto safety advocate, Jacqueline S. Gillan, on her retirement from her day-to-day leadership role at Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a group she helped found nearly three decades ago. Beginning in January 2018, Jackie will transition to President Emeritus at Advocates. Jackie has dedicated her professional career to making our roads safer for all American families. She co-led Advocates starting in 1990 and has served as President since 2011. Prior to joining Advocates, she worked in senior policy positions in the Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the United States Senate, the Washington, D.C. office of the Governor of Ohio, and the California and New Jersey state transportation agencies. Her extensive accomplishments include the successful enactment of numerous federal and state laws advancing motor vehicle and motor carrier safety standards; improving child safety; strengthening impaired driving laws; requiring safety belts, child restraints, and motorcycle helmet use; establishing teen driver programs; and providing adequate funding for highway and auto safety programs. Mr. Speaker, I have had the distinct pleasure of working with Jackie for several years on transportation safety issues. I am always impressed with her skillful knack to bring together a diverse group of transportation stakeholders to work to make our roads safer. But perhaps Jackie's greatest trait is her ability to tell the stories of truck crash victims with power and compassion. Her work with crash victims and their families--to make sure that every story is heard--is an incredible testament to her personal devotion to the issues she has worked on. Jackie is truly one of the most effective advocates that I have had the privilege to work with during my congressional career. You will find no greater champion for road safety than Jackie Gillan. She exemplifies the best of public service and principled public policy. I have no doubt that our roads are safer because of her years of hard work. I wish Jackie and her family nothing but the best in her well- earned retirement.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 36 years ago, nearly 1,000 men, women, and children were murdered by Salvadoran soldiers in El Mozote, El Salvador. It is considered one of the worst massacres in modern Latin American history. On December 2, I traveled to El Mozote with a delegation led by the Washington Office on Latin America. Four hours after leaving San Salvador, we arrived at El Mozote in the northern region of Morazan, near the border of Honduras. Three decades ago, El Mozote included about 20 houses on open ground around a square. Facing the square was a church and, behind it, a small building known as the convent, used by the priest to change into his vestments when celebrating Mass. Nearby was a small schoolhouse. Our delegation sat in the town square with survivors and victims of the massacre. We listened to their stories, shared prayers for their loss and suffering, toured the grounds where this atrocity took place, and visited memorials the community built to commemorate and preserve this tragic history. We also heard from lawyers from Cristosal, a U.S.- based NGO providing legal aid to the association of victims and survivors. On December 10, 1981, the Salvadoran Army brigade based in San Miguel and the Atlacatl Battalion, an elite infantry unit based in San Salvador, arrived in El Mozote. Over the next 2 days, these troops methodically and viciously murdered the town's residents and those of nearby villages. On the morning of December 11, troops assembled the people in the town square. They separated the men from the women and children and locked them in separate groups in the church, the convent, and various houses. According to eyewitness accounts, they then interrogated, tortured, and executed the men at several different sites. Around noon, they began taking the women and girls in groups, separating them from their children and machine-gunning them after raping them. Many families were ordered to remain in their homes while soldiers set fire to their houses. Over 140 of the children--some, mere infants--were jammed into the convent next to the church. There, soldiers blocked the doors, aimed guns through the windows, and fired into the mass of children, murdering them all in cold blood. They then threw an incendiary bomb into the building, collapsing the roof and adobe walls. Mr. Speaker, I walked with members of the community to the site where the children were murdered. A garden cultivated in their memory blooms on the site where they perished. A mural on the side of the church facing the garden depicts tiny angels ascending to Heaven. Beneath the mural are plaques with the names and ages of the children killed so brutally. They range from zero to 16 years. Walking on such hallowed ground, I was deeply moved and outraged by the atrocity that took place there. In October 1990, the Salvadoran courts opened an investigation into the El Mozote case, and in January 1992, the civil war ended with peace accords signed between the Salvadoran Government and FMLN guerrillas. In November 1992, the U.S. Truth Commission supervised exhumations of El Mozote remains by Argentine forensic experts, confirming that the stories told by the survivors were indeed true. Then everything was cut short when the Salvadoran Congress passed a sweeping amnesty law in 1993. However, last year, in July 2016, the Salvadoran Supreme Court overturned the amnesty law as unconstitutional; and in October of 2016, a judge reopened the El Mozote case and began taking testimony, which continues today. Now, there are many reasons why we in Congress should be engaged in the search for justice in the El Mozote case. First, in the postwar period, the U.S. has supported a strong and independent judiciary in El Salvador, capable of prosecuting corruption and human rights abuses. El Mozote is viewed as an exemplar case on whether this is possible to achieve. Second, in the 1980s, the United States armed, trained, and equipped the Salvadoran Armed Forces, in particular, the army. At El Mozote, U.S. guns and bullets were used to massacre infants, children, women, and men. Third, the U.S. established and trained the Atlacatl Battalion. Ostensibly an elite rapid reaction counterinsurgency force, it was a major actor in the mass murder at El Mozote. Nine years later, the unit also murdered six Jesuit priests and two women at the University of Central America in San Salvador. Finally, at the time of the massacre, the Salvadoran high command denied that it even happened. The U.S. Embassy and State Department echoed those denials and denigrated The Washington Post and New York Times reporters who traveled to El Mozote and published detailed stories about the massacre. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. should support the Salvadoran judge presiding over the El Mozote case and the Attorney General's Office, including releasing all information in our military and intelligence files relevant to that period of the civil war. It would be a significant contribution to ending the culture of impunity in El Salvador.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my dear friend and colleague from Maine, Representative Pingree, hosted a panel discussion on the Fruit and Vegetable Prescription Program. Experts from Wholesome Wave, the American Heart Association, and War on Poverty--Florida briefed congressional staff on how we can improve health outcomes for people living in poverty by increasing access to healthy, fresh produce. It is a simple concept with incredible results. Currently, healthcare providers at 34 clinics across 10 States provide individuals and family members with prescriptions for fruits and vegetables and $1 per day per family member to purchase these nutritious foods. The program has significantly increased food security among its participants and has enabled these families to increase their vegetable consumption by an astounding 206 percent. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Local FARMS Act, H.R. 3941, Representative Pingree's bipartisan legislation to expand the support and effort, and let us all work together to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last Monday and Tuesday, I participated in the eighth annual Monte's March, a 43-mile walk from Springfield to Greenfield, Massachusetts, to raise awareness about hunger in our community and to raise money for the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. Monte Belmonte, a well-known and beloved local radio personality with WRSI, The River, in Northampton, led dozens of committed activists and community leaders on the walk. This year, the march raised over $236,000, a record, to help struggling families in western Massachusetts. This translates into about 708,000 meals that will go directly to individuals and families struggling with food insecurity. As I am each year, I was deeply impressed by the stamina of all those who walked and by the generosity of community members looking to help those in need. I would like to take a moment to thank those who joined us along the route for their dedication to the cause of ending hunger in this country once and for all. Specifically, I want to thank: Monte Belmonte and his entire crew from The River, including Mark Lattanzi, Dave Musante, and Rene Kane. They work incredibly hard each year to make this march a success, and it wouldn't have been possible without their determination and the extra hours they put in leading up to this event; Sean Barry of Four Seasons Liquor in Hadley, Monte's right-hand man, marched the entire 2 days; Andrew Morehouse, the executive director of the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, and everyone at the food bank. They do inspiring work. They deserve to be supported; All of the elected officials who joined us, including my colleagues Representatives Richie Neal and Joe Kennedy, State Senator Eric Lesser and Representative Aaron Vega, Northampton Mayor David Narkewicz, Greenfield Mayor William Martin, and Chicopee Mayor Richard Kos; The representatives of several local colleges: Christina Royal, president of Holyoke Community College; my dear friend Bob Pura, president of Greenfield Community College; and a special appearance by Sam the Minuteman, UMass' beloved mascot; Incredible advocates from the nonprofit community: Tim Garvin of the United Way of Central Massachusetts; also from the United Way was Brian Whitney and Kerry Conaghan; Ron Johnson, CEO of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Family Services Inc. in Springfield; Andrea Marion, executive director of Lorraine's Soup Kitchen; Shannon Rudder, executive director of Kate's Kitchen in Holyoke; Betty Medina Lichtenstein, founder and executive director of Enlace de Familias in Holyoke; Mindy Domb, executive director of the Amherst Survival Center; and Neftali Duran, the chef and food activist at Nuestras Raices in Holyoke; The musicians who kept us entertained along the way: the Expandable Brass Band, Double Edge Theatre, and Hopkins Academy Band; Western Massachusetts small businesses, including: BridgeSide Grille; Magpie Pizza; Ashfield Lake House; Union Station in Northampton; Berkshire Brewing Company, who kept us nourished along the way; Ben Clark of Clarkdale Fruit Farms; and Tea Guys of Whately, Massachusetts, for their wonderful tea in honor of the march, and for their continued generosity and friendship; The Sheriff's Departments in Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin Counties, as well the Deerfield Police helped provide escorts for us during the entire 43 miles. I am grateful to Mr. Michael Brooks and the students of Smith Vocational School in Northampton for making the shopping carts we used during the march. I am grateful to the countless students--elementary, middle school, and high school students--who raised money and greeted us along the way; members of the Tibetan community who greeted us as well; and all the other incredible individuals from our community who joined us on the march, like my dear friends Chia Collins, Steve ``the Hippie'' Fendell, Georgiann and Rick Kristek, Kristen Elechko, Erin McKeown and Emily Lichter from the Ashfield Lake House, and so many others; as well as industry partners who helped support this effort through their generosity. I want to thank two of my wonderful district staffers, Keith Barnicle and Seth Nadeau, for their efforts in helping to organize the march and for assisting me every step of the way. Lastly, I want to thank my son, Patrick, who marched with me by my side during this entire time. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join so many of my constituents and neighbors in western Massachusetts to bring attention to the issue of hunger and raise much-needed funding for The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. I am so honored to be part of this march each year, but I need to remind my colleagues in this Chamber that charities alone cannot end hunger. To do that, it will take further investments in our federally funded programs like SNAP, WIC, and school meals. As we look toward the next farm bill, the next budget, and the upcoming appropriations cycle, I plead with my colleagues to maintain and increase investments and programs to help those struggling with food insecurity. Please don't do anything to make hunger worse in this country. In the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, it is a disgrace that any child goes to bed hungry, that any senior has to choose between lifesaving medication and a decent meal, that any veteran who risked his or her life in the defense of our Nation doesn't have enough to eat, and that any individual suffers from hunger. But, still, 42 million Americans remain food insecure. Food is a right, and it is up to this Congress to finally take a stand in supporting efforts to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton in opposition to H.R. 3905. State of Minnesota, Office of Governor Mark Dayton, Saint Paul, MN, November 27, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan: I write in strong opposition to HR3905, which I understand has passed out of Committee and is being reviewed by House Majority Leadership for a floor vote. I implore you not to schedule a vote on this bill without a full vetting of the serious risks to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from adjacent copper-nickel mining, the status of the two-year federal study currently underway, and the wishes of the majority of Minnesotans, who oppose copper- nickel mining in the immediate vicinity of the Boundary Waters. HR3905 is a bill, ``To require congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, to provide for the renewal of certain mineral leases in such lands, and for other purposes.'' HR3905 was introduced in response to the desires of a foreign mining company to use Congress to circumvent the deliberations of the U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture and their agencies, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), to determine whether copper-nickel mining can be conducted safely in this ecologically sensitive part of Minnesota. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BCWAW) is America's most popular national Wilderness Area, drawing visitors from all over the world to Northeastern Minnesota to fish, hunt, and experience its interconnected pristine lakes, rivers and streams. Additionally, the BWCAW contributes enormously to Minnesota's social and economic well-being. In January, 2017, the BLM and the USFS began a comprehensive two-year study to determine whether copper- nickel mining, with its toxic by-product, sulfide ore, is appropriate within the watershed and immediate vicinity of the BWCA. Specifically, this environmental review will determine whether the Superior National Forest lands next to the BWCAW should be removed from the federal mining program to protect the Wilderness from pollution and other environmental degradation caused by the resulting sulfide ore. The study considers a wide variety of factors, including scientific evidence, public input, economic considerations, ecological characteristics, and recreational value, among others. I respectfully ask that you allow the completion of this important review process. Over 126,000 Americans have submitted public comments as part of it. Many attended three public meetings conducted earlier this year by the BLM and USFS. Moving HR3905 forward at this time would disregard the input of all Americans, who have participated in the process, as well as the views of the 79 percent of Minnesotans, who favor the two-year pause and environmental review of potential impacts to the BWCAW. The BWCAW is crucially important to our state, and I believe strongly that future federal and state decisions about its future should be made only after the most careful and objective scientific review. I urge you to reject the attempts by a foreign mining corporation to short-circuit the review process underway, and to affirm the importance of a careful, objective analysis under the existing federal legal framework. Continuing this review process is the best way to allow for well-informed federal and state decisions, which will affect many future generations of Americans. Industry should not dictate the stewardship of taxpayer-owned public lands, nor use Congress to short-circuit sound decision-making-- especially regarding pristine Wilderness Areas like the

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition to H.R. 3905 signed by virtually every major environmental organization in the country. November 8, 2017. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we urge you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the ``Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act'' scheduled for mark-up in House Natural Resources on Wednesday. Section 3 of this radical bill, which would require Congressional approval of any monument extension or designation involving National Forest lands in Minnesota, represents yet another direct attack on one of our nation's bedrock conservation laws, and flatly ignores the overwhelming public support for protecting unique and sensitive federal lands and ocean areas through national monument designations. We urge the committee to consider the following during markup of H.R. 3905 this week: Contrary to the Intent of the Law--The Antiquities Act was designed to allow for swift and necessary action, including when Congress is either unable or unwilling to act, to protect irreplaceable resources from potential threats. Not only has the law successfully protected some of our nation's most remarkable historical, cultural and natural treasures for a century, Congress intentionally left this presidential power intact when passing the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (signed into law by President Ford). A Vote Against our Parks--Supporting any bill that would undermine the Antiquities Act is a vote against parks. Nearly half of America's national parks began as national monuments including the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and Olympic National Parks; and over two-thirds of our national monuments are managed by the National Park Service. Quite simply, a vote against the Antiquities Act is a vote against our national parks and monuments. Federal Lands Belong to All Americans--The Antiquities Act is used only to protect federal lands already owned by the American public. By carving out an exception for national forest lands within Minnesota, Section 3 of H.R. 3905 flies in the face of our nation's shared public heritage and disregards how dearly the public values iconic public lands and waters, like Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. Bipartisan History--A signature achievement of President Theodore Roosevelt, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16 presidents since its inception--8 Republicans and 8 Democrats. Out of Step with the Public--This bill is wildly out of step with the American public's support for our national parks and monuments. Just this summer, a vast majority of the 2.8 million people who submitted comments on the issue raised their voices in support of keeping our national monuments protected just as they are. These voices made Secretary Zinke's national monuments public comment period the largest public comment period in the history of the Interior Department. Across the West, public support for protecting our national monuments has proven strong, and a significant majority of Western voters oppose more mining and drilling on public lands. According to Colorado College's Conservation in the West Poll, 80% of western voters support ``future presidents continuing to protect existing public lands as national monuments.'' This poll reinforces other surveys that document widespread public opposition to congressional attacks on new parks. Americans want more protected public lands, not less! Opposed by Diverse List of Hundreds of Organizations--As demonstrated by this letter as well as the attached letter signed by nearly 200 organizations, a diverse array of local and national organizations representing sportsmen, outdoor recreation businesses, local chambers of commerce, cultural heritage, historic preservation and conservation have consistently opposed efforts to undermine the Antiquities Act in any form. Disregards Local Economies--Economic research shows that national monuments support the growth of local economies, bringing in tourism and recreation dollars and boosting the quality of life. The Outdoor Industry Association reported this year that public lands like our national monuments help support 7.6 million jobs in America, and $887 billion in outdoor recreation activity. Monuments Protect our Shared History and Culture--In response to broad community input, sites honoring America's military and outdoor heritage, as well as those expanding the diversity of our national park system to better recognize the contributions and histories of Native Americans, Hispanics and African-Americans have been designated under the Antiquities Act. These monuments include Fort Ord, Fort Monroe, Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers, Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad, Chimney Rock, Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks, Cesar E. Chavez and many more. Recent attacks on national monuments, from President Trump's executive order, to Interior Secretary Zinke's hasty and arbitrary review of these magnificent places, to legislative proposals like H.R. 3905 are a smokescreen for other uses of these special places. Thank you for considering our concerns. In order to adequately protect iconic places like the Boundary Waters, Voyageurs National Park, and all of Minnesota's shared public resources, we urge you to vote no on H.R. 3905. Sincerely, American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Boundary Waters Trust, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Lands Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Hip Hop Caucus, League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Tuleyome, The Wilderness Society, Wilderness Watch.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire of the gentlewoman how many more speakers she has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we oppose the overall rule, but I will say to the gentlewoman that we would have no problem even with the closed rule on the brownfields bill, which is one of the bills that I think has bipartisan support and reflects a legitimate process. What we have a problem with is H.R. 3905, which we think is a corporate giveaway that puts treasured public lands in the hands of a Chilean mining conglomerate, and we think that is wrong. I agree with the gentlewoman that we ought to be doing important business here, but I would argue that, rather than rewarding some Chilean mining conglomerate, the more important business would be making sure we keep the government open, because we have a government shutdown fast approaching on December 8. I would say to the gentlewoman that we have got to pass the Dream Act and help 800,000 people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil because of this President. We ought to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program. We ought to debate flood insurance. We ought to pass additional hurricane relief. We ought to address funding for the Vets Choice Program. That is more important, that is more vital to the national interest than basically rewarding some Chilean mining conglomerate. Finally, I would say to my colleagues here that we will ask you to vote to defeat the previous question. We will ask you to defeat the previous question so we can bring up and have a vote on a bill that will require this President and all Presidents and all party nominees to release their taxes. I think the American people have a right to know where the conflicts of interest are with this White House. I think they have a right to know who benefits from this tax bill that we know is a giveaway to corporations that will raise taxes on millions of middle class families. They have a right to know who benefits from this. I am astounded that the bar keeps on getting lower and lower and lower for my Republican friends. I mean, we have daily offensive tweets. We have irrational statements that come out of this White House on a daily basis, and there is silence. When it comes to transparency, when it comes to making sure that there are no conflicts of interest, my Republican colleagues will not even allow us to have a vote on basically requiring this President and all Presidents to release their tax returns. That is not passing judgment on this President. It would be a requirement of all Presidents and nominees. Basically, it is saying, let the sunshine in. Let us make sure that there are no conflicts of interest. That ought to matter, because everything that comes out of this House seems to be directed at helping those who are well-off and well-connected. Every corporation is cheering when this House comes up with legislation, whether it is on tax reform or whether it is on helping mining companies, because it always seems to benefit those who are the most well-off. Well, it is about time we put people first. It is about time the American people know what is going on in this government. Let the sunshine in. There is nothing wrong with that. We are doing it this way because it is the only avenue available for us to bring this to a vote, because the Rules Committee and the leadership in this House shuts off debate on issues that they find uncomfortable. This is supposed to be the people's House, not the Russia House. We ought to be a place where we have deliberative engagements, where we discuss important issues, where we do things that benefit the American people. I would say to my colleagues again, vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have this debate. If you want to help the President cover up his tax returns, fine. You can vote ``no,'' but we ought to have a vote. I don't know why this is so controversial. It, to me, is a no- brainer. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why many of us are opposed to H.R. 3905 is because we see it as a corporate giveaway that puts treasured public lands in the hands of a Chilean mining conglomerate. So much of what comes out of this Congress is about rewarding those who are well-connected and well-off, rewarding corporations at the expense of average citizens. I will go back to our previous question, which would force a vote. Everything would still move forward, but it would force a vote on a bill that was introduced by Ms. Eshoo that would require Presidents and Presidential nominees to release their tax returns. It is not just the connections between the Trump family and this mining company that we have concerns about; it is the connections between this President and his administration and the tax bill that is being proposed that we know would raise taxes on millions and millions of middle class families and basically give a big tax cut to the wealthiest individuals and to corporate special interests and to corporations. We think that is all backwards, but I think the American people deserve to know who benefits and who doesn't. Again, for the life of me, I don't understand why so many of my Republican friends have circled the wagons in opposition to transparency, in opposition to letting the American people know where this President's conflicts of interests are, and basically protect what I think may very well be multiple conflicts of interest and maybe conflicts of interest that lead directly into a collision course with corruption. This is a big deal. All this legislation that we are talking about here today, there is a good piece of legislation, the brownfields legislation; a bad piece, that is this mining bill. This still goes forward, but vote with us to defeat the previous question so that we can bring up this other bill. Now, my Republican colleague from Wyoming may say: Well, that is not what we are talking about here today. The Democrats are just trying to muddy up the discussion. The reason why we have to resort to a procedural motion to bring up this bill to force the President and Presidential nominees to release their tax returns is because the Rules Committee shuts everything down that this leadership doesn't want to see come to the floor. We can't bring this bill to the floor to require the President to release his tax returns under regular order and our normal process. They won't let us. We can't offer it as an amendment. They won't let us. This is the only way we can do it. I would urge my Republican friends to stop defending the indefensible here. This thing would apply not just to Donald Trump, it would apply to every President. We have never had to do this before because every other President has released their tax returns. This President, for some reason, doesn't think it is anybody's business. Given the nature of the legislation coming out of this House of Representatives, I think the American people need to know and have a right to know. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)