Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills. The first piece of legislation, H.R. 3017, is a bipartisan compromise to extend the EPA's brownfields program. The successful brownfields program assists communities across this country in cleaning up contaminated sites to reduce pollution and health risks and spur economic development. Although funding for this program has enjoyed broad support over the years, its authorization lapsed in 2006; 11 years ago. It is certainly long past time for this important program to be reauthorized. I appreciate the work of Republicans and Democrats on both the Energy and Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees in coming together to produce this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is how the process is supposed to work. There was a hearing, and there was a markup. I should say, for the Record, the majority could have issued an open rule, instead of a closed rule. But I am not even going to criticize that today, Mr. Speaker, because experts on this issue came together to negotiate it in a bipartisan manner, and the result is a good piece of legislation that I look forward to voting for later this week. I commend Mr. McKinley, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Pallone, and all those who worked together, and I just want to say for the Record, as one who routinely gets up here and criticizes the majority for issuing closed rules and structured rules all the time, I do so not just as a knee- jerk reaction to what they produce in the Rules Committee. I do it because usually they do closed rules and structured rules to basically stifle a deliberative process. They do it to shut off debate and to shut out other people's opinions. Quite frankly, the majority's record on rules is abysmal. In this case, what we are doing is bringing forward something that represents a bipartisan process. I wish this wasn't an anomaly. I wish that the majority would understand that, in the House of Representatives, the views of Democrats are just as important as the views of Republicans. If you want to get things done, you need to come together in the spirit of compromise and work together for the good of the American people, not just for the good of one political party, not just so you can issue a press release, not just so you can play gotcha games, but actually produce things that are meaningful. If the Republican leadership would drop their all-or-nothing approach to governing more often, support genuine bipartisan negotiations and compromise, and open up the process on all pieces of legislation, both minor and substantial, we might be able to get something done around here. Maybe we could have more than 12 bills of any sort of real significance signed into law. This rule also brings to the floor legislation, I am sad to say, that would do irreparable harm to our federally protected land by allowing a foreign company the ability to use a half-century-old lease to mine right next door to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. H.R. 3905 would allow a Chilean mining company, which is facing tens of millions of dollars in fines from the Chilean Government for their failure to protect nearby water resources, the ability to mine just upstream of pristine U.S.-protected land. This is all based on a 50-year-old lease--a lease that didn't go through any environmental review because NEPA didn't exist yet. There are Members of this Chamber who weren't even born when this lease was signed. My colleagues in the majority will claim that this bill will help create jobs, but what about the 22,000 jobs that the local protected land already supports? What will happen to those jobs when the water is so polluted that no one can visit the recreational area around the mine? The truth is, this isn't about jobs. It is about helping a few rich owners of mining companies line their pockets at the expense of the environment. In fact, the recipient of this Republican handout is a subsidiary of a Chilean company, Antofagasta, which is controlled by Chilean billionaire Andronico Luksic Craig. And get this: he just happens to be the landlord of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, President Trump's daughter and son-in-law and senior advisers to the Trump White House. You cannot make this stuff up. This is part of a pattern of sketchy deals and questionable business contacts involving the President and his family and their closest advisers. Earlier this month, we learned that President Trump and his family made millions through a hotel in Panama financed by Colombian drug cartels and the Russian Mafia. We still don't even know how these new deals will boost President Trump's income or how his family profits off of the Presidency, because we are 312 days into his Presidency, and we still haven't seen his tax returns. Imagine if this were Hillary Clinton. Imagine if this were Barack Obama. Imagine the screams on the other side of the aisle demanding transparency and an open process. But when it comes to covering up all these sketchy deals on behalf of this President of the United States, there is silence. President Trump promised to drain the swamp, but, instead, he has created a cesspool. There are so many conflicts of interest, this administration is on a collision course with corruption. Mr. Speaker, we have only 6 legislative days left before the government runs out of money, but the Speaker of the House thinks another corporate handout, this time to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's landlord, is the most pressing issue that needs to be resolved in Congress this week. If the Speaker wants some suggestions as things we ought to focus on this week, I know Democrats in this Chamber have a few. I can give you an example. Democrats think we should be debating a funding bill to avert the coming shutdown on December 8, when the temporary spending bill expires. Democrats want to debate and pass the Dream Act, ending the turmoil this President has caused by upending the lives of 800,000 young immigrant DREAMers and their families. Democrats want to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, and community health centers, whose authorization expired 2 months ago. Democrats think we ought to debate flood insurance reauthorization, which expires on December 8. Democrats want to pass additional hurricane relief to help those who are still recovering from devastating hurricanes in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. Democrats want to address funding for the Veterans Choice Program, which is set to run out of money before the end of the year. But instead, here we are, considering yet another ridiculous, extreme antienvironment bill. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle love talking about returning this country to the way it used to be. I have seen the Make America Great Again stickers on many of their cars. I can think of no pastime more important or more significant to our national heritage and identity than our wilderness and protected areas. My friends and colleagues who have spent time in the Boundary Waters tell me how stunning it is. They say it is one of the most beautiful places in our country. And we are going to risk polluting this national treasure with copper-sulfide acid drainage running into the streams that feed the Boundary Waters? Worse yet, this bill makes these mining leases impossible to ever overturn, even should the Bureau of Land Management conclude its environmental assessment and rule against further mining in this protected national forest. This is a slippery slope. If we continue to allow corporations to pillage our federally protected wilderness areas, we are opening the door to irreversible damage. What is next? Clear-cutting in Yellowstone Forest? Oil drilling off the coast of Acadia National Park? Mr. Speaker, I beg my Republican friends to drop this assault on our public lands and urge the leadership of this House to bring up the urgent bills and priorities that we need to deal with before adjourning in less than 3 weeks' time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose efforts that will further degrade our natural resources. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to my colleague from Wyoming, you know, when she raised the issue of why our Democratic leaders didn't show up to the meeting at the White House. Maybe she didn't catch the President's tweet in which the President made it very clear he didn't see a deal. I am glad our leaders didn't show up because they are not props, and we in the minority are not props either to be rolled out, to give the appearance of bipartisanship or give the appearance that somehow you are working with us when, in fact, you are not. The President showed his hand. He had no interest in a deal, no interest in working with us. And I would say that is one of the problems in this House of Representatives, that the reason why we are not more productive in getting things done and producing real legislation to help the American people is because there is no bipartisanship, very little. I made one exception to the issue on this brownfields legislation, but on the big bills, nothing. The gentlewoman brought up the Affordable Care Act. You know, what was her solution to the Affordable Care Act? What was the Republican majority's solution to making the Affordable Care Act better? I mean, bringing a bill to the floor under the most closed process that you can possibly imagine, a bill that would throw 23 million Americans off of health insurance, what are my friends thinking? When people talk about healthcare reform and improving the Affordable Care Act, they talk about lowering prices; they talk about more accessibility; they talk about more people getting coverage. What the Republicans brought to the floor was a bill that would throw 23 million Americans off of health insurance. That is their solution. That would take away essential benefits protection for people who desperately need health insurance to deal with this opiate crisis and a whole bunch of other things. So we don't want any lectures about what is extreme and what is ridiculous in this House of Representatives. The way the majority conducts business in this House is extreme and ridiculous. The legislation, whether it is their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act or even this tax bill that is a giveaway to corporate special interests and is going to raise taxes on people earning $100,000, that is extreme, that is wrong. So, Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my Republican friends, again, you know, if you want to get things done, if you want to work with us, you have got to treat us as more than just props. You have to enter into good faith negotiations. And I would say, if you did that, we actually might get some things done around here that might improve the quality of life for everybody in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again respond to my colleague from Wyoming when she again raised the issue as to why our leaders didn't show up to the White House. It is not because they have a fragile ego. It is because they didn't want to waste their time. It is because they didn't want to be a prop or just be there for a photo op. It is because they are actually focused on trying to do the people's business, and they are tired of the gamesmanship. If the gentlewoman wants to talk about fragile egos, I would suggest that she observe the behavior of the man who is in the Oval Office. I mean, this is a guy who will get into a Twitter war with a basketball player's father. I would say that, and I would just respectfully urge my Republican colleagues, now is the time for an intervention because we have serious business to deal with in this country: there are issues of war and peace; there are issues of domestic security; there are issues of economic security that we have to deal with; and instead, we are dealing with constant nonsense coming out of the White House. So it is time for the Republican majority to intervene and to say to the President, ``Enough is enough.'' Mr. Speaker, you know, for weeks, tax experts have been reporting that the Republican tax plans would raise taxes on millions of middle class families in order to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Their proposed legislation may directly benefit President Trump and his family members to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, according to independent analyses. President Trump has denied this, stating that he would be a bigger loser if the House GOP tax bill is approved. Well, without his tax returns, we simply have no way of knowing exactly how much President Trump stands to gain from the tax bill. The American people deserve to know whether or not our President is directly benefiting from legislation that would hurt millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns. 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, as I stated earlier, there are so many conflicts of interest in this administration, and especially with this President. This administration is on a collision course with corruption. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to stand up and to be united and to demand a little sunshine on what the reality is. To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters in opposition to the bill; a letter from the National Parks Conservation Association; and a letter from the Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin Lakes and Pines in opposition to this bill. Sportsmen for the Boundary Waters, Ely, MN, November 29, 2017. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we urge you to OPPOSE H.R. 3905, the so-called ``Minnesota's Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act'' when it is considered on the House floor. Simply put, H.R. 3905 is a bill to allow sulfide-ore mining at the edge of the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), directly threatening one of America's most accessible and most-visited wilderness areas. At 1.1 million acres in size, the BWCAW is the largest wilderness east of the Rockies and north of the Everglades. This interconnected system of lakes, rivers, and streams provides unparalleled opportunities for solitude, recreation, hunting and fishing. The connections between Northern Minnesota's national forests, Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness, Voyageurs National Park, and Quetico Provincial Park makes this entire trans boundary area extremely susceptible to the threat of pollution from sulfide-ore mining, one of the most toxic industries in America, according to the EPA. H.R. 3905 would require congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota and would provide for the perpetual renewal of federal mineral leases in Minnesota, including two that were denied by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The bill undermines the Antiquities Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Boundary Waters Wilderness Act, and other laws regulating mineral leasing in Minnesota's national forests. Contrary to the bill's title, H.R. 3905 would do more harm than good for the economy of Northern Minnesota. Economic analysis by Key-Log Economics LLC shows that sulfide-ore mining on Superior National Forest lands in the watershed of the Boundary Waters could lead to the loss of nearly 5,000 jobs in tourism, 5,000 to 22,000 jobs in the rest of the economy, a $1.6 billion loss in annual income, and a $500 million reduction in private property values. Specifically, we urge opposition to this bill because it would: Renew two expired and undeveloped mineral leases on Superior National Forest lands next to the Boundary Waters and along lakes and rivers that flow directly into the Wilderness, advancing a foreign mining company's interests at the expense of beloved American public lands. Void the December 2016 record of decision by the Forest Service withholding its consent to two mineral lease renewal requests in the Superior National Forest due to the unacceptable risks to this watershed, which according to the Forest Service holds 20 percent of the National Forest System's fresh water supply. Undermine the National Environmental Policy Act by limiting review of these two mineral leases to a 30-day environmental assessment. Contrary to the bill language, there is no `pending EA.' However, this section would override the ongoing two-year Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) initiated by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to carefully consider the potential impacts of sulfide-ore mining on the Boundary Waters watershed. The ongoing EIS is strongly supported by Minnesota's Governor Dayton and by the citizens of Minnesota. More than 79% of Minnesota voters support the study, while more than 126,000 citizens submitted comments during the scoping phase. Amend the 1906 Antiquities Act by mandating Congressional approval for any national monument designations in Minnesota's national forests. The Antiquities Act is a bipartisan conservation law, which has been used by Presidents of both parties, to protect irreplaceable federal lands from potential threats. Monument designation under the Antiquities Act have provided protections for areas including the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, Muir Woods, and Olympic National Parks. Quite simply, this attack on the Antiquities Act is an attack against our national parks and monuments. Amend the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by mandating Congressional approval for mineral withdrawals in Minnesota's national forests. Additionally, FLPMA intentionally left intact the presidential power to protect public lands as monuments. Bar the Forest Service from complying with its legal obligations under the 1978 Boundary Waters Wilderness Act. In this Act Congress requires the Forest Service to maintain the high-water quality of the Boundary Waters and a Mining Protection Area within the Superior National Forest. The Forest Service concluded that sulfide-ore mining near the Boundary Waters would be ``contrary to Congress' determination that it is necessary to `protect the special qualities of the [BWCAW] as a natural forest-lakeland wilderness ecosystem of major esthetic, scientific, recreational and educational value to the Nation.' '' Make all mineral leases on Minnesota's national forests essentially perpetual. The `perpetual' nature of these leases is material change in long-standing mineral leasing law and policy. The bill would also override the two laws (1946 and 1950) on mineral leasing in Minnesota's national forests that require Forest Service consent to any mining. Ignore the request of the International Joint Commission that environmental review of impacts on trans boundary water quality and cumulative effects be studied and the requests of four tribal entities (the area is Ceded Territory). 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 public lands, and bedrock environmental laws like the Antiquities Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, we urge you to OPPOSE

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Wyoming talks about this great tax bill that the Republicans have proposed. I would call her attention to an article in Politico/Morning Consult today, which said that 8 percent of Americans believe that the Senate should take the Republican House- passed tax bill and enact it as-is--8 percent. I don't know how much lower you can get. I thought my friend's healthcare bill had terrible ratings. I think it was like 17 percent of the American people supported it. I don't know how she can walk around and be proud of what she is trying to do here when the vast majority of the people don't want what you are selling. They believe that these policies will be harmful. We are supposed to be the House of Representatives--the people's House--not the House of corporations, to give out special deals to mining companies, or to pass tax bills that benefit corporations at the expense of middle class families, or to pass healthcare reform that is a giveaway to insurance companies and rips away health coverage from millions and millions of people. I mean, come on. Mr. Speaker, as I said, we believe in transparency on this side of the aisle, and we need to know what is behind some of these proposes in this tax bill, to find out who is benefiting and who is not. We know a lot of middle class families will not benefit. They are going to see their taxes increase. But we would like to know whether or not this President is going to benefit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, November 15, 2017. On rollcall Vote No. 632, the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1, if I had been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall Vote No. 633, on passage of H. Res. 619, the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1, if I had been present, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall Vote No. 634, on passage of H.R. 2331, the Connected Government Act, as amended, if I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall Vote No. 635, on passage of H.R. 3821, to designate the ``Zachary Addington Post Office,'' if I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall Vote No. 636, on passage of H.R. 2672, to designate the ``Sgt. Douglas J. Riney Post Office,'' if I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' personal explanation

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that for the third consecutive year, an amendment to create a service medal for our Atomic Veterans has been dropped from the NDAA Conference Report. I find this particularly shocking as this amendment, which I offered with my Republican colleague, Congressman Tom Emmer, was approved by the House unanimously by a vote of 424-0. It is unclear to me why our colleagues in the Senate are determined to deprive our Atomic Veterans this most basic recognition of their honorable service. Between 1945 and 1962, about 225,000 members of our Armed Forces participated in hundreds of nuclear weapons tests. These GIs were placed in extremely dangerous areas and were constantly exposed to potentially dangerous levels of radiation in performance of their duties. They were sworn to secrecy, unable to even talk to their doctors about their past exposure to radiation. Thankfully, Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush recognized the Atomic Veterans' valiant service, and acted to provide specialized care and compensation for their harrowing duty. In 2007, our allies Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia enacted their versions of this amendment by authorizing a medal to honor their Atomic Veterans who served with the United States. Regrettably, the Pentagon remains silent on honoring the service of our Atomic Veterans, arguing that to do so would diminish the service of other military personnel who are tasked with dangerous missions. Mr. Speaker, this is a pitiful excuse. Tragically, more than 75 percent of Atomic Veterans have already passed away, never having received this recognition. They served honorably and kept a code of silence that most certainly led to many of these veterans passing away prematurely. Past Administrations and Congresses have dealt with the thornier issues of legality and compensation. What remains is recognizing these veterans' duty, honor and faithful service to our nation. And time is running out. I thank my colleagues here in the House for supporting this amendment. With their continued support, I hope we can convince the Senate or the Pentagon to finally do the right thing, before it's too late. We owe it to our veterans to honor them for their selfless service to our nation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on Tuesday, November 14, 2017. On rollcall Vote 626, the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule, H. Res. 616, had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall Vote 627, passage of H. Res. 616, the rule for consideration of the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2810, had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall Vote 629, the Motion to Recommit H.R. 2874, had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall Vote 630, final passage of H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall Vote 631, agreeing to the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time and for his leadership to bring before this House the critical issue of U.S. policy towards Yemen. Most importantly, I want to thank him for his determination to provide this House with at least 30 minutes to debate the complicity of the United States through its support of the Saudi-led forces in the civil war in Yemen in one of the greatest humanitarian crises taking place on this planet. I personally believe that the House should be considering Mr. Khanna's original resolution, H. Con. Res. 81, but Republican leaders made that impossible by threatening to put forward a rule that would have blocked the right of Congressman Khanna to ever call his privileged resolution up for debate. Mr. Speaker, according to the United Nations, Yemen is suffering the fastest growing cholera epidemic ever recorded. At the same time, Yemen faces the world's biggest food emergency. Saudi Arabia has blocked Yemen's ports and airports. Just last week, it sealed the country's borders. As a result, the people of Yemen have been cut off from nearly all humanitarian aid during this horrific famine and cholera epidemic, and the ability of humanitarian agencies to provide relief has been significantly impeded. The U.N. has called the Saudi closure of Yemen's borders to aid deliveries catastrophic. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross was forbidden to cross the northern border with a delivery of chlorine tablets to prevent cholera. We learned today from the Saudis that two smaller southern ports and one Red Sea port will be open soon, although we don't know what that means, but the main port, where over 80 percent of Yemen's food supplies enter, will remain blockaded and closed. Mr. Speaker, it is well documented that the Saudi-led coalition and Saudi forces, in particular, have carried out a ruthless, brutal bombing campaign that deliberately targets hospitals, schools, food markets, and civilian population, including children. The World Food Programme has warned that hundreds of thousands of children will be on the brink of starvation if the blockade lasts for even 2 weeks. That deadline of death and starvation will arrive next Tuesday, just 2 days before we, here in the United States, sit down to enjoy our Thanksgiving with our family, friends, and loved ones. Will the Members of this House spare a thought for the children, mothers, and fathers of Yemen as we sit down and feast in the warmth and comfort of our own homes? Or will this Congress finally, after more than 2\1/2\ years of sheer horror, send a clear message to Saudi Arabia that its actions are intolerable? Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia's actions, thus far, and the coalition it leads in the Yemen civil war may very well rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity, according to the United Nations. It is past time for this House to clearly and unambiguously declare that the United States will no longer provide or sell military aid, equipment, and munitions to potential war criminals; that the United States will no longer supply midair refueling to Saudi and coalition bombers headed to Yemen to wreak havoc on the suffering Yemeni people; that the U.S. will no longer share intelligence with the Saudi coalition; and that we will no longer remain a complicit and passive partner in carrying out one of the world's greatest humanitarian crises. Mr. Speaker, I know the Houthi rebels attempting to take power in Yemen are also guilty of war crimes. Last November, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a hearing on the human rights situation and humanitarian crisis in Yemen, so I know full well the atrocities committed by all parties in this war. Mr. Speaker, Yemen is just one more proxy in the region of religious and political struggle for dominance between Sunnis, Saudi Arabia, and Shiite Iran. For some in Congress, that power struggle trumps every other consideration. For me, it is yet another reason to act with extreme caution and examine whether and how we allow ourselves to support potential war criminals in pursuit of consolidating their own regional agenda and power. I am concerned that this power struggle is escalating further throughout the region. Rather than the U.S. policy working to cool things down, we seem to be encouraging it to heat up. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, do not want the United States to be complicit in supporting the killing and maiming of children. I do not want the United States to be complicit in the deliberate targeting and attacks against schools, hospitals, markets, and homes. I do not want the United States to be complicit in bombing water treatment plants at any time, let alone in the middle of the worst cholera epidemic in the world. I do not want the United States to be complicit in supporting a blockade that condemns tens of thousands of children to famine and death by starvation. Once again, I thank Congressman Ro Khanna and my other colleagues who have supported this effort to have this debate. I want to thank them for their leadership on this important issue, but this is serious. Mr. Speaker, I include in the record a Washington Post, November 9, 2017, editorial, and an article from The Guardian. [From the Washington Post--Editorial, Nov. 9, 2017] The Crisis in Yemen Saudi Arabia's blockade could trigger a full-blown famine. Saudi Arabia has charged that a missile launched from Yemen toward Riyadh's international airport on Saturday was supplied by Iran and assembled by Tehran's Lebanese client, Hezbollah. It says this could be considered ``an act of war'' and claims the right to ``respond to Iran in the appropriate time and manner.'' Yet the only action taken so far by the de facto Saudi ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, has been to besiege some of the world's most desperate people--the cholera- stricken and literally famished civilian population of Yemen. The press of multiple international crises and President Trump's monopolization of media attention have helped obscure the severity of the humanitarian emergency in Yemen, a poor country of 28 million that has been devastated by civil war and a Saudi-led military intervention. According to the United Nations, it is suffering the fastest-growing cholera epidemic ever recorded, with about 895,000 cases and nearly 2,200 deaths since April. At the same time, it is facing the world's biggest food emergency, with 7 million people requiring urgent assistance. Children have been disproportionately afflicted. According to U.N. figures, 27 percent of the cholera victims are under the age of 5. Officials estimate that Juvenile cholera cases will reach 600,000 by the end of the year. Meanwhile, hunger has left half of children under 5 stunted, and 2.2 million are affected by either moderate or severe malnutrition. Saudi Arabia bears heavy responsibility for this suffering. For 2\1/2\ years, it has pursued a ruthless but unwinnable war against ethnic Houthis who have captured much of the country, including the capital, Sanaa, and the largest port, Hodeida. Bombing raids have repeatedly struck hospitals and food markets. Worse, in the name of preventing Iran from delivering weapons to the Houthis, the Saudis and their allies have blockaded the country by sea and air, closing Sanaa's airport to commercial traffic and slowing food imports at Hodeida. Now, in reaction to the missile firing, the Saudis have announced a more thorough closure of ``all Yemeni ground, air and sea ports.'' Though a government statement said it would take ``into consideration the continuation of the entry and exit'' of humanitarian supplies and aid workers, UN. officials say that aid flights have been blocked. The World Food Program warned that hundreds of thousands of children would be ``on the brink of starvation'' if the blockade lasted even for two weeks. Saudi officials say the siege is meant to prevent what they claim was the smuggling of missile parts into Yemen from Iran. It has offered no proof of the rocket's origin, and experts point out that Yemen is known to have imported Scud missiles from North Korea before the war. In any case, the blockade will not deter either Iran or the Houthis, but it could trigger a full-blown famine among innocent children. The Trump administration, which has blithely backed Crown Prince Salman in his reckless adventures, should consider the cost.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the service of Mr. Richard Voutour. Rick is a United States Marine Corps veteran, and he has served for over a decade as a friend and advocate of the veterans of Massachusetts as a distinguished Veterans' Service Officer. Rick was born on January 7, 1963, in Webster, Massachusetts. He entered the Marine Corps at age 18 and completed training at Parris Island, South Carolina and Camp Pendleton, California. Throughout his distinguished career, Rick has consistently received recognition for his exemplary service to our nation, including: the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with one star, the Navy Unit Commendation, and the Meritorious Unit Commendation. Mr. Speaker, this alone would be an impressive list of achievements that deserves our respect and gratitude. But after 23 years of service in the Marine Corps, in places as far away as Djibouti, Valetta, and Amman, Rick decided to return home to Massachusetts and serve his nation in a new way as the Director of Veteran Services for Leominster, Massachusetts. In his 13 years as a Veterans Service Officer, Rick has helped countless veterans and their families throughout Central Massachusetts obtain the benefits and services that they deserve. From obtaining military record and medals--to assisting with medical care and benefits, every veteran that walks into Rick's office is treated with the dignity and respect he or she deserves. There are thousands of veterans in Massachusetts right now whose lives have been changed for the better by Rick. His dedication to improving the lives of veterans serves as an inspiration to me and an example for our community. But don't just take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Many others have seen Rick's steadfast advocacy for veterans and his dogged determination to assist those who have sacrificed so much to proudly serve this country. Just this year, Rick was named Veterans Service Officer of the Year by Massachusetts Secretary of Veterans Services, Francisco Urena. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress and of the people of Massachusetts, I would like to thank and recognize Mr. Richard Voutour for his service to our country, and for his work every day to improve the lives of veterans in Massachusetts.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-- known as SNAP--provides modest food assistance benefits to families in need. The program helps to alleviate hunger, reduce poverty, and improve nutrition across our country on an ongoing basis. SNAP is also designed to help families put food on the table when disaster strikes. In response to recent hurricanes, fires, floods, and storms, officials at the United States Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA FNS) have worked with other federal and state emergency response agencies to ensure those impacted by disasters have access to food. Flexibilities in SNAP, for example, allow states to issue SNAP benefits early to ensure recipients can stock up on food before a disaster hits. In many cases, SNAP recipients impacted by disaster and power outages are able to request additional benefits to replace food they lost, and in certain circumstances, are able to use their SNAP benefits to purchase hot foods if they lost power and are unable to cook. Disaster SNAP, known as D-SNAP, is a key feature of the program that provides nutrition assistance benefits to families in major disaster areas who aren't currently receiving benefits. Importantly, D-SNAP also provides families currently enrolled in SNAP with supplemental benefits to help them get by in the wake of disaster. In addition to SNAP, other federal anti-hunger safety net programs like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), child nutrition programs, and Disaster Household Distribution (DHD) come to the aid of those recovering from disaster. For example, schools in areas affected by disaster can provide meals to all kids at no charge and can be more flexible in where and when they serve meals. DHD is another program to allow food banks and other organizations to distribute emergency food boxes filled with nutritious food to people that don't have access to feeding sites or grocery stores in the aftermath of disaster. Madam Speaker, when disasters hit the United States--and its territories--it is imperative that our government effectively and efficiently helps those impacted by these terrible tragedies. SNAP and our other nutrition programs are a key component of disaster response efforts, providing food to families in need. In the aftermath of recent tragedies that devastated Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, California, and Oregon, USDA was able to respond. I'd like to thank my friend and colleague on the Agriculture Committee, the Chairman of the Nutrition Subcommittee, Mr. GT Thompson, for raising awareness about nutrition assistance in times of disaster. I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in recognizing how powerful and effective SNAP and other nutrition programs are in responding to natural disasters. We must work to protect these programs from cuts or structural changes that threaten the ability of these programs to help families in need.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of two deeply flawed pieces of legislation. H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, is yet another attempt by this Republican majority to prioritize corporate profits over ensuring people have access to safe and clean drinking water. This bill would not only threaten our clean water, it would also undermine States' rights and Tribal rights by prioritizing power generation above all else when deciding whether to grant or extend a license to operate a hydropower project. Simply put, this bill puts profits ahead of the public interest. By giving a rubber stamp commission more power than other expert agencies, the bill rigs the process in favor of power producers at the expense of States, Tribes, and our environment. This bill prioritizes profits over clean water and healthy fisheries and should be strongly defeated. Protecting our families and our environment should always be our first priority. In another giveaway to corporate interests, House Republicans are also bringing to the floor this week H.R. 3441, the so-called Save Local Business Act, under the false claim that it eliminates uncertainty for workers and protects small businesses. The truth is a very different story, Mr. Speaker. Joint employment standards ensure workers can hold employers accountable for violating wage and hour laws, child labor, or refusing to collectively bargain. This bill represents a significant and dangerous break from that standard and would undermine the rights of American workers. This legislation rewards companies that rent employees from staffing agencies instead of hiring them directly, and allows them to evade responsibility for upholding the rights of those employees, even though they profit from their work. This bill is not about helping workers or small businesses. This is all about giving powerful companies even more power over their employees. But, Mr. Speaker, what is just as troubling as the content of the underlying bills is the process Speaker Ryan and his Republican leadership team routinely use to call up this terrible legislation. Today we are considering the 49th completely closed rule of the 115th Congress. That is right. Today House Republicans are breaking their own record for the most closed session of Congress in history. It is astounding. This is something you would celebrate in Putin's Russia, not here in the United States. Since he first took the gavel in 2015, Speaker Ryan has continue to shamelessly break his promise to allow a fair and open legislative process here in this House. In Speaker Ryan's first speech as Speaker in October of 2015, he said: ``We need to let every Member contribute. . . . Open up the process. Let people participate. A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith. Instead of trying to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority.'' Speaker Ryan and I disagree on a great many issues, but I strongly agree with what he said in that 2015 speech. We do need to let every Member contribute and open up the process here in the House. We do need the majority party to respect the minority party so we can actually work together on bipartisan solutions. But in the 2 years since Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he has, sadly, failed to deliver on his commitment to open up the legislative process. Things have only gotten worse. In fact, Speaker Ryan is the only Speaker who has not allowed a truly open rule to give Members the opportunity and the chance to do what their constituents sent them here to do and to offer different perspectives and ideas on how to improve legislation. With each new closed rule they bring to the floor, shutting out amendments from both Democrats and Republicans, the cynical hypocrisy grows louder and louder. Instead of the people's House, this has, sadly, become ``only the people who agree with Paul Ryan's House.'' I guess my question for the Speaker would be: Did you mean any of what you said? Did you forget all those promises you made? Or did you have absolutely no intention of keeping those promises once you were in power?'' Every single Member of this House of Representatives was elected to represent the people of their district, but we cannot do that if the party in the majority blatantly uses strong- arm tactics like these that prevent us from doing our jobs. In 2015, Speaker Ryan also said: ``We need to return to regular order. We are the body closest to the people. Every 2 years, we face the voters. . . . We represent them. We are supposed to study up and do the homework that they cannot do. So when we do not follow regular order--when we rush to pass bills a lot of us do not understand--we are not doing our job. Only a fully functioning House can truly represent the people.'' Where do I begin? Literally just a few months ago, Speaker Ryan and the Republican leaders of this House were recklessly steamrolling their healthcare bill to the House floor without holding anything close to the number of hearings that we held when the Affordable Care Act was passed. Instead, they led a haphazard process where the bill was drafted in secret behind closed doors--locked doors--without any input from rank and file Members of Congress and the American people. Mr. Speaker, that is not regular order. That is unconscionable. That disrespects this House. Today, when asked by a reporter about this record-breaking closed process, Speaker Ryan responded: ``Absolutely we have an open process.'' Really? Let's review his record this Congress: Zero open rules--zero. Forty- nine completely closed rules. Open process? Open process my foot, Mr. Speaker. I guess in the age of Donald Trump, words simply don't matter anymore. Black is white, up is down, open is closed, and politicians can say whatever they think sounds good and they think they can get away with it--facts be damned. If Speaker Ryan were serious about a fair and open process, he would not turn this House into a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. He would let us be the independent voice the people of our districts elected us to be. He would not routinely shut out the voices of Democrats and Republicans. He would let this House actually debate the serious legislation and issues that come before us. With one closed rule after another on each bill that comes to the floor, Speaker Ryan has completely shut out both Democrats and rank- and-file Republicans, routinely blocking amendments we offer. This is not how the Congress is supposed to work. Our constituents deserve a Congress that actually debates the bills that will affect their lives. They deserve better. I refuse to sit by while the Republican leadership makes a mockery of this House. American voices will not be silenced. The Speaker may grant promises of openness, inclusiveness, and regular order, but we just lived through the most closed year in the history of this institution, and the year isn't even over yet, Mr. Speaker. Republicans ought to remember that they will not always be in the majority. I don't think a Democratic majority could be this bad on basic process, even if we tried. But any Member who votes for this record-breaking closed rule today had better not have crocodile tears for regular order and openness when they find themselves in the minority some day in the future. Anyone who supports 49 closed rules and zero open rules in a single year loses all credibility on the issue of openness. My Republican friends should be ashamed--ashamed--of diminishing this House and diminishing its Members and their thoughtful ideas. I urge Democrats and Republicans to take a stand and vote ``no'' on this closed rule. 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 include in the Record a letter from the Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance, which says that this legislation would not benefit small businesses that create good jobs. It actually would place such employers at a permanent competitive disadvantage to unscrupulous companies that seek to thrive solely at the expense of the workers and taxpayer-funded social safety net programs. Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance, Saint Paul, MN, October 5, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to this point I have been making about how this is now officially the most closed Congress in history, and I think people need to keep that in mind before they vote for this rule. But the gentleman from Alabama, again--I guess in this age of Trump, I mean, you can twist things all kinds of different ways, you know-- bragged about all this great bipartisanship here. In that number that he was referring to, a number of bills that were supported in a bipartisan way, a big chunk of them are things like naming post offices, suspension bills that are not controversial, Hats Off to Teachers Day, those types of bills. But on major legislation, whether it is healthcare or whether it is this crummy tax bill that they are going to be bringing up, this place is polarized because they block out any competing ideas. Let me again reiterate for my colleagues: the Rules Committee has blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is just this year alone. Now, I already mentioned amendments on the AUMF, climate change, Afghanistan, and more. I think those are important subjects. But the Members offering these amendments, I think, no matter what you believe about these amendments, deserve the right to be heard by the whole House and to receive an up-or-down vote. But here are a few more examples of the germane amendments that my friends on the Republican side on the Rules Committee blocked under the closed and structured rules. They blocked an amendment to prohibit the repeal of DACA. You know, I mean, 800,000 people's lives now are in the balance because of Donald Trump rescinding the protection for these DREAMers, and he said: Congress, you do it. You fix it. Well, we tried to bring an amendment to the floor to have a debate and fix it, and if my Republican friends don't want to vote for it, they can vote ``no.'' But they blocked it. They blocked an amendment to bar funds from being spent on this stupid, idiotic wall that the President seems enamored with along our border. They blocked an amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic violence and child abuse. They blocked several amendments to ensure the Trump family doesn't profit off the Presidency, and we all know that they are, but we can't even have that debate. They blocked an amendment to protect asylum seekers and human trafficking victims, and they blocked an amendment to ensure victims of incest can have access to abortion care. I can go on and on and on. I mean, they blocked Congressman Grothman's budget amendment twice. He is a Republican. It was germane. He even testified before the Rules Committee, but you blocked it. Last week, you blocked Representative Jimmy Duncan's amendment to allow doctors to practice medicine out of State on a volunteer basis. Germane. It may be a good idea. It deserves to be debated. You blocked it. Is that a poison pill? Is that what the gentleman was referring to? You know, process matters, and it matters for this reason, because when you have a lousy process, you end up with a lousy product. I know it is not sexy to talk about process, you know, but it is important. It is important that we do our jobs, we debate these issues, and that we listen to Democrats and Republicans, you know, come before us with ideas: some we may agree with, some we may not, but let's have that debate. What is wrong with that? Why is that such a radical idea in this place? To get up and say I am proud of this; I am proud that we are now the most closed Congress in the history of our country? That is something to be proud of? I think that is something to be ashamed of. I think it diminishes this House of Representatives, and it diminishes every single member of this House, Democrats and Republicans alike. This is supposed to be a deliberative body. Let's deliberate. Let's not negotiate things in the back room and then rush it to the floor and demand an up-or-down vote. You know, you don't have a monopoly on good ideas, and there are people in your own party who have some good ideas, too, and I think we have good ideas as well. And if you want bipartisanship, true bipartisanship, and you want to end the polarization, open the process a little bit. That would be helpful. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thought I had heard everything. The gentleman from Alabama got up and said how proud he is of the Rules Committee and of the process in this House. Oh, my God. The fact that the gentleman would get up and say that with a straight face, you take my breath away. It is unbelievable. Today, we are considering our 49th closed rule of the 115th Congress, officially making this the most closed session in Congress in history, and the gentleman is proud of that. More than half of the rules Republicans have reported out of the Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments. That means that no Member, Democrat or Republican, can offer their ideas on the House floor. The gentleman says: Well, we want to prevent killer amendments from being made in order. So all the Republicans that offer amendments to the Rules Committee have killer amendments? It is ridiculous to say that about the Democratic amendments. In total, just so the gentleman understands this, in total, the Rules Committee has blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is 1,300. They are all killer amendments? They are all not deserving of a debate in the people's House? They blocked 1,300 amendments, including 955 Democratic amendments. You blocked 260 Republican amendments and 121 bipartisan amendments. Blocking these amendments has a very real impact. A bad process produces bad policy. Shutting out input from the vast majority of Members, both Democrats and Republicans, may make it easier for you to jam your agenda through the House, but that speed comes at the expense of the policy itself. When you block amendments, you are shutting down debate on incredibly important issues, issues that this House of Representatives should be debating and voting on. Here are a few examples of germane amendments that the majority didn't think were worthy of a debate and an up-or-down vote in the House. These were totally in order. There is my bipartisan amendment to require a Presidential determination and congressional action to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. With the longest war in American history, I thought maybe it was worth some debate, but the Rules Committee said no to that. Also, a bipartisan amendment to phase out the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, they blocked that. Also, an amendment to ensure that the U.S. doesn't withdraw from the Paris climate agreement--I know my Republican friends think climate change is a hoax. They don't believe in science. But, you know what? You ought to have the guts to debate it. But you blocked it. You blocked an amendment for funding for troops in Syria. You blocked an amendment to create the National Russian Threat Response Center. The list goes on and on and on. These aren't killer amendments. These are important issues that get blocked time and time again. These issues are at the very core of our responsibilities here in Congress, and you blocked them from even being considered by the full House. In this Congress, the majority has blocked over 1,300 amendments from coming to the floor. You are proud of that? That is disgraceful. I truly hope that breaking the closed rule record is a wake-up call and that some of you over there will decide to do things a little bit differently around here and a little bit better around here, starting next week with your tax bill, but I am not going to hold by breath. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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 just want to remind my colleagues as well that the bill that the gentleman from Alabama is talking about, his bill, when it--in the Rules Committee last night, the Rules Committee thought it was appropriate to block three germane amendments from the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. I mean, that is the process that we are dealing with here. The ranking member of that committee does not have the opportunity to bring his ideas to the floor and debate them and get a vote up or down on it. That is not right, and the Rules Committee, unfortunately, is becoming a place where democracy goes to die, where every good idea is routinely shot down, and it has to stop. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And I want to say to my colleagues that, a month ago, I stood at this very podium, following our Nation's deadliest mass shooting in Las Vegas, asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can begin to study gun violence. Now I stand here again, after yet another unthinkable tragedy, begging my colleagues to allow us to take this small first step following Sunday's deadly mass shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas. Twenty-six people in that church lost their lives to gun violence, and that is from one single shooting. On an average day, 93 Americans are killed with guns. I would like to ask my colleagues again: What will it take? If the deaths of those children in Sandy Hook Elementary School weren't enough for Congress to take action, if the 49 lives lost in Orlando weren't enough, if the 58 lives lost in Las Vegas weren't enough, and if the 26 lives lost in Texas on Sunday aren't enough, then nothing may ever be enough for Congress to have the courage to do the right thing. But I am hoping that is not true. Today we can decide to take the first step in fighting gun violence with one vote. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 367, which would establish the Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention. It is time that we start having serious discussions about this problem. Moments of silence and calls for prayer are not enough. We have been doing that. It is time for us to get serious. 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.