Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we believe healthcare protections ought to be enshrined in the law and not left up to insurance companies. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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. We have been willing to work with our Republican friends to try to improve the Affordable Care Act for nearly 7 years. They have been unwilling to work with us in a bipartisan way. Instead, they just want to repeal, repeal, repeal. Now, I don't know what their motivation is. Maybe it is because they don't like President Obama. Judging from some of the rhetoric that we have heard on this House floor over these years, I think some of the Members over there actually hate the President of the United States, and this is all driven by this personal animosity. Let me just say to the gentleman that the Affordable Care Act may have started out with a different bill number, but the facts remain that there were hundreds of hours of hearings on the Affordable Care Act, 181 witnesses testified; hundreds of amendments were considered in committee. The process of using a different bill number is very common in both Chambers. In fact, the House Republicans have done it several times in the past 3 years. Regardless of the bill number, the work that went into forming this legislation was one of the most open processes in the history of the Congress, and it has resulted in providing protections and health care for millions and millions of people in this country. All of that is at risk with this budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 238, legislation to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, better known as the CFTC. Instead of working through regular order to produce an authorization bill that both Democrats and Republicans could have supported, the majority in this House rushed to the floor a deeply flawed piece of legislation that hamstrings the CFTC and undermines its ability to react to changing market conditions. The burdensome requirements in this legislation and the lack of appropriate funding are nothing more than a misguided attempt by Republicans to make it more difficult for the Commission to function-- to make it harder to protect consumers and make it more difficult to rein in the abuses of Wall Street. I strongly object to the authorization level in this legislation. Basically, my Republican friends are flat funding the CFTC for 5 years, and that is despite calls from the former and current chairman asking us to provide additional resources to the agency to enhance their ability to police Wall Street. Now, Dodd-Frank significantly expanded the Commission's role in overseeing our financial markets, and the Commission has done its part to create rules that will help to prevent another financial crisis, despite the fact that Congress has not provided appropriate funding. Now, I get it. My Republican friends don't like Dodd-Frank. Ever since they took back control of the House, they have tried to dismantle the law piece by piece, which was enacted to protect consumers and protect our markets in the wake of that terrible financial crisis that practically ruined our economy. Now, Republicans say they don't like regulation, and it seems they especially don't like any regulation on Wall Street. Have they forgotten the recent financial crisis that nearly destroyed our economy? Have they forgotten who was primarily responsible for that crisis? Apparently, they have. Now, I am not for endless and unnecessary regulation. Nobody is. But I do think it is appropriate for us to create commonsense rules that protect our markets and protect our constituents' hard-earned dollars. I find it troubling the Republican leaders in this House don't want to provide necessary resources to the Commission to patrol Wall Street. Without cops on the beat, who will ensure Wall Street actors aren't gaming the system and putting the economy at risk for another meltdown. I ask my Republican friends: When will Main Street take priority over Wall Street? I also take issue with the various provisions of this bill that will both slow the agency's work and create new avenues for costly and lengthy legal battles. By the way, implementing these provisions will cost the Commission an additional $45 million over the next 5 years and will require an additional 30 full-time employees. So in addition to underfunding an already overworked agency, we are creating a situation where even more resources will be needed to satisfy burdensome and unnecessary requirements. Now, that means fewer dollars for the Commission to carry out its core mission of combating abuse and fraud in our markets and ensuring end users, investors, and the public are protected. Now, Mr. Chairman, our constituents didn't send us to Washington to ignore bad actors in our financial markets. They certainly didn't send us to Washington to create a regulatory environment that could put us on a path toward another downturn. So who are we here to represent, the Wall Street banks or our hardworking constituents who deserve elected Representatives who do everything in their power to prevent another financial crisis? I would also like to say a few words about the cross-border requirements imposed by this bill, requirements that would hamstring the Commission's efforts to regulate the global swaps industry in cooperation with regulators around the globe. My colleagues across the aisle keep saying that this bill is essential to help farmers, ranchers, utilities, and Main Street small business. But the farmers in this country don't have a London office to trade their swaps, they don't have a derivatives desk in Tokyo, and they aren't trading interest rate swaps in Geneva.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, let's be clear about who the cross-border provision in this bill is designed to help. It isn't end users. It isn't farmers. It isn't manufacturers or utilities or Main Street businesses. It is the small group of multinational financial firms that have controlled the swaps market from the beginning. We have seen what happens when they are left to their own devices. Crises in the swaps market do not respect national borders and boundaries. And that is why our regulators from the Commission have been engaged with their international counterparts in crafting rules for these markets since 2009. They should be encouraged in that effort in every way possible through funding and expansive authority to get the rules right. This bill provides neither. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the incredible work of Kevin Concannon, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services at the United States Department of Agriculture. Kevin's dedication to public service is admirable. Throughout his distinguished career, Kevin has not only served in Federal Government, but he also led Health and Human Services departments in his home State of Maine and in Oregon and in Iowa. Kevin also helped to advance our knowledge of social policy as a graduate professor at several universities across our country. Since 2009, Kevin has capably led FNS, the division of USDA responsible for administering and overseeing SNAP, the National School Breakfast and Lunch Programs, the Summer Food Service Program, WIC, The Emergency Food Assistance Program, and several other nutrition programs. Under Kevin's leadership, we have made significant progress in ensuring our most vulnerable neighbors have healthy options to feed their families. He helped to spur a dramatic increase in the number of farmers markets accepting EBT cards, thereby allowing SNAP recipients greater access to fruits and vegetables while also supporting local farmers. He also oversaw the creation of USDA's Farm to School Program, an effort focused on incorporating local foods in our school meal programs. During his tenure, we enacted the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, legislation that, for the first time in over 30 years, made much-needed improvements and increased access to our school meal programs. Kevin oversaw our Nation's premier antihunger program, SNAP, as it provided millions of our neighbors with food assistance during the height of the Great Recession and the recovery that followed, and he has been a fearless advocate for the food and nutrition programs he oversees. When it comes to the nuances of SNAP or WIC or school meals, Kevin's knowledge and expertise is simply unmatched. He knows the issues impacting vulnerable families, and he is passionate about addressing hunger in this country. Mr. Speaker, during the past several years, I have had the privilege to collaborate with and learn from Kevin as we worked to address hunger and food insecurity in the United States. I am particularly appreciative of the time he took away from his office in Washington to join me on two summer meal tours in my home State of Massachusetts. Together, we visited a number of schools, parks, camps, and community centers supported by USDA's Summer Food Service Program that ensures children and teens in low-income areas have access to healthy meals during the summer months. I was always impressed by how he connected with my constituents and his passion for the work he does. He is, truly, a remarkable public servant, and he has made a real difference in the lives of millions and millions of people in this country. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for Under Secretary Concannon's efforts on so many levels, but I especially appreciate all he has done to try to end hunger in our country. There are too many people in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, who are hungry; and, quite frankly, we could all do more in this Chamber. Sadly, Congress too often in the past has voted in ways and advocated for policies that have actually made hunger worse in this country. In all candor, I am concerned about the future of some of these programs that provide food and nutrition to vulnerable citizens. I am concerned based on the rhetoric of leaders in this House of Representatives, and I am concerned by the rhetoric of the President-elect and his potential Cabinet. Time and time again, we have heard them talk about those in poverty with disdain and contempt. We have heard them denigrate the plight of those struggling in this country. We have heard them belittle their struggle. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to learn from Kevin Concannon, to be inspired by his example, and to do what we can all do together to try to end hunger now. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing his incredible accomplishments. We wish him well in his next chapter, but we will certainly miss his expertise and passion at FNS.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, the objection is in writing and is signed by a Member of the House of Representatives but not yet by a Member of the United States Senate.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I object to the certificate from the State of Alabama on the grounds that the electoral votes were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given and that the electors were not lawfully certified, especially given the confirmed and illegal activities engaged in by the Government of Russia that were designed to interfere with our election and the widespread violations of the Voting Rights Act that unlawfully suppressed thousands of votes in the State of Alabama.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to 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. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, before I speak on today's legislation, I want to take a moment to express my continued deep concern and uneasiness about the Russian hacking in order to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election and the deeply troublesome response from our President-elect. American democracy was attacked, in 2016, by Russian hackers who sought to tip our Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. That is not I who is speaking--that is the CIA, the FBI, and 14 other United States intelligence agencies that have reached a clear consensus on this matter. Yet, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence, President-elect Trump has continued to sow seeds of confusion by publicly attacking and trying to discredit our country's intelligence agencies and the brave men and women who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. Today, intelligence officials are testifying before the Senate on this matter. In one of his most alarming actions yet, President-elect Trump has said that he would rather trust the words of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange--an accused sex offender, who is holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the U.K.--than the consensus of the Directors of the U.S. intelligence agencies. When Speaker Ryan was asked about Julian Assange, he called him a sycophant for Russia who leaks, steals data, and compromises national security. Yet, America's next President puts more faith in him than in the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that he will soon oversee. This is not normal behavior by a President-elect, let alone by a President, and we cannot allow it to become normal. I appeal to my fellow Members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats--and especially the Republican leadership--to reach out to the President- elect and ensure that there is a clear understanding about how damaging these statements and actions are to America's credibility, to our national security, and to the morale and responsibilities of our intelligence agencies. I appeal to my colleagues to get him help now. America faces serious threats across the globe, and we cannot afford to have a Commander in Chief at war with the very intelligence agencies that are responsible for keeping our country safe. Whatever his motivation, President-elect Trump must clearly and unequivocally join Republicans and Democrats who seek answers. We need a bipartisan, independent commission to uncover the truth about Russian hacking, and we need all of our leaders to support it. It is time Mr. Trump's Twitter sideshow comes to an end. It only confirms what many of us feared during the campaign--that he is temperamentally unfit to be President. We must be united in protecting the integrity of our elections against Russians and all foreign influence. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get to the underlying bills. I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 26, the REINS Act, under a structured process, and for H. Res. 11, a resolution objecting to a recent United Nations Security Council resolution on Israel, under a completely closed process. Before I get into discussing the merits of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to first express some serious concern with the process used to rush this legislation to the floor. The deadline for amendments to be submitted to the Rules Committee was 10 a.m. on Tuesday. That is 2 hours before Members were sworn in and before the 115th Congress officially began. Now, it is true that some of the amendments that were received after the deadline were made in order for consideration on the floor. But, really, is this the way we want to begin the consideration of legislation in this session of Congress? All Members should have had the opportunity to review the legislation and offer thoughtful amendments to the REINS Act. Wouldn't it have been something to have considered this bill under an open process? If you hadn't wanted to have done that, maybe you could have waited a couple of days before you brought it to the floor so that everybody, especially the freshmen, would have had an opportunity to evaluate it, and maybe they would have had some good ideas that they would have wanted to offer. But, here we are, right out of the gate, limiting the process and prohibiting Members from offering their ideas on the floor. Mr. Speaker, we have a process for reviewing rules promulgated by the executive branch. Congress should--and, indeed, can--examine regulations. Not all regulations are perfect. There are such things as bad regulations, and we should get rid of the ones that don't work. There is no debate on that. We have the ability to override regulations with new laws, and we have reauthorizations, appropriations, spending limitations, oversight hearings, investigations, GAO audits and studies, and the Congressional Review Act, just to name a few. We have a process that can and should work, but, because my Republican friends don't always get what they want, they want to undermine that process. I don't think my Republican colleagues are really interested in a thoughtful review of these regulations. In fact, I find it hard to believe that this Republican Congress even has the capacity to utilize the process that is outlined in this bill so as to consider the 100 or so regulations--some of which are highly technical and would require experts in specialized fields to analyze--that could come up in any given year; but I guess that is the point. This bill would make it nearly impossible to implement much-needed regulations that ensure consumer health and product safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and financial protections, just to name a few. It would be a dream come true for industry and the wealthy, well- connected Republican donor class who, for example, are interested in blocking all attempts to rein in Wall Street, to combat climate change, or to protect workers and their public health. One simply needs to look at the intensive lobbying that has gone into fighting these regulations and supporting antiregulation legislation like the REINS Act--groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Koch brothers, the American Petroleum Institute, just to name a few. Industry groups already use their seemingly unlimited resources to delay and prevent commonsense regulations from taking effect by tying rules up in court. This bill is just one additional tool for the wealthy and powerful to delay and destroy commonsense consumer protections. In short, this bill is not about creating jobs, so nobody should be fooled. It is about rewarding special interests, plain and simple. It is about making it more difficult to rein in Wall Street, to control polluters, or to protect workers. But this is in keeping with the philosophy of the Republican majority, so no one should be surprised. I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this effort. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say a few words about the closed rule on H. Res. 11, the resolution condemning U.S. abstention on Israel at the U.N. Security Council. The peace and security of the State of Israel are priorities for every Member of Congress. Let us not try to obscure or confuse that truth. I can't think of any Member of this House who doesn't support peace in the Middle East and a safe and secure Israel. We may disagree about how to achieve those goals. Most of us believe that a two-state solution that provides peace, security, and prosperity to all of the peoples of the region--Israeli, Palestinian, and their Arab neighbors-- is the best option to securing a just, lasting, and durable peace. I have always voted in support of economic and military aid for Israel, but this does not mean that I always agree with the policies of a particular government in Tel Aviv. Sometimes I have been critical of the Israeli Government just as I am often critical of my own government and of other governments in the region. For the past four decades or more, the United States, under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, has strongly opposed the expansion of settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes. This has been a bipartisan consensus. We oppose the settlements as a violation of basic human rights; we oppose them as creating obstacles to a lasting two-state solution; and we oppose their rapid expansion as potentially creating a reality on the ground that, therefore, closes any possibility of a two-state solution. Since 1967, under Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, the United States has voted in favor or has abstained on more than 50 U.N. Security Council resolutions that are critical of Israel, including resolutions on settlements or the demolition of Palestinian homes. Of the more than 30 abstentions that have been cast by the U.S. over nearly five decades, only one was cast by the Obama administration-- just one. H. Res. 11 does not precisely express that fact accurately. It implies that the U.S. always opposes or vetoes such regulations when that is hardly the case, nor does U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 impose a solution on Israel outside of direct bilateral negotiations to end the conflict. Some of us who are strong supporters of Israel have difficulties with some of the wording in H. Res. 11 on a straightforward factual basis. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to allow this House to debate a substitute offered by our colleagues, Congressman David Price, Congressman Eliot Engel, who is a cosponsor of H. Res. 11, and Congressman Gerry Connolly. The Price-Engel-Connolly amendment expresses the House's strong support for Israel, a two-state solution, and direct negotiations between the parties to the conflict. It is reasonable and balanced and is very much deserving of debate and this House's attention. Regrettably, the Republican majority on the House Rules Committee rejected allowing that amendment to be brought before the House and debated. Instead, it decided to begin this new year and this new Congress with yet another closed rule--in fact, the second closed rule this week with no debate, with no thoughtful alternatives, and with no ability of the Members of this body to deliberate such serious issues and choose between alternative proposals--just politics, politics, politics, politics as usual. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to please send a clear message to House leaders that we would like to be able to debate reasonable alternatives and amendments to bills, like the Price-Engel- Connolly amendment. If we don't start out the year demanding fairness and openness in our debates of important issues then I don't want to even speculate as to what the rest of the year will look like. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss the proposal, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hope that my colleague from Alabama uses some of that passion to convince the President-elect to stop cozying up to Vladimir Putin, who is no friend of democracy, no friend of Israel, and no friend of human rights. All we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, is to have a little democracy on the House floor. People can vote whichever way they want to vote. But the Rules Committee last night, staying true to form, actually denied us the ability to bring to the floor and debate an alternative, which we think is, quite frankly, more appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order H. Res. 23, the David Price-Eliot Engel-Gerry Connolly resolution, to provide an alternative viewpoint. Mr. Speaker, this resolution again was blocked by the Rules Committee, right along party line. Republicans said ``no'' to an open debate, even though it complies with all the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said that the American people don't want business as usual. Yet, here we are on this opening week and what we see is business as usual, more Putin-like, closed rules coming to the floor. The 113th and the 114th Congresses were the two most closed Congresses in the history of the United States. Here we are beginning the new session with, again, this closed process. The Speaker, on opening day, made a promise to uphold the rights of the minority. Well, you know what? That means that the minority ought to be able to be heard on the House floor, that we ought to be able to bring amendments and substitutes to the floor. Yet, we get rejected time and time again. This is not the way the most deliberative body in the world should be run. This is not the way Congress should be run. By closing down this process the way the majority does, it does a great disservice to the American people Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. It is not fair. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Mr. Price, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Connolly can bring up their alternative to H. Res. 11. Mr. Speaker, let me say, finally, that I am deeply concerned that the institution of Congress has been undermined time and time again by this tendency to be overly restrictive and outright closed. We are supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, but the problem is we don't deliberate very much. Everything that is brought to this floor tends to be a press release substituting for legislation. There is no bipartisanship. There is none. There is no working together. There is none. And that is unfortunate. I think one of the messages of this last election for the American people was they want to see things happen here. Not just whatever the Republicans want or whatever the Democrats want, they want us to see us working together. I served here as a staffer during a time when there was collegiality, when Republicans and Democrats came together and passed appropriations bills and authorization bills and passed major reform bills. That doesn't happen anymore. On the issue of regulatory reform, I think you can actually get a consensus on regulatory reform. There is nobody in this House that thinks the regulatory process is perfect. The problem is, when you bring a bill to the floor that is so one-sided, that is poorly written, that is impractical, we can't support it. On the issue of Israel, we could have come to a consensus, I think, and spoken with one voice to show our unwavering support for the State of Israel. But instead, we have a bill that comes to the floor that is politically charged--I think that is very clear, based on the tone of some of the speeches here today--but also has factual errors in it. The frustration level has grown to the point where some of us in the minority have taken to protesting. We had a sit-in in response to the fact that we couldn't get legislation to the floor that said if you are on a terrorist list, you can't fly, then you can't buy a gun, and a bill that called for universal background checks. We thought we had a promise to be able to bring some of this to the floor. My friends could have voted against it. But we were told, no, you don't even have the right to debate these bills. I am going to say to my colleagues sincerely that, unless things change, you are going to see the discord, the anger, and the frustration build on this side of the aisle, and you are going to see it build throughout the country. There is a reason why people hold Congress in such disdain. It is because they see this place not as an institution where we can solve problems but as a place where it is all about obstruction or ``my way or the highway.'' This is a lousy way to start the new year. Please vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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