Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on the Monday and Tuesday before Thanksgiving, back in Massachusetts, I participated in the seventh annual Monte's March, which is a 43-mile walk to raise awareness about hunger in our community and to raise money for The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. The leader of this remarkable event is Monte Belmonte, a well-known local radio personality with WRSI, the River, and a committed activist on behalf of those who are most vulnerable. This year, the march raised a record $211,213. This translates into over a half a million meals for individuals and families who struggle with food insecurity. I was impressed by the stamina of all of those who walked and by the incredible generosity of the community. The sad reality is that there is no congressional district in the United States that is hunger free, and those who battle hunger defy stereotypes. Some are homeless; some are jobless; but there are many who work but who earn so little that they can't afford to put food on the table on a regular basis for their families. While food banks and food pantries and charitable organizations are vital in our efforts to combat hunger, they cannot do it alone. We need a strong commitment by our government to do its part. Indeed, I would argue that we have fallen way short of doing what is needed to ensure that no one goes hungry. Those whom I marched alongside during Monte's March are good people who understand what it means to truly be part of a community. I want to thank, first and foremost, the incredible Monte Belmonte and all of the people at the River, including Mark Lattanzi, Joan Holliday, Michael Sokol, Kaliis Smith, Dave Musante, and Matt Peterson. They are amazing people who worked overtime to make this march a success. I am grateful to Andrew Morehouse, the executive director of The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, and to everyone at the food bank. They do incredible work. Thanks to all of the elected officials who joined part of the march, including my colleagues, Congressmen Richie Neal and Joe Kennedy. We were also joined by State Representatives Steve Kulik and Aaron Vega, State Representative-elect Solomon Goldstein-Rose, as well as by Northampton Mayor David Narkewicz and District Attorney Dave Sullivan. We kicked off the march at Friends of the Homeless in Springfield, and I am grateful for all that they do. The Sheriff's Departments in Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin Counties, as well as the Deerfield Police, helped provide escorts for us during all 43 miles. A special thanks to the students who joined the march from Greenfield Center School, HEC Academy, Conway Grammar School, and Erving Elementary. We were joined by a contingent from Greenfield Community College, which included its president, Bob Pura. We also had a group of farmers from The Kitchen Garden in Sunderland who joined the effort. Sean Barry, from Four Seasons Liquors in Hadley, was, as usual, Monte's right-hand man and always at the front of the line. We had a large group of individuals who marched and raised a lot of money. Thanks to all of them. My friend Chia Collins of Northampton deserves special credit for raising the most. Thanks to all of the people who greeted us along the way, including Karen Blanchard of Kate's Kitchen, Andrea Marion at Lorraine's Soup Kitchen and Pantry, Mindy Domb at the Amherst Survival Center, Lori Divine and Vitek Kruta at Gateway City Arts, Chancellor Subbaswamy at UMass Amherst and his top aide Natalie Blais, who marched 27 miles with us. We are grateful to Northampton Brewery for a wonderful dinner on Monday, Chandler's in Deerfield for a great lunch on Tuesday, Richardson's Candy Kitchen in Deerfield for the indulgent chocolates that gave us energy, and all the folks at Seymour's in Greenfield for the magnificent celebration at the end of the march. Also, a special thanks to Tea Guys for their wonderful tea in honor of the march and for their generosity. Thanks to Ben Clark from Clarkdale Fruit Farm in Deerfield for the apples and for keeping us in line. Thanks to Erika Connell Cooper's mother for the delicious apple pies. And thank you to Mr. Michael Brooks and the students at the Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School in Northampton for making the shopping carts we used during the march. Mr. Speaker, I was glad to be part of this, but I want to close by expressing my deep concern about the future. I remain worried about rumors of more cuts to SNAP or separating SNAP from the farm bill or weakening child nutrition. With so many relying on these programs to help put food on the table, these cuts would be devastating for families across the country. We must protect and strengthen these programs. I believe food ought to be a right for every single individual in this country and on the planet, but the sad reality is that it isn't. All of us need to do better. All of us need to care more. All of us need to recognize our moral failings in not addressing this issue sooner. So on behalf of the dedicated crew that took part in Monte's March, I urge all of us in Congress to act and end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Kathleen O'Day. Kathleen passed away on November 28, leaving three brothers, nieces, nephews, cousins and many dear friends. She resided in Arlington, Virginia, but was born and raised in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts. Her loved ones gathered in Worcester today to honor her life and pay tribute to a truly remarkable woman. Kathleen had a distinguished legal career. After graduating from Assumption College and Boston College School of Law with honors, Kathleen began working in the legal division of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 1978. She served in the Board's legal division for decades and became a well-known expert in international banking and trade negotiations. Those who knew her best will miss her warmth, wit, and generosity. Scott Alvarez, the Fed's General Counsel, remarked, ``Kathleen was a dedicated employee, serving nearly 40 years in the Board's Legal Division. She was a kind, brilliant, generous, witty, and wonderfully warm friend to all of us, and we will all miss her tremendously.'' Mr. Speaker, Kathleen touched the lives of so many around her, and had a profound impact on all of us through her work with the Federal Reserve. I deeply admire Kathleen's life-long commitment to public service, and extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends she leaves behind. We will all miss her. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Kathleen O'Day, and recognizing the important contributions she has made to our country.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the town of Westborough, Massachusetts as they enter the year of their 300th anniversary. Westborough was the 100th town to be incorporated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on November 18th, 1717. Westborough has had an impressive history. Forty-six Minutemen left Westborough on April 19, 1775 under the command of Captain Edmund Brigham to fight in the opening battle of the Revolutionary War. In the early 1800s, Westborough became a key stop as travelers to and from Worcester and Boston stopped along their journey. Today, Westborough is a vibrant, thriving, and diverse town with an excellent school system and a family-oriented community. Westborough has been named ``one of the best places to live'' and a ``top ten best town for families.'' Westborough's location at the center of Massachusetts has helped propel its thriving local economy. Westborough has many unique family- owned small businesses and is home to the headquarters of some of New England's most notable companies. Congratulations, again, to the town of Westborough. As Westborough looks ahead to the next 300 years, I am proud to join so many in wishing them a bright and prosperous future.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, one of my many concerns about this bill-- and if it wasn't for the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, I would be voting against this bill because of things like that. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let the American people know what the financial dealings of their Presidential candidates and soon- to-be Presidents are, and then we get on to dealing with passing the National Defense Authorization Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me disagree with my distinguished colleague that somehow this has nothing to do with national defense. I strongly disagree with him on that. I think where a Presidential candidate or a soon-to-be President has financial dealings is related directly to our national defense. Does he have investments in Russia? Does he have investments in countries that have been hostile to human rights or to U.S. interests in various parts of the world? That is very relevant. One of the reasons why we are utilizing this mechanism of defeating the previous question--by the way, if we defeat the previous question, we still get to bring up the defense authorization conference report. But one of the reasons that we do it is because--the way this House operates is that, if you are in the minority, you don't get an opportunity to get any of your amendments made in order or your bills made in order, especially bills of any consequence. So that is why we are utilizing this. This is very relevant to our national defense. As I said, I normally vote against these authorization bills because I think they are overbloated. I think there are issues concerning the fact that we spend billions of dollars on wars that we never debate or we don't properly authorize here in the Congress. But I am voting for this one because of the Global Magnitsky legislation because of the human rights provisions. Because I don't know where the head of our next President is going to be when it comes to standing up to abuses by people like Vladimir Putin, against opposition leaders and journalists and anybody he disagrees with. This bill is named after a guy named Sergei Magnitsky who, by the way, was an accountant in Russia who uncovered the largest corruption scandal in Russia's history. What was his reward for doing that? Putin had him put in jail. He was tortured, and he was beaten to death. You know, that is what happens in places that are run by strongmen like Vladimir Putin. So, yeah, I would like to know whether or not our next President has investments in Russia. I think that would be very relevant to know. Quite frankly, the reason why this Magnitsky legislation is so important is it gives us a tool to pressure the next administration on the issue of human rights, and it is a signal to people like Putin and other dictators and strongmen around the world that Congress is not going to be silent in the face of human rights abuses. So I think this is all very relevant. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can do what I would think most people in this country think is noncontroversial, which is to have people running for President release their tax returns so we know. This shouldn't be a big deal. We should do it now, and we have an opportunity to do it now and still vote on this NDAA bill. I hope that we will do that. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 20 national organizations voicing concern about the $3.2 billion added to the overseas contingency operations account in funds not requested by the Pentagon. Dear Senator/Representative: The recently released conference report for the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would authorize an additional $3.2 billion unrequested by the Pentagon, effectively exceeding the spending limits set in place previously by Congress as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. As organizations representing Americans across the political spectrum, we are writing to voice our disagreement with this tactic. The very real challenges facing our military are not the result of a lack of funds. They are the result of years of failing to make necessary, tough choices our nation's security requires. If Congress votes to simply throw additional billions of dollars at this problem by using a budgetary gimmick involving the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account, you will do nothing to solve these problems. Rather, you will simply be guaranteeing another year of massive spending at the Pentagon. Refusing to make hard choices and trade-offs does not strengthen our security, it undermines it. Earlier this year, many of our organizations expressed our opposition to the House Armed Services Committee's draft NDAA which included an $18 billion gimmick to fund the OCO account above previously agreed upon levels. What was a bad idea at $18 billion is still a bad idea at $3.2 billion. We strongly urge you to scrap any plans to fund the OCO account above the levels set in existing law and finally pursue a path of fiscal responsibility at the Pentagon. Sincerely, Campaign for Liberty, Center for International Policy, Council for a Livable World, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, FreedomWorks, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Just Foreign Policy, National Priorities Project, National Taxpayers Union, Peace Action, Project on Government Oversight, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Taxpayers United of America, The Libertarian Institute, The London Center, United for Peace and Justice, Win Without War, Women's Action for New Directions.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation authored by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who has been a leader on this issue, that would require Presidential nominees to disclose 3 years of their tax returns. Mr. Speaker, tax returns provide the public with vital information about our Presidential candidates. Have they paid taxes at all? Do they keep money offshore? Or have they taken advantage of tax loopholes? This is important information that voters have a right to know. The American people should expect candidates running for President to be open and transparent about their tax returns, and this legislation would ensure that transparency. It is hard for me to believe that giving the people the right to know about a Presidential candidate's financial dealings is controversial. I hope that this isn't. 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 thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), and the honorable ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for their service and for concluding work on this conference report, which authorizes resources for our uniformed men and women, civilian defense workforce, our veterans and their families. The defense bill is one of the most complex bills that comes each year before Congress for consideration and action, and I know the hours'--and the weeks'--and the months'--worth of work that goes into these negotiations by staff and Members. It is also, in general, a bill that receives broad bipartisan support, which is a reflection of the leadership, character, and abilities of the chairman, of the ranking member, and of their staffs. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to support in this conference report and some provisions that continue to raise concern. Some items that were of grave concern have been dropped from the final conference report, like the fiscal cliff, language that would have authorized discrimination by Federal contractors, and some anti-environment riders. I am very upset, however, that, for the second year in a row, the House caved to unreasonable Senate demands to drop the House-passed provision to honor our Atomic Veterans with a simple service medal. These uniformed men and women literally gave their lives in service to our country. In many cases, totally unprotected, they were exposed to extreme levels of radiation during the post-World War II era and the subsequent cold war period. Because they signed secrecy oaths, they could not even inform their doctors that their many illnesses might be related to radiation exposure. They never complained, and they did their duty. Their heroism and their service have been publicly recognized by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. All we are seeking is for them to receive a simple service medal. More than three out of every four of these veterans have already passed away unrecognized for their service; yet the Senate--and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain and a handful of Pentagon bureaucrats in particular--seems to think it is a major scandal to provide them with a service medal. My meetings with some at the Pentagon have been particularly troubling because of what I have perceived to be their total lack of sensitivity and their total lack of appreciation for the service that these veterans have provided to our country. These men and women deserve better from their government. I hope, next year, when the House, once again, includes this bipartisan measure in the defense bill, that it won't be so weak-kneed as to cave for a third time before such unreasonable intransigence. This conference report, like its most recent predecessors, continues to authorize billions of dollars for our wars against the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere without any debate on an Authorization for Use of Military Force in those countries and elsewhere. I hope that one of Speaker Ryan's priorities during the first week of January will be to meet with President-elect Trump and work out a timeline for when Mr. Trump will send an AUMF to Congress on these wars and when the House will finally fulfill its constitutional duty to debate and vote on this matter. For over 2\1/2\ years, this House has failed, time and time again, to take up this serious debate even after President Obama sent an AUMF to Capitol Hill for action. Enough is enough. With a Republican in the White House, I hope the Republican-controlled Congress will finally do its duty. The cowardice of the 113th and 114th Congresses must not be allowed to extend into and infect the 115th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I want to say one more thing about the NDAA conference report. This conference report includes a very important title that incorporates the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. As many of my colleagues know, this is a bipartisan measure, championed and introduced in the House by my friend and colleague, Congressman Chris Smith; me; and by Ben Cardin in the United States Senate. The Global Magnitsky Act builds on the seminal Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which is legislation that I authored that focused on Russia, which was approved by Congress and signed into law in 2012. That law targets individual Russian officials who are accountable for the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, as well as other Russian officials engaged in corruption, human rights abuses, or who seek to undermine the rule of law. It denies them visas to the United States and freezes their assets in the United States. The Global Magnitsky Act will extend the use of those same targeted sanctions to all countries, not just to Russia. It will ensure that visiting the United States and having access to our financial system, including to U.S. dollars, are privileges that should not be granted to those officials who violate basic human rights and the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the uncharted territory of a Trump administration, it is critical that Congress maintain its bipartisan leadership and support for human rights. It is critical that Congress continue to hold accountable the Russian Government and government officials around the world who engage in corruption, human rights abuses, and who flout the rule of law. During the long campaign, two words I never heard Mr. Trump utter were ``human rights.'' Quite frankly, I was disturbed by his public admiration of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, whose government has jailed and even killed human rights defenders and political opponents. Mr. Speaker, in past years, I have often voted against the final passage of the NDAA conference report. In general, I can't vote for a bill that provides tens of billions of dollars for wars that Congress refuses to debate and authorize. I can't vote for a bill that ties the hands of a President--any President--to shut down the prison at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. I can't support a bloated budget that fails to make hard choices, that provides the Pentagon with even more money than it asks for, and that continues to increase in size-- without end--for the foreseeable future. However, because of the inclusion of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, this year, I will vote in support of the FY 2017 NDAA conference report. The Global Magnitsky Act will give Congress a tool with which to hold accountable human rights abusers even if our new President ends up turning a blind eye. This language in this authorization bill is important because it sends a signal--no matter what our next President believes on the issue of human rights-- that, in this Congress, in a bipartisan way, we believe that, if the United States of America stands for anything, it needs to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report notwithstanding the many reservations we may have. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to point out for my colleagues that, while many of my colleagues who support this legislation argue that the new overtime rule would overburden nonprofits or educational institutions, I think we need to point out a few facts here--most importantly, that that is just not the case. The overtime rule provides exemptions for nonprofit charitable organizations without sizable commercial activities. The overtime rule also provides educational institutions exemptions for teachers, coaches, graduate and undergraduate students, and administrative personnel. I just want to repeat one thing that I said in my opening. I am really amazed when my Republican colleagues routinely come to the floor and lecture poor people and people who are struggling in poverty. They regularly come to the floor and demonize people in this country who are on benefits, like SNAP--putting food on the table. You always hear, ``You ought to work.'' ``You ought to work harder.'' Of the people on SNAP, for example, who are able to work, the majority of them work, but work doesn't pay enough to get them out of poverty. All that is being suggested by this rule from the Department of Labor is that people ought to get paid what they deserve. They ought to be able to earn enough to be able to have a decent life and to get out of poverty. I know what my friends are trying to do. They are saying it is only a 6-month delay. They are hoping that their candidate for President--God forbid--would win the Presidency and would, basically, null and void any modernization of the overtime rules. We ought to be concerned more about people in this country who are working hard and who are not able to make ends meet. I think my colleagues ought to know there are exemptions in this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, after a year of Democratic calls to address the terrible water crisis in Flint, Michigan, House Republicans finally moved forward an amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), to provide assistance to the families of Flint. It was a year ago this month that we learned of the man-made drinking water crisis in Flint, which exposed thousands of our fellow Americans to contaminated water. These are real people, Mr. Speaker. Families with children--9,000 children under the age of 6--that have been drinking and bathing in poisonous water for over 2\1/2\ years. And even today, these families still do not have access to clean water from their taps. The fact that it has taken a year for Congress to stand up and do the right thing, to finally allow us to have a vote for the families of Flint, is astonishing. America is supposed to be a place where we look out for one another and lift our neighbors up when they are in need. Those are the values that define our country. As the people's representatives here in Congress, we need to honor those values. Whenever an American community is hit by a disaster, we come together. This should include not just hurricanes and earthquakes, but also man- made disasters, like the one that Flint continues to face today. I thank the leadership, especially our leadership, our Leader Pelosi, and the persistence of my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). I am pleased that we are finally set to consider a measure to authorize the $170 million for the repair and replacement of infrastructure in Flint. I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will enthusiastically support Mr. Kildee. But this is just a first step, Mr. Speaker. While the amendment we are set to consider today, if adopted, authorizes these funds, it is important that we come together to ensure that the much-needed funding actually reaches Flint as soon as possible. The Senate's Water Resources Development Act, which passed that Chamber earlier this month by an overwhelming vote of 95-3, includes $220 million in relief for Flint. As we advance our water bill this week and set up a conference on the two measures, it is imperative that we keep funding for Flint a top priority. So while I am pleased that we were able to reach a bipartisan agreement on a vote for Flint, I am disappointed, however, that the House Republican leadership is still advancing a terrible, misguided bill this week to, once again, undermine regulations put forward by the administration to help working families. With all of the work left to be done on the most pressing issues facing our communities, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle are so intent on denying long overdue compensation to millions of their constituents in payment for their hard work and long hours. This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 6094, legislation designed to delay the Department of Labor's new overtime rule, which increases the overtime salary threshold from $23,660 a year to $47,476 a year. With the Department of Labor's update to the Fair Labor Standards Act, an additional 4.2 million salaried workers are eligible for overtime pay, and 262,000 working people in my home State of Massachusetts will benefit. American workers have waited long enough to get their fair day's pay for a long day's work that they deserve. This Republican bill will take $600 million out of the pockets of 4.2 million American workers who would have gained overtime protections on December 1. This is $600 million that they will never see if we delay these important updates for another 6 months. That means, for example, the workers will have less money to spend on holiday presents for their families and less time to help their kids with their schoolwork and extracurricular activities. The simple truth is that this Republican bill is a cynical ploy to, once again, try to stop the rule from ever, ever going into effect. My Republican friends like to lecture families in poverty about what they are doing wrong. We hear it all the time on this floor. They tell them that they need to work harder to get ahead. These families are already working hard, very often working overtime, but they are not receiving the pay that they deserve for putting in the extra time. Republicans like to say that they think hard work should be rewarded. This is it. This overtime protection is a way for us to reward the hard work of millions of Americans who are doing all of the right things. This is a way for us to ensure that every American who puts in a hard day's work is able to earn the fair pay that he deserves. Only in this place would that be considered a radical idea. How can Members of Congress lecture millions of hardworking American families who are struggling to escape poverty when they won't even support a measure that rewards them for the hard work that they are putting in every day to help their own families get ahead? Speaker Ryan has a lot to say about fixing poverty--rolling out a whole agenda to convince us that, somehow, he is serious about making progress in helping families. So why on Earth would Speaker Ryan and the House Republicans stand in the way of hardworking families receiving the fair pay that they deserve? That doesn't sound like a party that truly cares about helping every family succeed. America's working families are the ones who lay the foundation that makes our economy strong. It is simply shameful that denying hardworking families the overtime protections they deserve is something that Republicans think should be a top priority of this Congress--so pressing, in fact, that the House Republicans considered this bill in the Rules Committee as an ``emergency measure.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing and defeat this bill. It is an antiworker, antifamily bill, and it would only make it harder for America's hardworking families to get ahead. Our economy only works when hard work is rewarded, and it is time for Congress to stand up for those values and to support working families. It is time for us to do our jobs, Mr. Speaker. We need to be providing funds to fight the terrible Zika virus and the opioid crisis. We should be addressing the gun violence that is plaguing our communities. We ought to be finalizing a continuing resolution to ensure that our government remains open come Saturday, and I hope that the Senate will vote on that soon so that we can consider it. We need to get much-needed assistance to the families of Flint. Again, I think it is a stain on this Congress' reputation that this leadership has dragged its feet for so long on this issue of providing funds to the residents of Flint. This is the United States of America. People ought to know, when they get water out of their faucets, that they are not poisoning themselves or their kids. These are emergencies, Mr. Speaker, and not what this bill is all about that my friends are bringing to the floor. What they are trying to do is to actually score some points with some in the business community who don't want to reward the work of the people who work in their companies, and I think that that is unfortunate. We ought to stand up for working families. They are the ones who need help. What this bill would do is make that less likely. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question; and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would allow those with outstanding student debt to refinance their existing high interest rate loans to lower interest rates. Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives us an opportunity to provide immediate relief to those struggling with student loan debt. You know, when interest rates go down, people can refinance their home mortgages. Why can't we extend that same ability to people with high student loan rates? Everybody says that we want to make sure that everybody who wants a college education ought to be able to get one, yet we make it very difficult for people to be able to afford one. The debt that is accumulated--and especially the interest on that debt that is accumulated--is very, very difficult for people to absorb when they get out of school. So that is why Democrats have been asking time and time again for us to address issues like that, college affordability. How do we ease the burden on our young people who are trying to get a college education? So rather than bringing up legislation that basically will not increase the overtime salary threshold, thereby denying people who are working the ability to have a little bit of extra cash in their pockets when they work overtime--that is what this is all about, and we are actually punishing working people--maybe we ought to do something to actually help working families. If you vote ``no'' on the previous question, we will be able to have a debate and a vote on this. I hope that not just Democrats, but Republicans as well will see that it is important for us to address this issue of college affordability. I, again, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. 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. Let me just make a comment for the benefit of my colleagues before I yield to the next speaker, and that is about this rule. This is a closed rule. Again, this is another pattern that my Republican friends seem to have developed since they have taken over the House; and that is, basically shutting down debate and shutting down the opportunity for Members to have an opportunity to express themselves. This bill was noticed in the Rules Committee, I think on Monday, and we did the rule yesterday. Members didn't even know this was coming up. So to bring a bill like this to the floor under a closed process I think is unfortunate. It denies Members on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to offer different points of view and to have a vigorous debate. Many of us believe that this Congress ought to do more to help strengthen opportunities and benefits for those in the middle class. We believe that more people ought to have the opportunity to get into the middle class. That is why we are fighting for a livable wage, yet we can't even bring that to the floor. The only things that seem to get to the floor are tax breaks for big businesses or repeals of the Affordable Care Act or bills like this that would basically take the pay that has been earned by workers away from them. Again, I think this kind of illustrates where the priorities of this Republican Congress really are. I mean, they are not with working people. They are with those who are privileged and those at the very top. And my hope is that maybe after this election, we can get some changes made where we can get back to doing the people's business, not just the rich people's business. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Graham).

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on September 26, 2016, I joined U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other U.S. leaders in Cartagena, Colombia, for the formal signing of the peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). As a result, I was absent for roll call votes 557 and 558. Had I been present, I would have voted no on roll call 557, final passage of the Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act, H.R. 3537, because it adds new synthetic drugs to Schedule I, expanding mandatory minimum sentences and hindering research on these substances. I would have voted yes on roll call 558, final passage of H.R. 5392, the No Veterans Crisis Line Call Should Go Unanswered Act. I strongly support H.R. 5392, which will help support veterans experiencing emotional or mental health crises by requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop a plan to ensure that every call paced to the Veteran Crisis Line is answered by a live person.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to visit and volunteer at the Philadelphia region's largest hunger relief center, Philabundance. Philabundance, a member of the Feeding America network of food banks, aims to drive hunger out of local communities with an eye toward eradicating hunger altogether. Each week, Philabundance serves 90,000 people in the Philadelphia area through partnerships with 350 agencies and food distribution programs. Incredibly, last year alone, they distributed almost 30 million pounds of food to neighbors suffering from hunger and food insecurity in nine counties. I was impressed by the innovative strategies Philabundance employs to feed hungry people in its region. The Philabundance Community Kitchen equips those looking to reenter the workforce with valuable life and kitchen skills, while also providing meals to those in need. Philabundance also opened the Nation's first nonprofit grocery store called Fare & Square in Chester, a city that faced a serious economic downturn due to the loss of manufacturing jobs. Fare & Square provides affordable and healthy food to the community, as well as discounts to those who qualify. Food banks across our country like Philabundance and places like the Worcester County Food Bank and Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, which are both in my congressional district, do incredible work to reduce hunger in surrounding communities. They employ innovative strategies to fight hunger and increase access to nutritious food for our most vulnerable neighbors. But the truth of the matter is we know that food banks and our charitable organizations can't do it alone. Some in Congress have proposed cuts and other restrictions to our Federal antihunger and nutrition programs. We often hear from them that charities, not the government, should be responsible for eradicating hunger. Mr. Speaker, I agree that food banks and food pantries and other charitable organizations are incredible on-the-ground partners in our effort to end hunger. They are often the first line of defense in emergency situations. But charities cannot do everything. That is just a fact. Charities do face limitations. Many are small and only open on limited schedules. Most are run with the support of dedicated volunteers, some of whom have other full-time jobs. Often, these charities operate out of small places like basements or closets at houses of worship. Importantly, they rely on donations from members of the community as a primary source of food to distribute. Our charities are doing an incredible job on the front lines, but ending hunger will take a strong partnership between these organizations and Federal, State, and local governments. For our part, the Federal Government must continue to invest in our preeminent food and nutrition programs like SNAP, WIC, and The Emergency Food Assistance Program, known as TEFAP, just to name a few, and fight any attempts to cut or weaken them. TEFAP is especially important to our food banks, as they rely on this Federal funding to serve those in need. We know that strong Federal investments in these critical safety net programs reduce hunger, improve the diets of low-income households, and save billions of dollars in healthcare costs. So the next time any of my colleagues try to score political points by demonizing Federal hunger programs, I ask you to think of these programs and the impacts they are having on constituents in each of our districts. I urge you to visit local food banks and charities and see all the incredible work they are doing to reduce hunger in our communities. Ask these organizations how the Federal antipoverty programs support their efforts to bring food to those most in need. I urge all my colleagues to remember this fact: Today, in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, over 42 million of our fellow citizens are hungry. They are kids, senior citizens, people who can't find work, and many people who are, in fact, working. They defy stereotypes. But all of them are our brothers and sisters, and we should care. We should absolutely do more than we are doing right now to end hunger in America. The Federal Government, working with charities and local partners, has, within its grasp, the power to end hunger now; what we lack is the political will. Let's at long last create the political will and guarantee that, in our country, no one ever has to struggle with food insecurity or hunger. We can end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we have only a few days left here before there is another recess, and we have incredible challenges before us. We have an opioid crisis in this country. We passed legislation that said all the right things, but the funding to fund all those nice things wasn't following. We are confronted with a Zika virus crisis, and the American people are expecting us to do something, and this House has been twiddling its thumbs for far too long. The time for action is now. We have a water crisis in Flint, Michigan; can't seem to get anything done in this House. Yet, those poor people can't drink the water out of their faucets and have been poisoned for years as a result of the indifference on that situation. On the issue of gun violence, I mean, every day somebody gets killed in gun violence. We have tried to bring up a bill that would require universal background checks. I don't care what your position on guns is, I think we all should be able to agree that there ought to be universal background checks. Right now, if you go into a licensed gun dealer, you have to go through a background check. But you get around that if you go to a gun show or buy a gun online. I think everybody, I don't care what your philosophy is, should want to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and people who are dangerously mentally ill. I don't know why that is such a controversy in this House of Representatives. Yet, we can't even get the leadership to allow us to bring that bill to the floor. On the issue that the previous question is about, which is the no fly, no buy list, I don't think there is anybody in this country who can understand why we think it is okay to, on one hand, say to somebody who is on an FBI terrorist watch list: we are concerned about you so much that you can't fly on an airplane. But, at the same time, say: well, okay, but you can go out and buy a gun; you can buy an assault weapon; and you can go out and buy a weapon of war. That doesn't make any sense. People can't quite get why we can't come together on that. But even if you don't want to vote for that, you ought to let us have that debate and that vote. These are the kinds of issues that we should be talking about. Yet, we are doing message bills that are going nowhere, again, not just because the President wants to veto them, it is because the Senate won't even take some of these things up. So in these few days we have left, let's do something radical. Let's actually do the people's business. Let's do something that is going to help people in this country and improve their quality of life and protect them. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am going to urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question, vote ``no'' on the previous question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan no fly, no buy legislation that would allow the Attorney General to bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now. There have been more than 10,000 gun-related deaths in this country this year alone. The country cannot tolerate the indifference on this issue any longer. 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.