Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the House is scheduled to be in session for 7 days before yet another 6-week-long recess. Instead of addressing the most pressing issues facing our communities, we are on this floor with yet another Republican messaging bill to undermine the Federal rulemaking process. With all that needs to be done, with all the crises we are facing, this is what they bring to the floor--a bill, by the way, that is not going anywhere. It is going nowhere. The President is going to send up a veto message. The Senate is not even going to take it up. So what we are spending our time doing, what we are spinning our wheels about right now is something that, basically, I guess my friends can use in a press release, but this is not real legislating. And I get it. Attacking Federal regulations has become a favorite sound bite for my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are always quick to remind us of the costs associated with these regulations, but completely dismiss the very real and typically much larger benefits of protecting consumers, the environment, public health, and safety. I am against duplicative regulation. I am against warrantless regulation or needless regulation. It would be nice if we could actually function in a bipartisan way to identify where we have common ground and where there is agreement so that we can make some progress, but that is not the MO of the Republican leadership in this House. It is their way or the highway. H.R. 3438 automatically freezes any covered rule when any lawsuit is filed, regardless of how frivolous that lawsuit may be, instead of relying on the discretion and expertise of the courts. Now, let's be honest with ourselves, Mr. Speaker. This isn't about good governance and it isn't about ensuring high-impact regulations pass legal muster. This is yet another election year giveaway to Republican special interests, and it is that time of year--lots of fundraisers, lots of political activity. People go home and say they voted for this bill that is going nowhere. Therefore, vote for them. This is just yet another Republican effort to indefinitely delay regulations that they don't like--regulations that protect consumers, regulations that protect public health and that protect our environment. In fact, one of the most troubling aspects of this bill is that it fails to include any exceptions for rules responding to public health emergencies. Can you believe that? I am disappointed that the Republicans in the Judiciary Committee rejected Democratic amendments to the bill that would have ensured lawsuits could not tie up responses to public health emergencies. Why would anybody be against that? This is especially troubling as we face major health crises, like the Zika virus, and rely on our government to protect our public health. We should be doing everything in our power to find a solution to this terrible emergency, not passing legislation that can make finding that solution even harder. I strongly oppose this misguided and unnecessary legislation, which does nothing to promote an efficient regulatory process, but delays regulations needed to protect our public health and safety. This week the House is also set to consider H.R. 5719, the Empowering Employees through Stock Ownership Act. By allowing rank-and-file employees of private companies to defer payments on their stock options for 7 years, this bill makes it easier for these employees--often lower-income earners--to receive equity as part of their compensation. Our economy is recovering, but not for everyone. More and more wealth is becoming concentrated in the top 1 percent and income inequality is at its highest levels since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, working families struggle to make ends meet, often needing several jobs just to get by. So I support efforts to allow rank-and-file employees to truly share in the long-term success of their companies and our greater innovation economy. I think the majority of us share in that belief. But I do share the concerns that have been expressed by my Democratic colleagues during the Ways and Means Committee markup and in the Rules Committee last night that this bill isn't paid for and adds $1.03 billion to the deficit. This bill not being paid for adds over a billion dollars to our deficit. The Republican leadership in this House routinely refuses to bring up funding legislation that adequately addresses public health crises. They demand offsets anytime there is an emergency. When it comes to increases in our social safety net, we can't do it because we have to find offsets. But when it comes to tax breaks, there are no limits. They don't require offsets. Just last week this House passed an unpaid-for tax cut that, if enacted, would add almost $33 billion to the deficit. The Ways and Means Committee has marked up nearly $54 billion worth of unpaid-for tax cuts just this year. There was a time when caring about the deficit and the debt was something my Republican friends would talk about, but I guess that is no longer the case. So when my Republican friends talk about their commitment to fiscal responsibility, I have to ask: Why the double standard? We can't help the people of Flint, Michigan, but we can pass tax breaks and tax cuts and not have to pay for them. By the way, the vast majority of tax cuts that my Republican friends support go to the wealthiest people in this country, not to the middle class. We are told we have to fully offset emergency responses, as I said, to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan; the opioid epidemic; flooding disasters; and the growing threat of the Zika virus, but yet we don't have to pay for tax cuts. I just don't quite get it. Last night, in the Rules Committee, my friends and colleagues, Joe Crowley and Anna Eshoo, Democratic cosponsors of this bill, offered an amendment to offset the over $1 billion cost by increasing a tax on oil barrels by two cents. That is just two cents that they would increase the cost. But what is important for people to remember is that what that means for the consumer is five one-thousandths of a penny on a gallon of gas. So in order to offset something that we think is a good benefit, and to pay for it, it would cost consumers five one-thousandths of a penny on a gallon of gas. Most people that I talk to I don't believe think that that is an unreasonable thing, the choice between adding to the deficit, which, by the way, we all pay for anyway, or basically paying for things as we go. And so five one-thousandths of a penny on a gallon of gas, in order to offset the cost of this bill, I don't think, is unreasonable. Now, this amendment was not made in order for consideration on the House floor because my Republican colleagues insisted that the offset was not germane to the bill. But the House Rules Committee has the power to waive germaneness and other rules, and frequently does so, when it suits the needs of the majority. And during this Congress alone, Republicans on the Rules Committee have granted 245 waivers; 242, or 98 percent of them, have been for Republican initiatives. So they do it all the time when they want to. So, Mr. Speaker, we had the ability to move the Crowley-Eshoo amendment to the floor for consideration, but Republicans in the Rules Committee blocked our efforts to responsibly pay for the costs associated with this change in tax law. Now, I appreciate the work of my colleagues in promoting employee ownership among all of a company's workers, not just those at the top. But I do have some serious concerns about this majority's insistence that emergency relief and other priorities be offset while tax cuts are able to sail through this House without a second thought and not be paid for. That is the wrong approach. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I would ask my colleagues respectfully to support us in our effort to defeat the previous question so we can bring up the legislation that Mr. Thompson mentioned, legislation that would strengthen the Department of Homeland Security's overseas screening and vetting programs. I would like to think that even though Democrats and Republicans don't always agree on everything, we can agree on something and that this is something that we ought to be able to agree on, and hopefully we will be able to have a vote on it. Again, I regret that we are bringing up a bill that, again, is another attempt to try to undermine the deal that we have brokered with other nations around the world to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, but here we are yet with another bill. The President is going to veto it. We can continue to debate the merits, but it is kind of a waste of time. Again, I would hope my colleagues would vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill if we are presented with it. I would just say one final thing to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), who I have a great deal of respect for: The deal is that Mr. Trump is the first nominee, I think, that I can recall, who has not released his taxes. Secretary Clinton has released years and years and years of her taxes. We know more about Secretary Clinton than we know about any other nominee, I think, in history. I have always kind of wondered why Mr. Trump says some of the things he says, which, quite frankly, I sometimes find unbelievable, some of the comments on foreign policy. But when you look at his financial interests and his investments in these various countries, you can kind of understand why he defends dictators, why he never mentions the words ``human rights,'' why he says some of the things he says about urging other countries to become nuclear powers when we should all be talking about how we control nuclear weapons in this country. If we are worried about transparency and you are worried about conflicts of interest, and if we are truly worried about corruption, now is the time, I would urge my friends on the other side of the aisle, to tell the nominee of your party to come clean. There are so many tangled webs in The Trump Organization, so many financial ties to things that, quite frankly, should give every one of us concern. I don't know what the problem is about a little sunshine. Like I said in the beginning, if Secretary Clinton did not release her tax returns, there would be calls for hearings and resolutions and there would be Special Orders, and it would go on and on and on; yet, with regard to their nominee, it is okay for him to withhold all this information from the American people. I think that is unfortunate. So if we are talking about transparency here today and if we are worried about corruption and if we are worried about conflicts of interest, there is that old saying, ``Physician, heal thyself.'' I would urge my Republican colleagues to hold their nominee, hold their standard-bearer to a higher standard when it comes to transparency. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just respond to the gentleman that the reason why the administration wants to veto this bill has nothing to do with the fact that they aren't concerned about Iran's role in promoting terrorist organizations around the world or being involved in very bad behavior. I think they are opposed to this bill because they don't think it is worth anything; that it is not going to work. In fact, rather than preventing terrorist financing and money laundering, this bill would actually incentivize those affected to make their financial dealings less transparent and create a disincentive for Iran's banking sector to demonstrate transparency. Look, we are all talking about this like this is all on the level. The real deal is that my friends on the other side are upset that the President of the United States negotiated a deal with Iran that prevents them from getting a nuclear weapon. So we see a multitude of bills like this coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I 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 that would expand the Department of Homeland Security's presence overseas. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would strengthen DHS's operations by authorizing and expanding Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs that vet and screen individuals before they enter the United States. It would add an additional 2,000 Customs and Border Protection officers for overseas and domestic operations. 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, this bill is going nowhere. Quite frankly, I think it is an insult to the American people that we are bringing up more and more bills that are going nowhere when we have so much here to do. Congress has roughly a week before we recess again, and instead of focusing on passing a bipartisan bill to actually fund the government, House Republicans are wasting more time with partisan bills like this, and it really is quite unfortunate. But, since Republicans want to talk about transparency so much, let's talk about the transparency--or the total lack of transparency--of their Presidential nominee, Donald Trump. I have got to tell you that I have been doing this a long time, and I think it is safe to say that Donald Trump's lack of transparency would make Richard Nixon blush. For 40 years, America's major party nominees have publicly released their tax returns, a simple and basic disclosure made to the American people to help them choose which candidate is best fit to be our next President. Donald Trump, the nominee of the party that is telling us today that they care so much about transparency, has repeatedly refused to release his tax returns. This comes even after he promised in 2014 that he ``absolutely''--and I say that in quotes--would release them if he ran for President. Let's be honest. In this House of Representatives, if Hillary Clinton refused to release her tax returns, there would be an outcry like you have never heard from my Republican friends. There would be calls for hearings and resolutions and probably even a vote to impeach her retroactively once she was elected. We all know that. But, on Donald Trump's lack of transparency--the guy who wants to be President of the United States--they are silent. The secrecy and the lack of transparency doesn't stop with Donald Trump's tax returns. This month, Newsweek reported on how Donald Trump's extensive financial dealings overseas would pose an unprecedented conflict of interest that could threaten our national security and global interests. In the article, they write: Never before has a business posed such a threat to the United States. If Donald Trump wins this election and his company is not immediately shut down or forever severed from the entire Trump family, the foreign policy of the United States of America could well be for sale. The Trump Organization has hundreds of business dealings involving more than a dozen countries on five continents, including Russia, India, Turkey, Libya, China, and South Korea. Newsweek warns that, as long as The Trump Organization remains open, foreign governments and businesses would be able to funnel money directly into the pockets of Trump and his family. That means American foreign policy would be literally for sale. It is a situation unlike anything we have ever seen in American history. For example, Trump's business deals could motivate him to abandon NATO allies like Turkey and important Asian allies like South Korea. His deals in Azerbaijan could force him to alter his position on Iran or undermine U.S. relations with Armenia. His deals in India could influence his position over longstanding conflicts with Pakistan--in a volatile subcontinent where both nations have nuclear weapons. When it comes to Russia, there are concerns about Trump's heaping praise and praise and praise on an increasingly hostile foreign leader, Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the same time his company is seeking business opportunities in Russia and how that conflict of interest could evolve if Trump were President of the United States. Newsweek also reports that the friction caused by Trump's business dealings could jeopardize relationships with our allies like Turkey in the fight against ISIS. Additionally, one of Trump's business partners is a South Korean company that is involved in nuclear energy, which makes you wonder if that is why he suggested South Korea should have nuclear weapons. So, if you want to talk about transparency and if you are worried about conflicts of interest and corruption, you ought to demand that the nominee of your party come clean with the American people. You ought to demand that he release his tax returns, that he make it clear that he would end all of his business ties if, God forbid, he would become President of the United States, which is something that, I hope, we never, ever get close to. The bottom line is that that is something that is real and is right before us, and, quite frankly, we ought to be doing more about it. We shouldn't be wasting the American people's time with more partisan messaging bills that claim to be about transparency--bills that are going absolutely nowhere. We should focus on passing a bipartisan funding bill that keeps this government open and that takes real action to combat the very real Zika virus and other public health crises that Americans are actually confronting. I urge the Members of both parties to defeat this rule and get back to work on real issues that actually matter in the lives of the people whom we represent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for the customary 30 minutes. With all that we have to do, I can't believe we are here doing this; nonetheless, here we are today, considering H.R. 5461, the so-called Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act. This bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress and post online the estimated total assets under the direct or indirect control of certain senior Iranian leaders and other figures, along with a description of how these assets were acquired and are employed, regardless of whether said figures are subject to U.S. sanctions. The fact is that this bill--and let's be clear about it--is nothing more than another attempt by Republicans to undermine the historic agreement the United States worked so hard to achieve to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is a big deal. I am sorry my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't share that view, but it is a big deal. The world will be safer with a nuclear-free Iran. Last July, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Germany--the P5+1--and Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which required Iran to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for U.S., EU, and U.N. sanctions being lifted. The agreement officially came into effect on October 18, 2015. U.S. nuclear-related sanctions were lifted on January 16, 2016, after the International Atomic Energy Agency verified that Iran implemented its key nuclear- related measures described in the agreement and the Secretary of State confirmed the IAEA's verification. Since the implementation of the agreement, Republicans have repeatedly tried to create the impression of numerous scandals surrounding Iran and of supposed violations of the agreement; but the reality is that the agreement has, so far, prevented Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. While we will continue to counter Iran's hostile activities in the region, we will not undermine the JCPOA. H.R. 5461 would absolutely do nothing to increase transparency within the Iranian financial industry. Rather, this bill would cause confusion regarding compliance obligations, deter non-U.S. banks from reengaging with legitimate Iranian business, and undermine the letter and spirit of the nuclear agreement the United States worked so hard to achieve. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, which basically ends with this statement, that if the President were presented with this bill, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto this bill. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 5461--Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act--Rep. Poliquin, R- ME, and one cosponsor The Administration shares the Congress' goals of increasing transparency and bringing Iran into compliance with international standards in the global fight against terror finance and money laundering. However, this bill would be counterproductive toward those shared goals. The bill requires the U.S. Government to publicly report all assets held by some of Iran's highest leaders and to describe how these assets are acquired and used. Rather than preventing terrorist financing and money laundering, this bill would incentivize those involved to make their financial dealings less transparent and create a disincentive for Iran's banking sector to demonstrate transparency. These onerous reporting requirements also would take critical resources away from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's important work to identify Iranian entities engaged in sanctionable conduct. Producing this information could also compromise intelligence sources and methods. One of our best tools for impeding destabilizing Iranian activities has been to identify Iranian companies that are controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) or other Iranians on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) to non-U.S. businesses, so that they can block assets or stop material transfers. This process is labor-intensive and requires the judicious use of our national intelligence assets. Redirecting these assets to preparing this onerous public report would be counterproductive and will not reduce institutional corruption or promote transparency within Iran's system. In addition, this bill's required public postings also may be perceived by Iran and likely our Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) partners as an attempt to undermine the fulfillment of our commitments, in turn impacting the continued viability of this diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. If the JCPOA were to fail on that basis, it would remove the unprecedented constraints on and monitoring of Iran's nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating blow to the credibility of America's leadership and our commitments to our closest allies. As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration remains clear-eyed regarding Iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, human rights abuses, and destabilizing activity in the region. The United States should retain all of the tools needed to counter this activity, ranging from powerful sanctions to our efforts to disrupt and interdict illicit shipments of weapons and proliferation-sensitive technologies. This bill would adversely affect the U.S. Government's ability to wield these tools, would undermine the very goals it purports to achieve, and could even endanger our ability to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful. If the President were presented with H.R. 5461, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just inform the gentleman that we have one additional speaker who says he is on his way.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as we recognize September as Hunger Action Month, I rise to draw attention to the widespread problem of hunger among teenagers. While our Nation's recovery is progressing, 7 million teens remain food insecure, and we know they often face additional hardships. Today the Urban Institute is briefing Members of Congress and their staff on two new reports that highlight these circumstances and explore how teens cope with hunger. Among a number of troubling conclusions, the report finds that teens fear the stigma of being hungry and often refuse to accept food or assistance. They skip meals and sometimes turn to dangerous behaviors just so their parents or siblings can eat. They often feel the need to bear the responsibility for feeding their families. Teenagers deserve a normal childhood. They should be focused on school and developing their passions, not worrying about where their next meal is coming from. I encourage all of my colleagues to read these reports and join me in working to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I mean, I don't know what it is going to take to compel my Republican colleagues to do something, to do more than just have a moment of silence in the aftermath of every massacre. I mean, these are real people. They had families. They were loved, and now they are gone, and we need to do something. For the life of me, I can't understand the inaction in this House, the silence and the indifference. It is appalling. I would suggest to my colleagues, rather than trying to bring legislation to the floor to slap us on the wrist for having the audacity to come to the floor and demand that this House of Representatives do its job, my Republican friends ought to do their job and bring these bills to the floor. Let's have a debate and let's have a vote, and let's try to save some lives. This is real. This is meaningful. It is a heck of a lot more important than the message bills that are going nowhere that are being brought to this floor. I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so we can have a vote on the no fly, no buy legislation, and I plead with my Republican colleagues: Do your job. Do something. Enough of this silence. Enough of this indifference. Too many people in this country are dying. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Jennifer Rooney, age 44 from Bristol, Virginia, who was shot by a stray bullet while driving. She is a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of action on this House floor.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a leader on issues of justice and nonviolence, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN

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