Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there are 1,000 reasons to be opposed to this rule. One is that it brings forward two bills that are deeply flawed. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record The New York Times editorial against the Roskam bill, ``Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold.'' [From the New York Times Editorial, Apr. 28, 2016] Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold (By the Editorial Board) It is plainly illegal for foreigners to contribute to American political campaigns. But reform groups are warning that the ban would be gravely undermined by a little-noticed bill advanced Thursday by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee. It would alter the current tax code provision that, while permitting the identity of donors to 501(c) ``social welfare'' groups to be kept firmly secret from the public, requires that the donors be privately identified to Internal Revenue Service officials responsible for enforcing the law. Politically oriented groups claiming dubious exemptions as ``social welfare'' nonprofits have proliferated in recent elections, allowing donors--including publicity-shy campaign backers--to work from the shadows. Under the proposal, the I.R.S. would no longer be told the identities of contributors to these nonprofits. Watchdog groups warn in a letter to the House that this would ``open the door wide for secret, unaccountable money from foreign governments, foreign corporations and foreign individuals to be illegally laundered into federal elections.'' The letter, signed by the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and five other groups, stressed that the disclosure requirement is one of the few ways of guarding against foreigners influencing American elections. Representative Peter Roskam, the bill's sponsor, dismissed the reform groups' warning, saying the I.R.S. ``has a miserable track record when it comes to safeguarding sensitive data'' and a history of targeting conservative nonprofits that are critical of administration policies. His office insisted that ending the disclosure requirement would not affect the foreign-donation ban, but the reform groups sensibly ask who else could monitor what has become a runaway system of big-money stealth politicking. Claiming a ``social welfare'' tax exemption has become a tool for powerful political operatives like Karl Rove, the Republican campaign guru. His Crossroads GPS group, which has 501(c) status, has spent $330 million on ads and candidates since it was created in 2010. Other political groups, including the Democrats' Priorities USA Action, which aided in President Obama's re-election campaign, have followed suit in claiming ``social welfare'' status. In the last four years, more than $500 million in secretive election contributions has been netted by those using the ploy. Amid fierce Republican criticism, the I.R.S. has grown ever more gun-shy about enforcement, with Tea Party and other right-wing groups accusing tax officials of bias in daring to investigate conservative ``social welfare'' claims. As I.R.S. wariness grows, so does the attraction of 501(c)s for donors more interested in stealth politicking than charity work. Enabling foreigners to join this dark money debacle would be disastrous.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by a number of reform organizations that are organized to protect the public from the big money and from foreign donations, from the League of Women Voters, to Public Citizen, to Common Cause, to the Campaign Legal Center, the Center for Responsive Politics, Brennan Center for Justice, and so on. There are many more. I want to submit for the Record the letter they sent to every Member of Congress saying, vote ``no'' on the Roskam bill, and vote against opening loopholes for foreign money. These organizations believe that we are opening a loophole for more foreign money into our political system. And if that is what you want, then support the bill. I personally do not, and ask that that be part of the Record. Reform Groups Urge No Vote on Roskam Bill, H.R. 5053--Vote Against Opening Loophole for Foreign Money June 13, 2016. Dear Representative: Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 5053, Representative Peter Roskam's bill that would eliminate the requirement for 501(c) groups to disclose their donors to the IRS. Our organizations include the Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Center for Responsive Politics, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, Every Voice, Issue One, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, The Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress and Represent.Us. The Roskam bill would open the door wide for secret money from foreign donors to be illegally laundered into federal elections through 501(c)(4) and other 501(c) groups. Foreign money cannot be legally spent in U.S. elections, but it can be given to 501(c) groups and they can spend money in our elections. These groups are not required to disclose their donors publicly, but they are required to make non-public disclosure of their donors to the IRS. This disclosure to the IRS is the only protection citizens have to prevent 501(c)(4) and other 501(c) groups being used to illegally spend foreign money in our elections. The fact that 501(c) groups are required to disclose their donors to the IRS means the groups know that donor information is available as an accountability check against illegal conduct. If donor disclosure to the IRS by 501(c) groups is eliminated, however, as the Roskam bill would do, no one will be in a position to determine if a 501(c) group illegally spent foreign money in our elections--other than the group and foreign donor involved. Any check will be gone and there will be no way to hold a group and foreign donor accountable for illegally spending foreign money in U.S. elections. House members should vote against eliminating the existing check against foreign countries, foreign companies and foreign individuals spending money illegally to influence our elections. We strongly urge you vote to protect the integrity of U.S. elections by voting against H.R. 5053. Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Center for Responsive Politics, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, Every Voice, Issue One, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, The Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress, Represent.Us.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. It is unconscionable that the majority in this House has repeatedly refused to even debate closing such a glaring loophole, which continues to allow suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms. The country can simply not wait any longer for this Congress to act. And if my friends want to vote against it, then they can vote against it. But denying the ability of this legislation to come to the floor, I think, is just wrong. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jack Healy, President and CEO of the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MassMEP), as he retires from a long and successful career in manufacturing. For over 50 years, Jack has worked in various capacities within the manufacturing industry. Jack began his career with Squibb-Beech-Nut Inc., and continued his work at Lego Systems, Presmet Corporation, Wellesley Consulting Group, and MassMEP. Notably, Jack served as a Senior Vice President of Lego Systems, where he cofounded the U.S. division and was responsible for the establishment and operation of Lego's U.S. based manufacturing operations. With the help of Jack, the Lego brand has become a household name in the United States. As a founding Director of Operations for MassMEP, Jack has dedicated himself to helping small- and medium-sized manufacturers in Massachusetts identify and implement growth opportunities through advanced manufacturing and management practices. He's known as the ``voice of manufacturing'' in our Commonwealth, and is relied upon for his expertise in manufacturing competitiveness and workforce strategies. During my time in Congress, I have had the pleasure of working with Jack and his organization on efforts to revitalize our manufacturing base and create good paying jobs in Massachusetts. Under his leadership, MassMEP has become a recognized leader in manufacturing competitiveness, helping to create thousands of jobs during its 17 year history. MassMEP has also developed an award-winning Mobile Outreach Skills Training (M.O.S.T) Program, which trains and recruits future workers with little or no prior manufacturing experience for entry level production jobs. Jack has also been instrumental in numerous projects in my Congressional district and throughout Massachusetts. In particular, he has played a key role in the ``Manufacturing Our Future'' effort in Massachusetts, which has served as a catalyst for critical developments like Worcester's Gateway Park, and has led partnerships that bring together various stakeholders from industry, academia, and government to advance manufacturing competitiveness and create pipelines to careers in advanced manufacturing. I wish Jack all the best as he retires from an incredible career, and know he will enjoy spending time with his wonderful wife, Hilda, his children, and his grandchildren. Jack has been an incredible partner in revitalizing the Massachusetts manufacturing base, and I'm proud to call him a friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jack Healy's contributions to the Massachusetts economy and our country's manufacturing sector.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the 1996 welfare reform law imposed new limitations on able-bodied adults without dependents, known as ABAWDs, receiving food assistance through the SNAP program. These 18- to 49- year-olds who do not have children or serve as caretakers to other individuals have access to SNAP for only 3 months in any 3-year period when they are not employed at least half time or are in a work training program. It is important to note that the law doesn't require States to offer job training programs--most do not--and SNAP recipients have their benefits cut off after 3 months even if they are searching for work or are working less than 20 hours per week. So who are the ABAWDs? While some on the other side of the aisle tend to stereotype these vulnerable adults, the truth of the matter is there is no one face to the ABAWD population. This is a very diverse group. About 45 percent are women. Close to one-third are over 40 years old. Many have limited educational experiences, with more than 80 percent having no more than a high school education or a GED. Some have mental health issues, difficult histories of substance abuse, or are ex-offenders who have nowhere else to turn, and as many as 100,000 are veterans. These childless adults on SNAP are extremely poor and often experience chronic homelessness. They often turn to SNAP as a safety net when they lose their jobs, when their hours at work get cut, or when their wages are so low they are unable to make ends meet. Most childless adults on SNAP who are able to work do. At least 25 percent of these households work while receiving SNAP, and about 75 percent work in the year before or after receiving benefits. While many struggle with job insecurity, among those households that worked in a typical month while receiving SNAP or at some point during the following year, about half worked full time for 6 months or more in the year after they were on the program. Because childless adults receive only limited government assistance, access to SNAP becomes a critical lifeline to these Americans who are living in poverty. After these vulnerable adults leave the SNAP program, research suggests that many continue to face incredible hardship. While some continue to struggle to find jobs, former SNAP recipients who work tend to earn low wages that keep them in poverty. They struggle to get the healthy food they need. Often, they must eat less or skip a meal entirely because they simply have no money with which to purchase food. A provision in the 1996 welfare law allows States to suspend the 3- month limit in areas with high and sustained unemployment. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, Democratic and Republican Governors requested and received waivers from the 3-month limit, and the limit has not been in effect in most States during the past several years. But as the economy continues to recover, fewer areas qualify for waivers despite the fact that many of these vulnerable Americans still struggle to find long-term, stable jobs. As these waivers expire this year, it is expected that more than 500,000 and as many as 1 million of our poorest neighbors will be cut off from SNAP. Thousands already began losing their benefits on April 1 as 23 States began implementing the time limits for the first time since before the recession. These waivers are providing support as they were intended to: helping our communities overcome hardship and providing a lifeline to vulnerable adults who are unable to find work during difficult times. So I am greatly disappointed by the proposals offered by Speaker Ryan to eliminate the ability of States to request these waivers during times of economic hardship. Mr. Speaker, cutting off food assistance for vulnerable adults who are unable to make ends meet is a rotten thing to do, and it only makes hunger worse in our communities. How does making hunger worse make it easier to get a job? Every single congressional district is home to Americans who are struggling with hunger. The hardships they face are exactly why such cuts are so cruel. These proposals are mean-spirited, political documents that are based on the false narrative that people don't want to work. If my Republican friends were serious about getting people back to work and responsibly moving those who can work off of public assistance, their budgets would reflect that, but they don't. Republicans have offered no guarantees that vulnerable Americans will have access to job training programs that will get them back to work. Many job training programs are already stretched incredibly thin. If Republicans were serious, they would increase job training funding so that more Americans could get the help they need to get back on their feet. And, at every turn, they have resisted calls to increase the minimum wage. Work ought to pay in this country. I sometimes wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle have ever met working people who are living in poverty and who rely on SNAP for access to food. The truth is their neatly packaged rhetoric doesn't match the reality of those who are working to make ends meet. We must reject harmful attempts to limit SNAP participation for our vulnerable neighbors and, instead, work on solutions to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to enter additional materials into the Record.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this Congress has weighed in many times and in many ways on United States policy concerning Tibet. One of the most significant things we did was to approve the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, which is supposed to guide U.S. Government policy. It encourages dialogue between the Chinese Government and representatives of the Dalai Lama, and it created the post of Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues within the Department of State. Last July, in recognition of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama's 80th birthday, the House approved H. Res. 337, which cited the Tibetan Policy Act. In that resolution, Congress strongly encouraged the Government of the People's Republic of China and His Holiness to hold substantive dialogue, without preconditions, in order to address Tibetan grievances and secure a negotiated agreement for the Tibetan people. We also called for the establishment of a U.S. consulate in Lhasa. We urged the immediate and unconditional release of Tibetan political prisoners, including the 11th Panchen Lama, and Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, a Tibetan monk who tragically and unnecessarily died in Chinese custody shortly after. We called on the United States Government to underscore that any government's interference in the Tibetan reincarnation process is a violation of the internationally recognized right to religious freedom. We called upon the Government of China to allow U.S. officials and journalists and other citizens unrestricted access to Tibetan areas of China, as we allow Chinese officials and citizens access to the United States' territory. We asked that the United States and international governments, organizations, and civil society renew and reinforce initiatives to promote the preservation of the distinct religious, cultural, linguistic, and national identity of the Tibetan people. We urged the United States to use its voice and vote to encourage development organizations and agencies to design and implement development projects that fully comply with the Tibet Project principles. These principles are meant to ensure that the needs of the Tibetan people guide all development in Tibetan areas; that their projects respect Tibetan culture, traditions, knowledge, and wisdom; and that the development initiatives neither provide incentives for nor facilitate the migration and settlement of non-Tibetans into Tibet, nor the transfer of ownership of Tibetan land or natural resources to non- Tibetans. All of these recommendations for what the United States Government should be doing are just as valid today as they were last year because very little progress has been made in the last year. I say ``very little'' because we have acknowledged the important gesture China made in allowing last fall's codel to travel to Tibet, but that is about all that has happened, and the Dalai Lama is about to be a year older. If we are not going to get moving on those longstanding recommendations, let me suggest some other things we could try. We could start a campaign to get China to allow the Dalai Lama to return to Tibet. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state and, two, everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. It is time to let the Dalai Lama return to his country. This House could pass a bill that I introduced, the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act, basically saying that, if the Chinese Government restricts U.S. officials and U.S. citizens access to Tibet, then we should consider limiting the access of Chinese officials when they visit the United States. We could make sure that the U.S. Government invites the Dalai Lama to every event on every occasion where his decades of knowledge, experience, and reflections would be helpful for addressing the world's problems. The Dalai Lama is a world spiritual and philosophical leader who should be contributing to global debates on countering violent extremism and on fostering peace in war-torn countries. These are just a couple of topics on which I am convinced we could all benefit from his wisdom. We could insist that Tibet be part of our climate change discussions with China. Climate change is one of the few topics on which the U.S. and China have found common ground. It is a critically important topic for Tibet, given its fragile environment and its critically important reserves of freshwater. Tibet is warming three times as fast as the rest of the world, but it is absent from the global climate change debate. The Chinese leadership has acknowledged at the highest levels the scale of the environmental crisis it faces. Conserving the Tibetan Plateau is surely a shared interest, and it can only be achieved with the full participation of the Tibetan people. It is time to rally around some of these ideas or to find others. It is time to do something different on Tibet. It is time for us to think differently and to think out of the box on ways that we can advance dialogue with China, not in a confrontational way, but in ways to get China to understand the importance of recognizing the human rights of the Tibetan people and recognizing the importance of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and allowing him to return to his homeland. Madam Speaker, many of my colleagues wanted to be here today to speak on this. I include the statements of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) in the Record. Last week the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) submitted their statements to the Record. In closing, again, I would urge all of my colleagues to join with the leader and myself in welcoming His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Washington, D.C., to the United States, wishing him good health and praying that reconciliation between the Tibetan people and the Chinese Government happens very, very soon. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished leader for being here, and I appreciate her leadership on this issue and her leadership on human rights issues. One of the things that compels us to be here today is our continued concern about the human rights situation for the Tibetan people. And whether it is the latest annual report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom or whether it is the U.S. State Department's most recent human rights report, or almost any other report, quite frankly, by any major world respected human rights organization, we see that the conditions for the Tibetan people really are quite dire. The Human Rights Watch report, entitled, ``Relentless'' talks about the detention and prosecution of Tibetans from 2013 to 2015 under China's ``stability maintenance'' campaign. The report is based on 479 cases of Tibetans detained or tried for political expression or criticism of government policy. Human Rights Watch only included cases on which its staff was able to obtain credible information. One important source was the terrific database on political prisoners in China that was maintained by the Congressional Executive Commission on China. Without going into a lot of details, let me just highlight a couple of takeaways. Tibetans are now being detained for activities that used to be considered minor offences or not politically sensitive. Many of those detained and prosecuted come from parts of society not previously known for dissent: local community leaders, environmental activists, and villagers involved in social and cultural activities, as well as local writers and singers. I can go on and on and on. I include into the Record the Human Rights Watch report, entitled, ``Relentless,'' Madam Speaker. Relentless: Detention and Prosecution of Tibetans Under China's ``Stability Maintenance'' Campaign Summary We have followed the law in striking out and relentlessly pounding at illegal organizations and key figures, and resolutely followed the law in striking at the illegal organizations and key figures who follow the 14th Dalai Lama clique in carrying out separatist, infiltration, and sabotage activities, knocking out the hidden dangers and soil for undermining Tibet's stability, and effectively safeguarding the state's utmost interests [and] society's overall interests.--Statement by Chen Quanguo, Tibet Autonomous Region Party Secretary, December 2013 This report documents the Chinese government's detention, prosecution, and conviction of Tibetans for largely peaceful activities from 2013 to 2015. Our research shows diminishing tolerance by authorities for forms of expression and assembly protected under international law. This has been marked by an increase in state control over daily life, increasing criminalization of nonviolent forms of protest, and at times disproportionate responses to local protests. These measures, part of a policy known as weiwen or ``stability maintenance,'' have led authorities to expand the range of activities and issues targeted for repression in Tibetan areas, particularly in the countryside. The analysis presented here is based on our assessment of 479 cases for which we were able to obtain credible information. All cases are of Tibetans detained or tried from 2013 to 2015 for political expression or criticism of government policy--``political offenses.'' Our cases paint a detailed picture not available elsewhere. Stringent limitations on access to Tibet and on information flows out of Tibet mean we cannot conclude definitively that our cases are representative of the unknown overall number of political detentions of Tibetans during this period. But they are indicative of the profound impact stability maintenance'' policies have had in those areas, and of shifts in the types of protest and protester Chinese authorities are targeting there. Information on the cases comes from the Chinese government, exile organizations, and foreign media. Of the 479 detainees, 153 were reported to have been sent for trial, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment. The average sentence they received was 5.7 years in prison. As explained in the methodology section below, the actual number of Tibetans detained and prosecuted during this period for political offenses was likely significantly higher. Many detentions documented here were for activities that the Chinese authorities previously considered to be minor offenses or not politically sensitive. Many of those detained came from segments of society not previously associated with dissent. In addition, many of the detentions took place in rural areas where political activity had not previously been reported. From 2008 to 2012, the Tibetan parts of Sichuan province had posted the highest numbers of protests and detentions on the Tibetan plateau, but in 2013 the epicenter of detentions shifted to the central and western areas of the Tibetan plateau, called the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) since 1965, which until 1950 had been under the government of the Dalai Lama. Our research found that many of those detained and prosecuted were local community leaders, environmental activists, and villagers involved in social and cultural activities, as well as local writers and singers. In the previous three decades, the authorities had rarely accused people from these sectors of Tibetan society of involvement in political unrest. Buddhist monks and nuns, who constituted over 90 percent of political detainees in Tibet in the 1980s, represent less than 40 percent of the 479 cases documented here. Almost all the protests and detentions identified in this report occurred in small towns or rural townships and villages rather than in cities, where most protests and detentions in prior years were reported to have taken place. This suggests that dissent has increased in rural Tibetan areas, where nearly 80 percent of Tibetans live. Our data also shows an overall decline in the total number of Tibetans detained for political offenses between 2013 and 2015, though this may be an artifact of the limitations on information, detailed in the methodology section below. Notably, however, the totals for these three years are significantly higher than for the 10 years before 2008 when stability maintenance policies were expanded following major protests centered in Lhasa (Ch.: Lasa), the capital of the

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this week, Washington, D.C., is blessed by the presence of His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, who is visiting the city from June 12 through June 16 for several events and meetings. This visit provides us not only the opportunity to listen to the Dalai Lama speak about the modern world and confronting conflict, but also to take a look at the crisis that faces Tibet and the Tibetan people and ask why the United States is not doing more to protect the rights and to support the autonomy of the Tibetan people. As we seek to comprehend the senseless violence of yesterday's massacre of at least 49 people in Orlando, Florida, and the wounding of more than 50 others--most members of the LGBT community and many of Hispanic descent, all just enjoying their lives on a Saturday night--I can think of no better source of words of wisdom, tolerance, and peace than of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an opinion piece by the Dalai Lama, entitled: ``The Dalai Lama: Why I'm hopeful about the world's future.'' [From the Washington Post, June 13, 2016] The Dalai Lama: Why I'm Hopeful About the World's Future (By the Dalai Lama) The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the spiritual leader of Tibet. Since 1959, he has lived in exile in Dharamsala in northern India. Almost six decades have passed since I left my homeland, Tibet, and became a refugee. Thanks to the kindness of the government and people of India, we Tibetans found a second home where we could live in dignity and freedom, able to keep our language, culture and Buddhist traditions alive. My generation has witnessed so much violence--some historians estimate that more than 200 million people were killed in conflicts in the 20th century. Today, there is no end in sight to the horrific violence in the Middle East, which in the case of Syria has led to the greatest refugee crisis in a generation. Appalling terrorist attacks--as we were sadly reminded this weekend--have created deep-seated fear. While it would be easy to feel a sense of hopelessness and despair, it is all the more necessary in the early years of the 21st century to be realistic and optimistic. There are many reasons for us to be hopeful. Recognition of universal human rights, including the right to self- determination, has expanded beyond anything imagined a century ago. There is growing international consensus in support of gender equality and respect for women. Particularly among the younger generation, there is a widespread rejection of war as a means of solving problems. Across the world, many are doing valuable work to prevent terrorism, recognizing the depths of misunderstanding and the divisive idea of ``us'' and ``them'' that is so dangerous. Significant reductions in the world's arsenal of nuclear weapons mean that setting a timetable for further reductions and ultimately the elimination of nuclear weapons--a sentiment President Obama recently reiterated in Hiroshima, Japan--no longer seem a mere dream. The notion of absolute victory for one side and defeat of another is thoroughly outdated; in some situations, following conflict, suffering arises from a state that cannot be described as either war or peace. Violence inevitably incurs further violence. Indeed, history has shown that nonviolent resistance ushers in more durable and peaceful democracies and is more successful in removing authoritarian regimes than violent struggle. It is not enough simply to pray. There are solutions to many of the problems we face; new mechanisms for dialogue need to be created, along with systems of education to inculcate moral values. These must be grounded in the perspective that we all belong to one human family and that together we can take action to address global challenges. It is encouraging that we have seen many ordinary people across the world displaying great compassion toward the plight of refugees, from those who have rescued them from the sea, to those who have taken them in and provided friendship and support. As a refugee myself, I feel a strong empathy for their situation and when we see their anguish, we should do all we can to help them. I can also understand the fears of people in host countries, who may feel overwhelmed. The combination of circumstances draws attention to the vital importance of collective action toward restoring genuine peace to the lands these refugees are fleeing. Tibetan refugees have firsthand experience of living through such circumstances and, although we have not yet been able to return to our homeland, we are grateful for the humanitarian support we have received through the decades from friends, including the people of the United States. A further source for hope is the genuine cooperation among the world's nations toward a common goal evident in the Paris accord on climate change. When global warming threatens the health of this planet that is our only home, it is only by considering the larger global interest that local and national interests will be met. I have a personal connection to this issue because Tibet is the world's highest plateau and is an epicenter of global climate change, warming nearly three times as fast as the rest of the world. It is the largest repository of water outside the two poles and the source of the Earth's most extensive river system, critical to the world's 10 most densely populated nations. To find solutions to the environmental crisis and violent conflicts that confront us in the 21st century, we need to seek new answers. Even though I am a Buddhist monk, I believe that these solutions lie beyond religion in the promotion of a concept I call secular ethics. This is an approach to educating ourselves based on scientific findings, common experience and common sense--a more universal approach to the promotion of our shared human values. Over more than three decades, my discussions with scientists, educators and social workers from across the globe have revealed common concerns. As a result we have developed a system that incorporates an education of the heart, but one that is based on study of the workings of the mind and emotions through scholarship and scientific research rather than religious practice. Since we need moral principles--compassion, respect for others, kindness, taking responsibility--in every field of human activity, we are working to help schools and colleges create opportunities for young people to develop greater self-awareness, to learn how to manage destructive emotions and cultivate social skills. Such training is being incorporated into the curriculum of many schools in North America and Europe--I am involved with work at Emory University on a new curriculum on secular ethics that is being introduced in several schools in India and the United States. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that the 21st century does not repeat the pain and bloodshed of the past. Because human nature is basically compassionate, I believe it is possible that decades from now we will see an era of peace--but we must work together as global citizens of a shared planet.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by way of welcoming the Dalai Lama, I would like to say a few words about him and his leadership. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet, describes himself as a simple Buddhist monk. He was recognized as the reincarnation of the previous 13th Dalai Lama when he was only 2 years old, and he was only 6 when he began his monastic studies. But years before he finished his education, when he was still a teenager, he was called upon to assume full political power after China's invasion of Tibet in 1950. When in 1954 he went to Beijing for peace talks with Mao Zedong and other Chinese leaders, he was not yet 20. Five years later, with the brutal suppression of the Tibetan national uprising in Lhasa by Chinese troops, the Dalai Lama was forced to escape into exile. Since 1959, he has been living in northern India. That is more than 60 years of exile. I have had the opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama on a number of occasions. He is a warm, generous, compassionate man with a great sense of humor. He is also a man of peace. He has consistently advocated for policies of nonviolence even in the face of extreme aggression. In 1989, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent struggle for the liberation of Tibet. He has received over 150 awards, honorary doctorates, and prizes in recognition of his message of peace, nonviolence, interreligious understanding, universal responsibility, and compassion. His is a voice for tolerance. Unfortunately, as we all know, Tibet has not been liberated. In the late 1990s, under the Dalai Lama's leadership, the Tibetan people formally put aside the goal of independence. Since then, they have been fighting, peacefully, for their autonomy within China; but that struggle is not going very well today. Part of the reason it is not going very well is that the international community seems to be more interested in not offending China than in vigorously supporting the human rights of the Tibetan people. It seems to me that my own government has fallen into that trap. I am looking forward to the Dalai Lama's visit this week, and I know that the leadership of the House and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will welcome him with the greatest appreciation; but it is easy to praise the Dalai Lama, to meet with him, and to benefit from his teachings, yet not lift a finger to help the people of Tibet. The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people deserve better. Madam Speaker, last November I had the honor of joining Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and my colleagues Joyce Beatty, Ted Lieu, Alan Lowenthal, Betty McCollum, and Tim Walz on a historic congressional delegation to Tibet, Beijing, and Hong Kong. I have long raised concerns about China's human rights record in Tibet. As the first congressional delegation to enter Tibet since the 2008 unrest, our trip was an important opportunity to raise the voices of the Tibetan people, and we did just that. Everywhere we went, in every meeting we had, we talked about Tibet. We talked about the Dalai Lama and his strong bipartisan support in Congress. We talked about the importance of respect for people's cultures and religions, and we talked about the need to strengthen and protect all of the human rights of the Tibetan people. During the delegation visit, we felt we had a good exchange with Chinese officials and, especially, with university students both in Tibet and in Beijing. We saw our trip--and especially the delegation's visit to Tibet--as an important gesture by the Chinese Government; but it was also clear to us that our visit was only a first step and that much more needed to be done. Since our return, we have been looking for ways to build on our visit and to advance the reforms needed for meaningful change. Here are some of the things we identified that need to happen specifically with regard to Tibet: The United States needs to open a consulate in Lhasa, Tibet; More Members of Congress, more journalists, more members of parliament from other nations, and more people in general, including members of the Tibetan community here in the United States, need to be allowed to travel freely to Tibet; Tibetans in China need to be able to travel freely as well; The dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lama to resolve longstanding issues of Tibetan autonomy, religious practice, culture, language, and heritage needs to be renewed. I came away from our visit believing even more strongly that the Dalai Lama is part of the solution to resolving Tibetan grievances. Too often during our trip, we heard from some Chinese officials--not all, but some--expressions and characterizations of Tibet and the Dalai Lama that showed that some people's minds and imaginations are stuck in the past, in old prejudices. This concerned me greatly. The issue is not the past. The issue is the future of Tibet and its people. Renewing dialogue must be genuine and productive, and it cannot be just another guise for wasting time or going through the motions. We need to see a dialogue based on good faith and on the mutual need to resolve outstanding issues in a way that is acceptable to all parties. Undertaking such an initiative would be a positive reflection on the capacity of Chinese authorities to engage in constructive dialogue, and it would increase confidence the world over that the government is committed to reconciliation and ending abuses in Tibet. The Chinese Government has invested a great deal in Tibet, and that was very clear to us, but that investment must not come at the price of an entire culture. You cannot confine a people's culture and heritage-- their very sense of identity--to a museum or to a market of handicrafts. The human rights of the Tibetan people must be strengthened and protected, and I returned from the delegation visit with a renewed commitment to continue to work with my colleagues in Congress, with Leader Pelosi, to push for the reforms that are needed to achieve this, and this is the reason we are here today. Madam Speaker, I yield to our distinguished Democratic leader, who led this historic visit to Tibet, Leader Pelosi.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Patrick Oroszko of Worcester, Massachusetts. Pat passed away on Sunday following a brave and inspirational battle with esophageal cancer. He was just 34 years old. I first met Pat several years ago when he interned in my Washington, DC office. He was exceptional. He was whip smart and detailed oriented. Pat made you feel comfortable the moment you started talking to him. He was easy-going and unassuming, despite his height. And above all, he was kind. Born and raised in Worcester, Pat graduated from St. John's High School in Shrewsbury where he excelled in basketball. He went on to receive degrees from Clark University and Anna Maria College. It was at Clark University that Pat truly felt at home. While at Clark, he was a member of the school's basketball team which qualified for the postseason in all four of his years and made it to the Elite Eight of the NCAA Division III tournament two years. He served as team captain his junior and senior years. Most recently, Pat served as Director of Student Recruitment for Clark's Graduate School and, for the past seven years, as an Assistant Men's Basketball Coach. And Clark is where Pat met the love of his life and best friend, Courtney. Today, it's the Clark University basketball gymnasium--the Kneller Athletic Center--where family and friends will gather to celebrate his life. It was one of Pat's favorite places. And at his request, the gym will be set up just as it would be for a game day, with the bleachers pulled out, home and visitor benches, the scoring table and the scoreboard on. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my deepest sympathy to Pat's wife Courtney; his young children, Allison and Ryan; his parents, Charlie and Linda; his brother, Chris and all of his extended family and friends and the entire Clark University family. Mr. Speaker, Pat Oroszko was a wonderful person who touched so many lives. And we're all going to miss him immensely.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think what we are concerned about on this side of the aisle--and I know some thoughtful Republicans are also concerned about this--is the fact that, without certainty, a lot of the research projects and a lot of initiatives that need to be done at the Federal and State levels will not happen because no one knows whether the money is going to follow for what is needed. I think there is a lack of certainty because we are in a House of Representatives that has shut the government down before. If people don't get their way, people have a tantrum and they shut the government down. That is the history of this House of Representatives. I quote here from Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, whom I actually have a great deal of trust in. He says: If we do not get the money that the President has asked for--the $1.9 billion--that is going to have a very serious, negative impact on our ability to get the job done. That is Dr. Fauci. That is not I. That is a highly respected scientist, whom I think we all have a great deal of respect for in this House. We ought to listen to him more than to the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that modifies the House amendment by replacing the Zika virus provisions with the text of H.R. 5044, which is the Democratic alternative that fully funds the administration's request. The Republican majority's current plan is to pass creatively named bills that have nothing to do with Zika and to offer short-term spending commitments that will, unfortunately, fail to properly incentivize the private sector to help develop a vaccine. Our alternative would give our scientists and our doctors the resources they need to mount a longer-term, robust response to the growing Zika crisis. 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, let me start by saying how disappointed I am by the inadequate and long overdue response by this Republican majority to the Zika crisis. With nearly 1,400 Americans, including more than 275 pregnant women who are currently infected with the virus and well over a million cases expected before the end of the year, it is absolutely shameful that this House has failed to act on legislation to adequately fund a response to this potentially devastating crisis. Mr. Speaker, Zika is not coming to the United States. It is here. As summer arrives, along with mosquito season, the mosquito that carries the Zika virus will be active and knocking on the doors of our southern States and territories. This is an emergency, and it should be treated as such. But my friends on the other side of the aisle have spent months in delaying action and in making excuse after excuse after excuse about why we don't need to provide the full funding that our Nation's public health experts say we need. I appreciate the fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle consider themselves public health experts, but there are people who are trained to be public health experts who tell us that what we are doing here today is underfunding an adequate response to this crisis. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this, as my friends in the majority have made it a habit of ignoring the advice of scientists and of experts in favor of appeasing a small group in their Conference on the extreme right. In February, President Obama requested $1.9 billion to address the public health threat that is posed by the Zika virus. Instead of taking the swift action that was needed to confront this crisis, the House delayed and delayed and delayed as the Zika crisis continued to spread. We should have sent a bill to President Obama's desk months ago, but, instead, this leadership allowed months to go by without there being any action on this issue until last week, when they brought to the floor a completely inadequate $622 million package that provides only one-third of the funds that have been requested by the administration. House Democrats, under the leadership of Leader Pelosi and Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Lowey, have tried to bring to the floor meaningful emergency funding to address Zika, only to be blocked by House Republicans five times. While the administration has taken significant steps to help keep Americans safe from the Zika virus, significant additional appropriations are needed. In a letter to Speaker Ryan, OMB Director Shaun Donovan and National Security Advisor Susan Rice said, without emergency supplemental funding, mosquito control and surveillance may need to be suspended. State and local governments that manage mosquito control may not be able to hire personnel for mosquito mitigation efforts, and vaccine developments, which require multiyear funding commitments, may be jeopardized. To make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans sent to the floor last week and again this week a bill to undermine the Clean Water Act and protections for our waterways under the guise of helping to contain the Zika virus. But the truth of the matter is that the legislation is nothing more than a carve-out for pesticide special interests and it would have absolutely no effect on spraying pesticides to combat the spread of the Zika virus. It is a bill my friends have brought to the floor in the past, but they just couldn't help themselves in using this crisis as an excuse to further undermine environmental protections. Instead of working with Democrats to address this public health emergency in a serious bipartisan way that puts the health and safety of the American people first, the Republican leadership has once again brought to the floor partisan legislation that will not adequately meet the needs of the CDC, of the NIH, of the USAID, and of other governmental agencies that are on the front lines in responding to this crisis. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I have great respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma. When he says that he intends to support every effort to make sure that adequate funding is available, if I thought this whole decision were up to him alone, I don't think I would be as nervous as I am at this particular point, but his party that is in control has shut this government down. We have seen them lurch from one crisis to another crisis and underfund one priority after another priority. Quite frankly, I don't trust the people who are running this House to do the right thing, to be able to get a majority of their majority to go along with providing the appropriate funding. Yes, we all want to be fiscally responsible, but let me tell you this: if all you are worried about is the bottom line--and that is the cost--by not adequately funding what is needed to combat this crisis, the costs that will result if this crisis gets out of control will be prohibitive. You ain't seen nothing yet. So we can nickel-and-dime this all we want, but we do so at our own peril. We ought to be concerned primarily with the safety and well- being of the citizens of this country. But if that is not enough to prompt my friends on the other side of the aisle to support the President's request, I would suggest that the cost of ignoring this problem of not adequately funding an appropriate response will be a cost like you have never seen before. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and to bring up strong bipartisan legislation that will fully fund the administration's request. This is a public health emergency, and we must act now. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Thomas Frieden, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, just recently said in response to the way this House has handled funding for the Zika crisis: ``This is no way to fight an epidemic. Three months is an eternity for control of an outbreak. There is a narrow window of opportunity here and it's closing. Every day that passes makes it harder to stop Zika.'' So whether it is Dr. Frieden, or Dr. Fauci, or any of our Nation's leading scientists or medical experts who all say that what is going on here today is grossly inadequate, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to think that they know more than our scientists and medical experts; at least they have convinced themselves that they know more. Well, they haven't convinced me and they haven't convinced the majority of the American people who are watching this in disbelief. This is an emergency. This is a crisis. Why aren't we acting more aggressively? I include in the Congressional Record a letter to Congress from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and our National Security Adviser, in which they talk about the importance of multi-year funding, long-term funding because they have multiyear commitments that they need to make to the private sector in order to prioritize Zika, in order to develop vaccines and other prevention to protect the American people. The White House, Washington, DC, April 26, 2016. Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan: As you are aware, on February 22, the Administration transmitted to Congress its formal request for $1.9 billion in emergency supplemental funding to address the public health threat posed by the Zika virus. Sixty-four days have passed since this initial request; yet still Congress has not acted. Since the time the Administration transmitted its request, the public health threat posed by the Zika virus has increased. After careful review of existing evidence, scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that the Zika virus is a cause of microcephaly and other severe fetal brain defects. The Zika virus has spread in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and abroad. As of April 20, there were 891 confirmed Zika cases in the continental United States and U.S. territories, including 81 pregnant women with confirmed cases of Zika. Based on similar experiences with other diseases transmitted by the Aedes aegypti mosquito--believed to be the primary carrier of the Zika virus--scientists at the CDC expect there could be local transmission within the continental U.S. in the summer months. Updated estimate range maps show that these mosquitoes have been found in cities as far north as San Francisco, Kansas City and New York City. In the absence of action from Congress to address the Zika virus, the Administration has taken concrete and aggressive steps to help keep America safe from this growing public health threat. The Administration is working closely with State and local governments to prepare for outbreaks in the continental United States and to respond to the current outbreak in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories. We are expanding mosquito control surveillance and laboratory capacity; developing improved diagnostics as well as vaccines; supporting affected expectant mothers, and supporting other Zika response efforts in Puerto Rico, the U.S. territories, the continental United States, and abroad. These efforts are crucial, but they are costly and they fall well outside of current agency appropriations. To meet these immediate needs, the Administration conducted a careful examination of existing Ebola balances and identified $510 million to redirect towards Zika response activities. We have also redirected an additional $79 million from other activities. This reprogramming, while necessary, is not without cost. It is particularly painful at a time when state and local public health departments are already strained. While this immediate infusion of resources is necessary to enable the Administration to take critical first steps in our response to the public health threat posed by Zika, it is insufficient. Without significant additional appropriations this summer, the Nation's efforts to comprehensively respond to the disease will be severely undermined. In particular, the Administration may need to suspend crucial activities, such as mosquito control and surveillance in the absence of emergency supplemental funding. State and local governments that manage mosquito control and response operations will not be able to hire needed responders to engage in mosquito mitigation efforts. Additionally, the Administration's ability to move to the next phase of vaccine development, which requites multi-year commitments from the Government to encourage the private sector to prioritize Zika research and development, could be jeopardized. Without emergency supplemental funding, the development of faster and more accurate diagnostic tests also will be impeded. The Administration may not be able to conduct follow up of children born to pregnant women with Zika to better understand the range of Zika impacts, particularly those health effects that are not evident at birth. The supplemental request is also needed to replenish the amounts that we are now spending from our Ebola accounts to fund Zika-related activities. This will ensure we have sufficient contingency funds to address unanticipated needs related to both Zika and Ebola. As we have seen with both Ebola and Zika, there are still many unknowns about the science and scale of the outbreak and how it will impact mothers, babies, and health systems domestically and abroad. The Administration is pleased to learn that there is bipartisan support for providing emergency funding to address the Zika crisis, but we remain concerned about the adequacy and speed of this response. To properly protect the American public, and in particular pregnant women and their newborns, Congress must fund the Administration's request of $1.9 billion and find a path forward to address this public health emergency immediately. The American people deserve action now. With the summer months fast approaching, we continue to believe that the Zika supplemental should not be considered as part of the regular appropriations process, as it relates to funding we must receive this year in order to most effectively prepare for and mitigate the impact of the virus. We urge you to pass free-standing emergency supplemental funding legislation at the level requested by the Administration before Congress leaves town for the Memorial Day recess. We look forward to working with you to protect the safety and health of all Americans. Sincerely, Shaun Donovan, Director, The Office of Management and Budget. Susan Rice, National Security Advisor.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I agree with him that there are a lot of issues that he has championed here. He used the words ``regular order.'' We have no allocations, no budget resolution. We know that many of the appropriations bills will never see the light of day on the House floor. There will be this mad rush after the election to put together some big omnibus package that most people will never be able to read. If that is regular order, we have a very strong difference of opinion of what regular is all about. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter that was sent to the House leadership signed by close to 70 health organizations--every major health organization in the country--calling for new funding rather than repurposing money from other high-priority programs to combat Zika, also supporting the President's request. It talks about how we have a brief window of opportunity to slow the spread of the Zika virus and avert a wave of preventable birth defects and urging Congress to act certainly in a much more aggressive way than what we are doing here today. April 5, 2016. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Hon. Hal Rogers, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Frank Pallone, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Officer Ronald Tarentino, a member of the Auburn Police Department in Massachusetts, who was tragically shot and killed in the line of duty this past weekend. Officer Tarentino exemplified the courage and dedication that defines our incredible men and women in blue. His neighbors and friends described him as a ``gentle giant,'' a ``great guy,'' and ``always willing to help.'' He always kept an eye out for the 91-year-old widow living across the street. Remembering Officer Tarentino this week, Auburn Police Chief Andrew J. Sluckis said: ``He got along with everybody. He was somebody who was always smiling. He was an outstanding guy, and we're going to miss him.'' Mr. Speaker, that is how he will be remembered. In the days since this tragedy, it has been truly inspiring to see the Auburn, Leicester, and surrounding communities come together to support Officer Tarentino's wife and three children. My heart goes out to them, and I know I am not alone in saying that Officer Tarentino will never be forgotten.

Mr. McGOVERN

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