Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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 thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for the customary 30 minutes. I rise to speak on the rule for consideration of H.R. 5046, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act, and H.R. 4641, a bill to provide for the establishment of an interagency task force to review, modify, and update best practices for pain management and prescribing pain medication, and for other purposes. By the end of this week, the House will have taken up a total of 17 bipartisan opiate-related bills, each a critical measure to help us tackle the opioid crisis in a variety of ways as we work to end this scourge hurting so many communities across our country and costing the lives of so many all across this country. I am pleased that the House will be considering this critical bipartisan legislation this week. But in all honesty, I am also very concerned that Republicans are not proposing the new funding that is necessary to meaningfully address the opioid crisis. So, in addition to passing the bipartisan legislation on the floor this week, which authorizes a new grant program, we must also provide real, new resources in the form of appropriations to ensure that the initiatives in this legislation can be fully implemented. If we don't do that, all the speeches that we will give this week will amount to empty rhetoric. We need to make sure we fund these priorities. This is an emergency. Opiate addiction is inflicting a savage daily toll in neighborhoods across America. According to the CDC, 78 Americans die from an opiate overdose every day, and many of them are young people. In 2013, the number of heroin users was 681,000, an increase of more than 250,000 users since 2002. This crisis is affecting every region across the country and every demographic group. I have long said that Congress must provide the meaningful resources that are needed to make a difference and save lives. Today I am pleased that we are coming together and taking action to attempt to do just that. These are important first steps. In New England, we know all too well the terrible toll of the opiate epidemic. Having seen the damage it has done to the communities that I represent in central and western Massachusetts, tackling the opiate epidemic has long been a top priority for me. Across Massachusetts, the number of opiate overdose deaths climbed by nearly 10 percent, up from 1,228 in 2014 to 1,379 in 2015. Once all cases are finalized by the medical officials in Massachusetts, it is estimated that there will be an additional 63 to 85 deaths for 2014 and 118 to 179 deaths in 2015. In Worcester County alone, home to the second largest city in New England, opiate-related deaths jumped from 163 in 2014 to 177 in 2015. Looking back at the last 16 years, we can see an even bigger increase. In 2000, there were 59 opiate-related overdose deaths in Worcester County, a small fraction of the 1,289 deaths in 2015. Most of last year's victims were between the ages of 25 and 44, in the prime of their lives with so much to live for. Many left behind families heartbroken and devastated by these senseless deaths. These families included husbands, wives, children, and so many more who loved them and desperately wanted them to get the help that they needed and to be able to live. The opiate epidemic is even harder to cope with for those who have seen young people lose their lives to addiction. In Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, one high school principal said that, in the 11 years he has been principal, he has known of 33 students who have been active heroin addicts and 7 of them died. And in a recent forum, he learned that there had been even more that he had not known about. Part of the problem is the stigma associated with heroin use. I think a lot of us think we know what heroin use and addiction looks like, but the reality is it can take hold of anyone, including our neighbors, our friends, and even our own family members. However, instead of giving in to despair, communities in Massachusetts and across the country are responding to the opiate epidemic with strength and with courage. They are helping to lead grassroots State and national coalitions to raise awareness and educate people about the crisis and provide resources to help those ensnared by the addiction. The Central Massachusetts Opiate Task Force, chaired by Worcester County District Attorney Joe Early, is a great example of this. They are working to bring greater awareness of the problem to residents. Members of the task force attend many of the coalition forums and also go into schools to talk to students directly. The opiate task force serving Franklin County and the North Quabbin Region in Massachusetts is another example. It is co-chaired by John Merrigan, Franklin County Register of Probate; Chris Donelan, the Franklin County Sheriff; and David Sullivan, the Northwestern District Attorney. I am so thankful for these and other task forces and coalitions in Massachusetts and across the country for coming together quickly to address this public health crisis and for their tenacity in fighting for individuals and families struggling with addiction. Just this week I had the opportunity to join community leaders at North Brookfield High School in central Massachusetts for an event with Chris Herren, a former constituent of mine from Fall River and a former Boston Celtics player who now travels in New England and across the country to speak about his own recovery from addiction and the need for young people to stay drug free. I am also grateful to my fellow members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation for being strong partners in this fight. Joe Kennedy is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and has been a leader on this issue. He is the lead Democratic sponsor of H.R. 4641. A number of amendments sponsored by Massachusetts Members were made in order last night, including several from Katherine Clark, as well as amendments from Seth Moulton, Bill Keating, and Stephen Lynch. I also want to commend the leadership of the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster). She has been out front on this issue for a long, long time, and we appreciate her leadership. The simple truth is that we are not going to arrest our way out of this problem. Prevention and treatment must be at the heart of our approach to tackling this epidemic. As part of the comprehensive approach called for, we must equip our young people with the skills necessary to identify constructive ways to deal with problems so that turning to drugs is never an option. We must make every effort to ensure that treatment is available to those who seek it because it takes courage and strength to admit that you need help. I am pleased that this legislation that we are considering this week would do just that. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the legislation this rule makes in order, H.R. 5046. The Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act would establish the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program. With $103 million provided annually over 5 years, this program would help provide vital assistance to States and local agencies to fund treatment alternatives to incarceration, opioid abuse prevention, training, and education. The program's grants could be used to train first responders in carrying and administering opioid overdose reversal drugs, support prescription drug monitoring programs, strengthen collaborations between criminal justice agencies and substance abuse systems, or for programs targeted toward juvenile opioid abuse programs. This legislation, I think, is a commonsense, bipartisan step that goes a long way toward providing the critical help that Americans across this country need to combat our opioid epidemic. I also support H.R. 4641, a bill that would provide for the establishment of an interagency task force to review, modify, and update best practices for pain management and prescribing pain medication, and for other purposes. Creating this task force is another key step to help strengthen our national response to the opioid crisis and increase interagency collaboration as we marshal all our resources in this fight. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked very hard to bring this additional bipartisan legislation to the floor this week so we could begin to tackle this opioid crisis. These bills take important steps to cut the risk of opioid addiction among veterans managing chronic pain, take on international drug traffickers, improve the treatment and care of babies who are born addicted to opioids, help reduce opioid use among young people, and strengthen access to opioid overdose reversal medication. There are many issues that Democrats and Republicans do not see eye to eye on, but I am pleased that both parties seem to be coming together, at least on this first step, to tackle the opioid crisis. For families and communities across the country who have already lost so much and so many to this epidemic, there has never been a more important time for us to take action. I want to thank the leaders of both parties for helping to bring these bipartisan bills to the House floor. I do believe that we can end the opioid crisis once and for all. But again, in conclusion--and I have to stress this--we need to provide the funding to our communities that are struggling to deal with this opioid and heroin crisis. This is an emergency. That is how you have to classify this and look at it. This is an emergency. People are dying. Without providing the additional resources needed, we will not be part of the solution. The ideas that we have compiled today that will be debated this week are all good ideas, but they won't be real ideas unless they are funded. I worry that this Congress might not be up to the challenge. We have emergencies in Flint, Michigan, with the water crisis, and we have not done what we need to do to provide emergency funding to that community. We have a growing emergency with the Zika virus, and we can't get an emergency appropriations bill to the floor here today. I think that we need to understand that this crisis has risen to the level of an emergency. We need to do what is right. We need to not only pass these bills, but we need to commit in a bipartisan way that we are going to provide the necessary funding. I hope we can do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I think that every Member of this House should support the underlying legislation. There will be some good amendments offered. Unfortunately, there were a lot of good amendments that were not made in order by the Committee on Rules last night. There will be some suspensions that will come to the floor that I think deserve our support. And I am anxious to go to conference with the Senate, anxious to put a bill on the President's desk. I don't want to spoil this bipartisan moment, but none of this means anything if we don't fund it. These aren't appropriations bills that we are dealing with. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, well, we will deal with that in the appropriations process. Well, because of the dysfunction of this place, we are not going to deal with the appropriations bills in any real way until after the election. I don't think we can wait. I think we need an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to deal right now with this crisis that has already claimed so many lives. Let's all come together and pass these authorizing bills, but we need to do more than that. The President has requested $1.1 billion, I think, to try to help provide resources to communities to deal with this crisis. We haven't funded that. So bills that set up grant programs that we all support, initiatives that we all think are important, that is good; but if the money is not there to actually fund these and implement these programs, then we are not doing our job. I would just argue that we have waited too long. It is an emergency. We ought to do this, and we ought to have an emergency supplemental appropriations bill on the floor immediately and get relief to our communities today. Mr. Speaker, I support all these measures that the House will consider this week; however, as I said, they can't be the final word. We have to approve additional funding to develop a comprehensive response to this epidemic, which is an emergency. I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that provides $600 million in funding to address the opioid epidemic. 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 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), a leader on this issue, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that this is a crisis and that we need to come up with solutions and we need to do something rather than just talk about it. I support--and I think I speak for the Democrats--and we all support the bipartisan legislation that is being brought to the floor, not only the bills that are going to be considered under this rule, but many of the suspension bills that will be brought to the floor this week. I expect that they will be passed nearly unanimously. But I think what I do have a problem with is the fact that we have funded none of these things. I have a problem with the fact that some are content to wait until the appropriations process kind of works its way through this House, which, as we all know, is not going to be probably until December. We have already been informed that we will probably deal with an omnibus package sometime after the election. Because there is infighting within the Republican ranks here in the House in trying to come to an agreement before the election, it is just too difficult. I regret that very, very much because I don't think that we can wait until December before we actually fund some of these priorities that are in this bill. The reason why I hope my colleagues will support the Democratic substitute is because it actually funds. It is an appropriation. It funds these priorities. It puts our money where our rhetoric is. It makes the money available now, and we know it is there and communities will know that they can depend on it. So I think we really want to be effective in our battle against this scourge of opioids and heroin addiction that has touched every district in this country. We have all been to too many funerals. We have all seen the heartbreak up close and personal. But if we want to do something about it, we have to not only come up with the ideas, we have to fund these ideas. That is why I am urging that Members vote ``no'' on the previous question. It is so that we can bring a funding component to this. Let's not wait until December. This is an emergency. We should have had an emergency supplemental bill. That is not coming. So this is a chance to put some money behind these priorities and actually fund all these great ideas that we all, in a bipartisan way, say we support. I urge my colleagues to support all the underlying bills, but to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring this appropriations bill up to actually fund them. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to also vote ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the accomplishments of a remarkable community leader and environmental advocate from my district, Margaret ``Peggy'' Middaugh. Peggy Middaugh's service in Worcester began when she joined the Regional Environmental Council as Executive Director in 1997. Serving in that role for 11 years, Peggy helped to transform REC from a small, volunteer-led organization into one of the region's leading environmental groups. One of Peggy's signature accomplishments with the REC was creating the Youth Environmental Service Corps. that connected urban youth with nature by providing opportunities for them to hike and maintain Worcester's trails. This program eventually merged with urban gardens to create YouthGROW, an urban agriculture-focused youth development and employment program for low-income teens. YouthGROW currently employs low-income high school teens year-round, giving them the opportunity to gain leadership and jobs skills as they maintain two urban organic farms. Hundreds of youth have graduated from YouthGROW since its inception in 2002. Under her leadership, the REC built on its foundation of good work and expanded its focus into areas of environmental justice, urban agriculture, toxic use reduction, community gardens and youth development and leadership. Peggy also built partnerships with state and local officials to implement a Toxic Use Reduction program that focused on educating residents in low income neighborhoods about how to reduce their exposure to household toxics, especially household cleaners and lead. The REC also developed Worcester's first Climate Action Plan under Peggy's leadership. Peggy has served in a wide range of roles over the years, and the truth is, no matter where she is, Peggy is making a difference. She helped form the Friends of the Five Mile River, established recycling centers in Stow and North Brookfield, and as the outreach coordinator for the Massachusetts Watershed Coalition and a Conservation Commissioner for the Town of North Brookfield; she worked hard to help pass the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act of 1996. Peggy has also worked diligently to bring together leaders from different parts of the community to address issues of hunger and food justice. She played a leading role in establishing ``UGROW''--a grassroots, citywide community garden network. Today, Worcester has sixty two community gardens, eighteen of which are at city schools, as well as half a dozen urban orchards. In response to the infestation of the invasive Asian Longhorn Beetle in Central Massachusetts, which led to the destruction of large portions of our urban forest, Peggy founded the Worcester Tree Initiative and acted as its Executive Director until her recent retirement. Under her leadership, the Worcester Tree Initiative brought together government, community and business leaders to develop and implement a plan that resulted in the planting of more than 30,000 trees in Worcester and the surrounding communities. In addition to her work with the Regional Environmental Council and the Worcester Tree Initiative, Peggy has also been active in many community organizations and efforts through her roles as a founding member of the Blackstone Headwaters Coalition; on the Board of Directors of the Family Health Center of Worcester and the Main South Community Development Corporation; as a leader with the Castle Park Task Force; and as a volunteer for the homeless with the Interfaith Hospitality Network. Peggy has made everything that she has touched better. She is a shining example of what a truly dedicated public servant can achieve. And although Peggy is moving on to new challenges, just like the urban orchards she helped to establish, her contributions to my district will continue to grow and bear fruit for years to come.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The Finca Vigia Foundation, based in Massachusetts, and the extraordinary model it provides of what Americans and Cubans working together can accomplish. Over the past 13 years, this special collaboration has restored and protected the home, documents, and related materials of Ernest Hemingway's home in Cuba, the Finca Vigia, located 12 miles outside of Havana, in the village of San Francisco de Paula. Like so many stories on Capitol Hill, this one began when a visitor from Massachusetts walked into my office. Jenny Phillips had an interesting story to tell because her grandfather was Ernest Hemingway's editor and long-time friend, Maxwell Perkins. She and her husband, Frank, had traveled to Cuba earlier that year to visit the Finca Vigia, which the Cubans had lovingly cared for and operated as a museum since Hemingway's death. We are grateful to those Cubans because there would be no Hemingway House without their decades of devotion to his memory and his legacy. In addition to touring the house and grounds, Jenny and Frank also saw thousands of Hemingway documents and photographs that were in boxes and containers in the basement, most unknown to writers and researchers. They recognized the priceless value of these papers to Hemingway scholars worldwide, but they also knew that the political divide between the United States and Cuba made their preservation and accessibility a problem. Listening to her describe what was at stake, we took the first steps that would result in a wonderful binational process to save Hemingway's documents; preserve the architecture and physical structure of his home; restore his famous boat, the Pilar; and conserve and protect the contents of his home, including original furniture, clothing, a 9,000- volume library, original galley proofs and manuscripts, and over 4,000 photographs. Time and tropical climates are not kind to these delicate materials. Partnering with the Social Science Research Council here in the United States, the Cuban Ministry of Culture, and the Cuban National Cultural Heritage Council, the CNPC, a plan of action was outlined to carry out a joint preservation project in Cuba and to conserve digitized and microfilm copies of all documents located in Hemingway's home to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum and to the Cuban National Cultural Heritage Council. In 2002, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Eric Hershberg with the Social Science Research Council; Dr. Marta Arjona Perez of the CNPC; and witnessed by Frank and Jenny Phillips; Sandra Spanier with Pennsylvania State University and general editor of the Hemingway Letters Project; Sean, Angela, and Hilary Hemingway, who are the grandson, daughter-in-law, and niece of Ernest Hemingway; President Fidel Castro; and myself. Dozens of Cubans and Americans attended the signing, including my wife, Lisa. Since then, scores of Cubans and Americans have worked together to make the dream of preserving this priceless legacy of Ernest Hemingway a reality. This includes officials at the State Department, at the Commerce Department, and at the Department of the Treasury in both the Bush and Obama administrations who recognized the importance to America and the world in saving Hemingway's cultural history in Cuba and helped the project navigate the complicated requirements of U.S. regulations and license applications. I would especially like to note and thank the many Cuban cultural officials and preservation, architectural, museum, and technical experts who made this dream come true. And I apologize if I leave anyone out. I would like to begin with Cuban President Fidel Castro, whose unconditional support was essential to moving this project forward, as well as Josefina Vidal during her service at the Cuban Interests Section here in Washington and later, following her return to Havana. I want to highlight the role of then-Minister of Culture, the iconic Abel Prieto, who was such an enthusiastic and encouraging voice when we first began reaching out to Cuban officials in 2002, as well as his successors, Rafael Bernal and the current Minister of Culture, Julian Gonzalez Toledo. Central to the success of the restoration and preservation of Hemingway's house, grounds, and its contents are: Marta Arjona Perez, now deceased, who was the visionary voice on the project when she was president of the Cuban National Cultural Heritage Council, the CNPC; Gladys Collazo Usallan, who is the current president of the CNPC, as well as her predecessors Manuel Palacios Soto and Margarita Ruiz Brandi; Nestor Garciaga, vice president of the CNPC and chief conservator of the Hemingway papers; Gladys Rodriguez Ferrero, long associated with the Hemingway collection and buildings and the former director of The Finca Vigia Museum, has been one of the most influential voices and actors in the preservation and restoration projects; Ada Rosa Alfonso, the current director of The Finca Vigia Museum, and Isabel Ferrero, the current deputy director of the museum; Architect Enrique Hernandez Castillo; Structural engineer Livan Yanes Diaz; Historic preservation architects Fernando Sanchez Rodriguez and Marco Antonio Vidal Garcia; Conservators Elisa Serrano Gonzalez, Liabys Alfonso Perez, Rosalba Diaz Quintana, and Roberto Abaen Siglen; Arborist Rafael Ibanez San Miguel and Manuel Valle Lopez from the Institute of Forestry Research. Their leadership, participation, expertise, vision, and generosity have been the essential heart of this successful collaboration. I know I speak for many Americans when I say that we share their pride and joy in having participated day by day in the restoration and preservation of Hemingway's legacy in Cuba. I count each of them as a valued colleague and as a friend, and I feel honored to have had the privilege, even in a small way, of having worked with them on this historic project. Initially known as the Hemingway Preservation Foundation, the nonprofit Finca Vigia Foundation has been the critical coordinating agent of U.S. professionals and technical experts who have contributed their expertise, skills, time, and passion to this major preservation undertaking. Since 2004, the Foundation has harnessed the talents, skill, and collaboration of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Social Science Research Council, Mystic Seaport, and the Northeast Document Conservation Center to create teams of engineers and architects, of preservationists and document conservators, and of botanists, builders, and photographers to: Architecturally restore and preserve Hemingway's home to its 1950s splendor; Restore Hemingway's famous yacht, the Pilar; Conserve and digitize more than 10,000 documents, 4,000 photographs, and 5 rare Hemingway scrapbooks; Preserve these original documents in Cuba and bring digital images to the United States to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston; Design, in a joint U.S.-Cuban collaboration, an onsite archival storage facility with wet and dry conservation laboratories. There are so many individuals, U.S. companies, and foundations that have made the restoration of Hemingway's house a personal passion. They have dedicated time and talent, materials, and funding to this initiative for over a decade. I would just like to mention a few: First are the foundations whose early contributions allowed this project and The Finca Vigia Foundation to get its feet on the ground, explore with its Cuban partners how to bring this dream to fruition, and put the first cornerstones in place. They are the Ford Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, The Christopher Reynolds Foundation, the Stewart Mott Charitable Trust, and the Rockefeller Foundation. Next, I would like to recognize the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has recognized The Finca Vigia Foundation in Cuba as a U.S. Historic Preservation site--the only such site outside of the United States--and whose experience and technical expertise in preservation and cultural conservation have been invaluable. I would especially like to note the contributions of Richard Moe, the former President of the National Trust, and Paul Edmondson, the current general counsel with the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Several foundations and U.S. companies have been involved directly in the preservation projects or in providing financial support for this work. The lead sponsor for document conservation has been the EMC Corporation, headquartered in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, and especially Bill Teuber, Chris Goode, and Joel Schwartz from the company. EMC also reached out to Intel and Emulex, which also provided financial support to the project. The lead sponsors for the construction of archival storage and conservation laboratories are the Caterpillar Foundation and Caterpillar, Inc., along with the AT&T Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and American Express. U.S. professionals who have been critical contributors and participants in the technical, document conservation, construction, and architectural teams are William Dupont, the former chief architect with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and currently a professor at the University of Texas, San Antonio; architect planners Leland Cott and Henry Moss with Bruner/Cott & Associates; structural engineer Michael Henry with Watson & Henry Associates; structural engineer Robert Silman with Robert Silman Associates; landscape architects Patricia O'Donnell with Heritage Landscapes; preservation architect Mary DeNadai with John Milner Architects; and Ronald Staley, a construction specialist from Christman Company in Lansing, Michigan. Also very much involved are collections conservationist Wendy Claire Jessup and wooden boat curator Dana Hewson with Mystic Seaport. In the first years of this project, attorney Thomas D. Herman provided invaluable pro bono advice, and attorney Michael Gurdak and his team from Jones Day have provided essential services throughout the project. Special recognition must also be paid to the tireless work and engagement of Mary-Jo Adams and Robert Vila. Mary-Jo is the executive director of The Finca Vigia Foundation and is its very heart, soul, and beating blood. Without her efforts, this project would not have been possible. Bob Vila is a builder, a well-known TV host especially of the PBS program ``This Old House,'' and is a recognized building consultant. Bob has been involved on the ground in Cuba with overseeing every phase of the restoration of Hemingway's house and grounds. Along with Jenny Phillips, he is the co-chair of The Finca Vigia Foundation, but more than anything, we know that, when Bob is on site in Cuba, all is right with the world and, if it isn't, he will make sure that it is. Finally, I would like to recognize the work of Michael Mershon, who recently left my staff and who worked with me for over a decade on the Hemingway project. Right now U.S. and Cuban technical teams are constructing a facility on the grounds to carry out on-site archival storage with wet and dry conservation laboratories. Known as the ``taller,'' which means ``workshop'' in Spanish, this facility will ensure the longevity of the Hemingway papers. It will be the first building constructed in Cuba using U.S. materials and ingenuity since the 1950s. The Cuban Ministry of Culture views this project as a possible prototype to be replicated across the country in the preservation of cultural heritage. The construction of this critical facility is possible because of the new regulations announced by President Obama in December of 2014. With very little money and largely during a period of daunting obstacles created by a tense political climate, The Finca Vigia Foundation and its team of experts, in close collaboration with Cuban professionals and experts, have done a great service for the American people, the Cuban people, and, indeed, all of the people of the world. With passion and professional skill, they recognized that the life, memory, books, papers, and home of Ernest Hemingway are above politics and policies, which are fleeting, while art is eternal. They understand that the legacy of Ernest Hemingway is a shared heritage, belonging to both Cubans and Americans, and in one of the best models of what can happen when Americans and Cubans collaborate, they have made sure that it will never be lost. I am so very grateful to Jenny and Frank Phillips for walking into my office 13 years ago and sparking a remarkable and personal journey for me. It has offered me the rare privilege to meet and work with so many extraordinary Cubans and Americans and to participate in preserving our shared heritage around the life and artistic achievements of Ernest Hemingway. I cannot wait to see what the next chapter brings. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sophie Marie Edwards, an incredible young woman who has made ending hunger her personal passion. Realizing that some of her friends in elementary school didn't have enough to eat, Sophie founded Square Meal Project when she was only 8 years old. Since then, she has raised more than $6,000 for food banks and local feeding programs. Through her efforts, more than 1,000 kids have been able to receive a healthy summer lunch. She has also made it her mission to educate everyone she meets about the problem of hunger in America. Sophie's work in her hometown of Marietta, Georgia, led her to be recognized as a youth advocate for the national No Kid Hungry campaign. I am inspired by Sophie's commitment, by her compassion, and by her drive to end hunger. Sophie teaches us all that you are never too young to make a difference. I have no doubt that Sophie will continue to do great things to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. We are doing something, but I think what people who are dealing with this crisis would feel better about is if there was a certainty that the resources were going to be there. Those who are fighting the Ebola crisis are concerned that, if you are going to take money from Ebola to put into Zika, that maybe you are not going to replenish the monies to deal with Ebola. We have some serious public health issues that we are trying to deal with. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If I do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would provide desperately needed funding to combat the Zika virus. The administration requested this funding more than 2 months ago, and it is reckless to delay our response to this public health crisis any longer. Yes, we are doing things to respond to it. We can be doing a lot more. I think the American people want us to do all that we possibly can to protect the public health of the citizens of this country. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 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 thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for the customary 30 minutes. I rise in opposition to this structured rule, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 4498, the so-called Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act, otherwise known as the HALOS Act. I also oppose the underlying legislation unless through the amendment process we can improve it. The gentleman from Texas said something that I agree with: ``It is important for Congress to act.'' I think where we differ is: Act on what? What should Congress be acting on right now? Should we be talking about this? Or should we be talking about other things, quite frankly, that are much more important to this country and to the American people? Four days from now, Puerto Rico faces a $422 million debt payment. Given the items listed for consideration in the House this week, it appears as though the Republican majority has no plans to act on legislation to address the debt crisis in Puerto Rico. I understand that my Republican friends in the majority are having a difficult time in coming to an agreement within their Conference on how to move forward, but I urge my colleagues to continue working with Leader Pelosi and Ranking Member Grijalva toward a bipartisan solution that allows Puerto Rico to restructure its debt. This is a big deal. The Senate is waiting for us to act, the people of Puerto Rico are waiting for us to act, and our constituents are waiting for us to act. Rather than acting on that which is urgent, we are doing this. Another thing we might want to think about acting on and is an area in which the House Republican leadership has also failed to act is that of the public health emergency created by the Zika virus. This is a big deal. It is the public health. The well-being of our citizens is a big deal, or at least it should be, but you would never know it if you are following the proceedings on the House floor. My colleague from New York, Congresswoman Lowey, has an emergency supplemental bill to help to fund what is necessary to protect our people from this virus, but we are told that is on the back burner. What about doing something in response to the terrible tragedy that unfolded in Flint, Michigan, where that community was poisoned by the water that came out of their faucets? Why aren't we addressing that emergency? By the way, Flint is not unique, unfortunately. There are other places across this country where the levels of lead in the drinking water are unacceptably high, are dangerously high. We need to make sure that our infrastructure in this country is up to the point at which people don't have to worry about drinking the water that comes out of their faucets. We should be addressing that issue, but for some reason we don't have the time. There are lots of young people here who are visiting the Capitol this week. Why aren't we doing something about student financial aid so that people can afford to go to college, creating a situation by which young people who go to college are debt free when they get out of college, lowering the interest rates on college loans or eliminating the interest rates on college loans, thus making college more affordable? That is a huge priority. That is important, but we don't have time to talk about that here in the people's House. This Congress also continues to shirk its constitutional duty to vote on an authorization for the war against ISIS. In the past week, the Pentagon announced that the United States will send 250 more troops to Syria and 200 more to Iraq. In Iraq alone, the official number of U.S. troops is now over 4,000, but this House still can't seem to find time to debate and vote on an AUMF. I have great reservations about the President's policy with regard to these wars. I think we ought to debate those wars and I think we ought to go on record as voting to authorize those wars. Instead, we don't want to talk about it. We are putting the lives of young American men and women in harm's way. We are sending them halfway across the world to be engaged in an effort, in my opinion, in which there is not a clearly defined mission. We are not living up to our constitutional responsibility, which is we ought to debate and deliberate and vote on these wars. That is our constitutional responsibility, and we are not doing it. We don't have the time, or maybe we are just too cowardly to be able to tackle some of these important issues. The American people are tired of endless wars, and it is our responsibility to debate these escalations that continue to invest more American tax dollars, add more firepower, and put more U.S. troops closer to the front lines; but, again, this leadership isn't focused on these very serious situations that call for immediate action. Just so you know, we are not paying for most of these wars. While my friends like to talk about our debt, I would point out that most of these wars are unpaid for. They just go on the credit card. We don't even have the guts to have a vote on whether to pay for these wars. Instead, we are doing this today. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans missed the legally mandated deadline for Congress to enact a budget, and it appears as though we are not going to see a budget resolution on the floor this week or anytime soon. On the most pressing issues facing our country today, my friends in the Republican majority have failed--and they have failed miserably--to do their job, plain and simple. So what is the House debating today? What is so urgent to debate today that all of these other things can be put to the side? We are debating legislation, the so-called HALOS Act, that will undo an important investor protection that Democrats fought to include in the 2012 JOBS Act. I supported the JOBS Act, which expanded opportunities for small business capital formation. Since the JOBS Act became law in 2012, companies have raised roughly $71 billion of capital by using the new general solicitation and advertising exemption. But it is important to balance our desire for capital formation with their need to protect investors, particularly unsophisticated retail investors. The JOBS Act removed the ban on solicitation in advertising to the general public for private offerings, provided that companies verify the purchasers of their offerings are accredited investors. The legislation before us today repeals that verification requirement when companies solicit their offers at a wide range of sales events. The private securities marketplace is already under limited SEC oversight, and many of us share the concern that this legislation could unnecessarily expose investors to risks that they are unprepared to absorb. Now, my friend, Ranking Member Maxine Waters, will offer an amendment later today to restore some of the investor protections that would be eliminated by the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment. Mr. Speaker, the House is set to adjourn on Friday for yet another weeklong break and we have yet to consider any of the priority legislation that I had just spoken about earlier. We need to focus on important issues. We need to focus on urgent issues rather than taking away important investor protections. So I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to say to the gentleman from Texas that I appreciate the fact that he appreciates the concerns that I have raised, but I would appreciate him even more if we could bring some of the legislation to the floor that would actually solve some of the problems and deal with some of the challenges that I outlined. I had brought up earlier the issue of the Zika virus, which has infected 891 individuals in the U.S. States and territories, including at least 81 pregnant women. This is a big, big deal. Some of us are not interested in robbing from Peter to pay Paul to deal with this. We don't want to be dipping into the Ebola fund, which is still an issue, to deal with the Zika crisis. I mean, we have multiple challenges that we have to deal with.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I again urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so we can bring forward a bill that we believe can help adequately prepare this country to deal with the Zika virus, something that I think the majority of Americans support, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. This should not be a controversial issue. If it is, then people can vote against it if it comes to the floor, but what we do know is that what we have done up to this point in terms of our responsibility here in Congress in providing the funds has not been adequate. I read earlier from the letter from the White House all the things that could be on hold or not move forward if we don't adequately fund the necessary infrastructure to deal with this crisis. Mr. Speaker, I would also say that it seems to me that dealing effectively with the Zika crisis is a heck of a lot more important than what we are being asked to vote on and debate today. I have been saying this every time I come to the floor and handle a rule, but it seems that legislation that has minimum impact or that in some cases might even be trivial takes precedence over legislation that actually might do something to help lift up the lives of people in this country or, even in this case, protect the lives of people in this country. We ought to come together in a bipartisan way to make sure that at least priority items come to the floor of the House. This is supposed to be the people's House, and that is where the people's business is supposed to be done. We are not doing it. By not addressing the Zika crisis more forthrightly, we are not doing the people's business. So, again, vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. The letter basically says that the existing appropriations are not enough. This is what the letter says: ``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 requires multiyear commitments from the government to encourage the private sector to prioritize Zika research and development, could be jeopardized.'' I mean, I go right down the list on all the warnings here. This is a big deal. This is a big deal. If my friends on the other side are trying to rationalize putting this off, I would suggest to reread this letter. Reread this letter. Talk to the scientists. Talk to the experts. We need to have the necessary resources to be able to combat what might come our way in terms of the Zika virus. I want to do this so that we don't have a loss of life here in this country, so we are prepared. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do here is sound the alarm bells that we need to do something much more robust than is currently being done. I include in the Record the letter that we have referred to from the administration signed by Shaun Donovan, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser. This is a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan. 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 requires 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, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for organizing this today and for his leadership on child nutrition programs. I want to thank all my colleagues for being here. This is an important issue. There is no question about that. We are here because we are outraged. We are outraged at Republican attempts to undermine our child nutrition programs. We are outraged at their lousy child reauthorization bill. It is a terrible, terrible, terrible bill. My friends should be ashamed of this bill. Mr. Speaker, a nutritious school meal is just as important to a child's success in school as a textbook. Hungry children can't concentrate. They can't focus on their studies. In short, hungry children cannot learn. That is a fact. Everybody knows that. Yet we have a bill that my Republican friends have drafted that will increase hunger and that will actually take food out of the mouths of children. It is outrageous. Together, our child nutrition programs, WIC, school breakfast and lunch, the Summer Food Service Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program provide nutritional support for children year round in places where they live, learn, and play. Unfortunately, H.R. 5003, which is the Republican reauthorization bill, includes a number of harmful provisions that would roll back years of progress and hamper the ability of children to access healthy meals. As I said, to be very blunt, it makes hunger worse in this country. Specifically, the bill would undermine the successful Community Eligibility Provision, which some of my colleagues have talked about first, included in the last reauthorization bill that has allowed high- poverty school districts to offer universal school meals to all students. In its first 2 years, CEP helped more than 8.5 million low- income students access free meals. Instead of building on the success of this program, my Republican friends would severely restrict schools' eligibility for the community eligibility option. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 7,022 schools currently using community eligibility would lose it under this Republican bill, and another 11,647 schools that qualify for community eligibility but who have not yet adopted it would be prevented from doing so in the future. As we approach the summer months, it is also important to remember that child hunger gets worse in the summer. Consider this: for every six children who get a lunch in school each day, only one receives a meal in the summertime. Instead of being a carefree time for children who depend on getting healthy, reliable meals during the school year, the summer months can be a time of stress, anxiety, and hunger. But it doesn't have to be this way. Unfortunately, this Republican bill cuts the successful summer EBT pilot program which provides a temporary boost in food assistance benefits during the summer months for families whose children receive free school meals during the school year, and it fails to make necessary investments to expand the reach of summer food service programs so that more kids have access to healthy summer meals in their neighborhoods. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill rolls back, as my colleagues have mentioned, evidence-based standards that make school meals healthier. USDA estimates that more than 90 percent of schools have successfully-- have successfully--implemented these standards. My grandmother used to say to me when I was growing up that an apple a day keeps the doctor away. I wish she was still alive so I could tell her she was right. Food is medicine. When we eat good food, we eat nutritious food, we tend to have healthy lives. If you eat bad food, if you eat junk food, then you end up getting health issues like diabetes, like high blood pressure, and like obesity. I could go on and on and on. Why in the world would anybody want to lower the nutrition standards in our school meals to give our kids junkier, less nutritious food? What sense does that make? If my colleagues who are advocating these reversals of smart policy are doing so only because they want to save a few dollars, then let me tell you something: you are saving nothing. If we don't get this right, if we don't insist that our kids have access to nutritious, healthier food, the medical costs associated with the health challenges that they will experience are astronomical, as my colleague from Wisconsin mentioned earlier, hundreds of billions of dollars in avoidable healthcare costs as a result of children not having access to good food. Mr. Speaker, 15 million children face hunger in this country. Instead of undoing the success we have already achieved, Congress should be focused on ways we can strengthen these vital child nutrition programs. Mr. Speaker, let me say, finally, it is hard for me to understand why we have to be here today, why everything is a fight when it comes to dealing with issues of hunger and when it comes to dealing with issues and making sure our kids get access to good nutrition. It is always a fight. It is always a fight to protect so many vital food and nutrition programs that help our kids. There is either a shocking ignorance about the reality of the poverty that millions of our children face in this country or there is simply indifference. Those are the only two ways I can explain what is going on in this Chamber. Whichever one it is, it is a sad excuse for what my Republican friends are trying to do. Let's come together. This should be a bipartisan issue. There was a time when fighting hunger and when making sure that our kids had access to nutritious food was a bipartisan issue. George McGovern and Bob Dole worked together in the 1970s to strengthen our food and nutrition programs. But now in this Chamber these issues have become controversial. It is sad because there are a lot of people in this country who are depending on us to find ways to end hunger in America. They are depending on us to make sure that their kids, when they go to school, have access to nutritious food, and that they have access to nutritious food during the summer months as well. Why are my friends making it so difficult? Enough. Enough of this. Stop beating up on the most vulnerable people in this country. Let's come together. Let's reject this awful draft of the Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill. Let's come together and do this right. It is the least we can do.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on April 1, thousands of poor Americans started losing their SNAP, or food stamp, benefits. All told, over the course of this year, as many as 1 million adults will be cut off from SNAP. That is because one of the harshest provisions in the 1996 welfare reform law says that adults working less than 20 hours a week or not enrolled in a job training program can only receive 3 months of SNAP in a 36-month period. The problem is, however, that many areas of the country haven't fully recovered from the recession. There are no open jobs, and worker training slots are all full. The economic recovery has been uneven across the country, and for many individuals--through no fault of their own--getting back to work has been difficult. At the height of the recession, Governors across this country, both Democratic and Republican, asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to allow them to temporarily waive work requirements and provide SNAP benefits to unemployed, childless adults for longer periods of time. But now some Governors are refusing to extend those work waivers even in areas of their States with high unemployment. For 1 million of the poorest Americans, to lose food assistance in the midst of this is unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the poorest of the poor. These are childless adults whose income averages 29 percent of the poverty line, or about $3,400 a year, a year. No one can live on that. Many face multiple barriers to employment, including disability, limited education, and chronic homelessness. Their employment can be sporadic, often cycling in and out of low-wage jobs with unpredictable hours that do not lift them out of poverty. What is most appalling is that about 60,000 of those who will be cut off from SNAP this year are veterans. That is right. These are the brave men and women who stood up to protect our country, and now we don't have the decency to help them put food on the table when they come home. We should be ashamed. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear about something. The 3-month limit on childless adults receiving SNAP is not a work requirement, despite what some of my Republican colleagues say. It is a time limit. There is no requirement that States offer work or job training to those who are about to lose their benefit. There is nothing here that incentivizes work. Rather, it penalizes those who are struggling the most. Work requirements and other Federal assistance programs typically require people to look for work or accept any job or job training slot that is offered, but do not cut people off who are willing to work and are looking for a job simply because they cannot find one. But that is not the case with SNAP. So individuals who have been searching for a job for months, who have applied to every job posting they have seen, and who can't get into a job training program because the wait list is too long are punished. Study after study shows that the longer someone is unemployed, the harder it is to get hired. It is baffling to me that the Republicans' answer to them is: Sorry. You are out of luck. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that it takes someone who is unemployed about 6 months of looking to find a job. That is twice as long as the 3-month time limit. For the life of me, I can't understand how making someone hungrier helps them find a job faster. We should be making people's lives better, not harder. This notion that some on the Republican side peddle that somehow SNAP is this overly generous program that people are just jumping to get into, it is ridiculous. It is false. The average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per meal per day. That is meager. It is inadequate. And this idea that SNAP is the root of our budget problems is outrageous. New data released from the Department of Treasury just last week shows that SNAP spending is falling. In the first half of the current fiscal year, SNAP spending was at its lowest level since 2010. Not only that, but SNAP caseloads are falling, too. That is due to the improving economy. SNAP operated like it was supposed to during the recession. It was expanded to meet the needs of the millions who lost their jobs, of middle class families who never imagined they would need food assistance in the first place. And now, as our economy improves, fewer people need the assistance. But we are not there yet. Cutting 1 million of the poorest Americans off from food assistance is wrong. Increasing hunger is wrong. And I would say to the Republican leadership of this House, the narrative that you have put forward about those in poverty does not reflect the reality. Rather than demonize the poor and diminish their struggle, we ought to come together to help, not hurt, people. We ought to end hunger now. This war on the poor has to stop.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and 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.)