Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. 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 rise in strong opposition to this rule and in strong opposition to the underlying legislation. In short, this is a lousy bill. At the end of last year, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass four major pieces of legislation that were sent to President Obama's desk and enacted into law. We passed a bipartisan budget agreement, a multiyear tax package, a highway bill, and legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that had all been stalled for years. That is how Congress is supposed to work, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, I thought at the end of last year that maybe these successes would be contagious and that it would become the norm to actually work together in a bipartisan way and to pass meaningful legislation that would actually become law. But this Republican leadership, I am sad to say, has returned from the holiday break with more of the same tired ideas and partisan legislation that is going nowhere. We are wasting time with this legislation today, which is going nowhere. We are wasting taxpayer dollars spending our time dealing with legislation that is going nowhere. Instead of considering legislation to create jobs, boost our economy, or lift struggling Americans out of poverty, this Republican leadership is once again bringing to the floor a completely unnecessary bill that puts the interests of large corporations ahead of the rights of the American people to pursue justice through our court system. It is not even the first time this week Republicans have played politics with our judicial system. Just yesterday Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed that Senate Republicans will not hold hearings or any votes on any nominee by President Obama to fill the current vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving a vacancy on our highest court for at least a year or more. Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't understand why my Republican friends have spent so much time during the last 7 years doing everything they can to try to obstruct this President's agenda and every idea that this President has had. The contempt that Republicans have demonstrated for this President from day one, when the Senate majority leader made clear that they wanted to make President Obama a one-term President and that the Republicans were going to do everything they could to stop every piece of legislation that he proposed because they wanted him to have no success stories, I think illustrates why this place has become the Congress of dysfunction. We need to do better. We need to understand that, in Washington, D.C., our job is to try to get things done, not simply put roadblocks in the way. Interfering with our judicial system to score political points sets a dangerous precedent, and the underlying bill that we are set to consider later today is just one more attempt to unbalance the scales of justice. H.R. 3624, the so-called Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act, works to create a wild west environment for big corporations by making it harder for ordinary citizens to hold them accountable for their actions. It is simply another Republican handout to big business. H.R. 3624 is an attempt to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The issue of determining if a local party has improperly joined a case is already dealt with in our judicial system. There is no real evidence that the current system is failing to address any fraudulent joinders. This bill creates redtape and bureaucracy, something I am constantly hearing my Republican friends complain about, all to make our courts friendlier to big business. H.R. 3624 looks to move judicial cases that are supposed to be handled in State courts up to the Federal system, where trials take longer and are more expensive. This makes it significantly harder for an individual who has been injured by a corporation to take them to court and to be able to receive the compensation that they may be entitled to, that they deserve. The costs are even higher for those seeking justice when you consider that this change would force many individuals to travel long distances. This is unjust and unfair. Maybe it pleases a certain group of contributors, but it is certainly not in the interests of the average American citizen. Clogging up our Federal court system with unnecessary cases that should be handled in State courts is simply not in the best interest of the American people. Congress should not be taking away the power of the courts to determine where a case should be heard. Mr. Speaker, Americans would be outraged to learn that we are even considering a bill that would tilt the scales even more in the direction of big corporations. This is the people's House. We are supposed to be on the side of the people, not on the side of big corporations. So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, to reject this underlying bill, and to get on the side of the American people. If we want to do something constructive, maybe what we ought to do is pass a bill that allows the American people to sue the Congress for malpractice because that is what this is about. This really is malpractice, that we are wasting our time on a bill that essentially is a giveaway to big corporations and we are not doing the business that the people sent us here to do. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose a Republican bill that was introduced yesterday that would let States use drug testing to determine low-income Americans' eligibility to receive food assistance through SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This is nothing more than an attempt to demonize poor people and has no basis in reality. Similar laws in Florida and Georgia were struck down as unconstitutional and only waste thousands of taxpayer dollars to identify very few drug users. In fact, those receiving public assistance actually test positive at a lower rate than the general population. Why aren't my Republican colleagues calling for drug testing for wealthy CEOs and oil company executives who receive taxpayer subsidies? Why is it that they always pick on poor people? It is a lousy thing to do. SNAP is intended to help people put food on the table when they are struggling to find work, when their current job is not paying enough, or simply when they have fallen on hard times. We should be talking about improving the SNAP benefit so that families can afford more nutritious food, not creating more insulting hoops for vulnerable families to have to jump through.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose both H.R. 3442 and H.R. 3293. Again, on H.R. 3442, if we are serious about deficit and debt reduction, then we ought to be talking about substance and something real, not some sound bite where Members of the House can point to the administration to say it is all their fault. The reality is, it really is the fault of all of us, when you come down to it, because this is the place where spending decisions are made, where tax policy is made. If my colleagues do not want to raise the debt ceiling, then don't accumulate all these bills. It is Congress that does this. When you accumulate all these bills and you have to raise the debt ceiling, it is irresponsible to all of a sudden say that we don't want to do it and then to default on our debt. As I mentioned before, back in 2013, when Republican extremism actually shut the government down, it cost our economy $24 billion and 120,000 jobs. Now, $24 billion may not seem like a lot to my Republican friends, but I assure you that it all starts to add up. Those 120,000 jobs that were lost is all lost revenue coming into the government which would go to paying down our deficit and debt. If you really want to deal with this issue, then let's talk about things like paying for these wars that no one seems to want to pay for. Let's talk about not enacting tax breaks and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and not paying for it. Let's talk about reeling in some of these excessive subsidies to Big Oil and to other big corporate interests in this country. Let's talk about passing comprehensive immigration reform, which, again, the CBO has said would save us hundreds of billions of dollars that we could put toward getting our fiscal house in order. Those are real things. This is just talk for the sake of talk. I guess maybe it is a good press release; but, quite frankly, I think our time would be better spent doing something else. Again, on H.R. 3293, the so-called Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, I take great exception to those who question the integrity of the NSF. The National Science Foundation has integrity, in my opinion, beyond question. The work that they do is extraordinary. The work that they do leads to all kinds of benefits not only for the people in this country, but for the environment and people all over the world. I think the scientists who work there are having their reputations questioned by the introduction of this legislation, never mind us even considering it here today. I think you are diminishing the incredible work that they do. I get it. For some reason, my Republican colleagues can't admit that we have a thing called climate change going on around the world. So any time anybody talks about climate change, you go after whatever department or agency it is. You attack them. You try to cut their funding. You try to question their integrity. Well, I hate to tell my Republican friends that climate change is real. The overwhelming science says it is real. If you don't appreciate that, maybe you ought to go back to school and take a science class. When we talk about the lack of accountability and the lack of proper stewardship of what we are supposed to be doing here, that is one area where I think we have let the American people down; indeed, the world community. We are sitting here debating whether it is even an issue--which the American people can't believe--while things continue to get worse. I would say to my Republican friends: admit it; climate change is for real. You are on the wrong side of public opinion. When you try to claim it is a hoax, you are on the wrong side of the scientific community and you are on the wrong side of history. One final thing, because I couldn't help but take note that my colleague from Texas kind of took a jab at Massachusetts over home heating oil. I would say to the gentleman a couple of things. One, Massachusetts is leading the Nation in terms of investments in renewable and green energy. I am really proud of what my State is doing. I would say one other thing to the gentleman from Texas, and that is that his State--Texas--generates 10 times more emissions from heating oil, compared to Massachusetts. So I would urge him to get his State's emissions under control for the sake of our planet. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

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

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

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 good friend and distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 3293, a bill to hamstring the National Science Foundation and its gold standard review process; and I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3442, a misnamed debt management bill that provides Congress with no new information about the debt limit and that does nothing to actually prevent default. Despite a promise from Speaker Ryan and House Republican leadership for an open and deliberative process, this rule makes in order only 14 of the 47 amendments that were submitted on both pieces of legislation to our committee--only six amendments for the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's bill and eight for the debt limit bill. Democrats on the Rules Committee offered an open rule so that both Democratic and Republican Members could have an opportunity to make their views known on this bill, but as has become the custom, the Democrats voted for an open process, and every single Republican voted against an open process. Members should have the opportunity to offer their ideas on the House floor, and we should be having a robust debate on these issues. Here is a crazy idea, Mr. Speaker: Maybe, if we actually opened up the process and allowed for a full debate, we could actually pass bipartisan legislation that would move through the legislative process and then go on to the President's desk where he would then sign it into law. Yet, for the most part, my friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem interested in working with Democrats to advance common goals that will actually help the American people, and the legislation before us today is no exception. H.R. 3442 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to appear before Congress and submit a report on the administration's debt reduction proposals. I have got some good news for my friends. The Treasury Secretary already regularly meets with Congress to discuss the debt limit, and the President offers proposals to address the debt and the deficit in his annual budgets. I would say to my colleagues on the Republican side that it is okay--you can ask questions. That is what hearings are for. You can ask questions about the debt and deficit reduction. In fact, just yesterday, President Obama sent his fiscal year 2017 budget request to Congress, which included over $2.9 trillion in deficit reduction over the coming decade--this on top of the $4 trillion to $5 trillion in deficit reduction already achieved since 2010. If my friends are interested in hearing about these proposals to reduce our deficit, perhaps they should reconsider their unprecedented and insulting decision to exclude the OMB from testifying on the administration's budget proposal. Such a contemptuous attitude demeans Congress and the American people. In addition to its annual budget, the administration also provides the information requested by H.R. 3442 in the form of the Mid-Session Review, of the Daily Treasury Statement, of the Monthly Treasury Statement, of the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, of the Schedules of Federal Debt, and of the Financial Report of the United States Government. The Treasury manages our debt, but it is Congress that holds the power of the purse. It is our responsibility to raise the debt limit when it is reached, and I would point out that it is the legislative decisions made by Congress that determine the level of debt. I say to my Republican friends, if you don't want to deal with the issue of raising the debt limit, then don't accumulate all of these bills. The debt limit debate is about making sure we live up to our financial obligations, the obligations that this Chamber agreed to. Last night in the Rules Committee, we had a debate about deficit reduction and how to deal with the debt. Members on both sides of the aisle offered suggestions on ways to reduce our deficit, and that is an important discussion we should be having because it is a big issue. Yet this bill is not about deficit reduction; it is not about trying to get our debt under control; and it is not a serious attempt to help us avoid future default. The Republican majority has threatened default on at least three separate occasions: in 2011, when default was narrowly avoided with the Budget Control Act; in 2013, when Republican extremism led to a government shutdown, costing our fragile economy $24 billion and 120,000 private sector jobs; and this past fall, when Democrats helped to pass the bipartisan budget agreement despite opposition from two-thirds of the Republicans in this Congress. I would like to point out what is missing in this bill that we are going to be talking about later on this week. The report required by this legislation would exclude the most important information Congress needs when the debt limit is reached, which is an analysis of the catastrophic consequences of default. If this were a serious attempt to address our debt, I would think that the majority would want to know which bills the Treasury would need to stop paying if Congress failed to raise the debt limit. Would veterans stop receiving their benefits? Would Medicare providers stop being reimbursed? Would students stop receiving Pell grants? The chairman of the Rules Committee said in his opening statement that the American people want us to do something. I agree. This is not doing something. This is trying to point the finger somewhere else so that we can avoid responsibility for doing our job. If we were serious about this issue, maybe we ought to think about actually passing legislation that would help reduce our deficit and pay down our debt. Maybe we ought to be talking about comprehensive immigration reform. CBO says that we would save hundreds of billions of dollars for our National Treasury if we actually did that, did something positive to resolve our immigration crisis and, in doing so, we would save all this money that could go to reducing our deficit. Maybe one of the things we ought to be talking about here is actually not passing tax breaks for wealthy people that we don't pay for because that adds to the bills that we accumulate here in Congress. If you want to give Donald Trump another tax cut, pay for it. That is all. Maybe we ought to talk about dealing with the issue of these war costs. I mean, we can't even come together and actually debate and vote on an AUMF as these new wars are popping up all over the world. By the way, if we did, maybe we could talk about the cost, which, by the way, a big chunk of these war costs aren't even paid for. They are put on our credit card. I mean, the only people sacrificing in these wars are the men and women who we put in harm's way and their families. The rest of us do nothing. We don't even ask the American people to pay for it. Well, here is an idea: if people don't want to pay for these wars, maybe we ought not to go. Just putting them on our credit card should not be an answer. Those are the kinds of things we should be talking about here today if we were serious about getting our budget under control. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is duplicative, unnecessary, and a waste of time. It does nothing to prevent future Republican threats of default, and I strongly oppose this effort. This week, also, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are bringing to the floor H.R. 3293, another antiscience piece of legislation. Now, some might call this a thinly veiled attempt by the majority to dictate what the National Science Foundation spends their funding on, but there really isn't even a thin veil trying to cover up what this is. This is a blatant attempt to coerce the NSF into only funding projects that fit into the Republican political messaging agenda. The NSF receives upwards of 50,000 proposals a year. Out of all these proposals, only about 20 percent end up receiving funding. The NSF puts the applications through a rigorous process of peer review in order to determine which proposals they will fund. I would like to emphasize the fact that this is a peer review, not a congressional review. It is a peer review. Congress does not review these applications because the vast majority of us are not scientists. I am not a scientist. I don't think many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are scientists. The NSF review process is also designed to be confidential in order to protect against any internal or external bias. Injecting congressional interference and disruption into a well-functioning process will have a drastically negative effect. Now, it should come as no surprise that a big part of the Republican majority's argument is that the NSF is focusing too much of its funding on projects studying climate change. I tried to figure out what the hook was, and I found that that is it. I have said this here before, and I will keep saying it until we stop debating these ridiculous bills. We know that climate change is real. We see it. We live it. The scientific community overwhelmingly has verified it. Climate change is not a theory. It is not a hoax. It is not some silly fantasy. The NSF should be funding research that is directed toward understanding and mitigating the effects of climate change. The majority on the Science Committee has been on a crusade to inject itself into NSF's independent grant review process. The committee has demanded an explanation on how roughly 40 studies could possibly serve our national interests. Now, we have seen time and time again that basic research leads to positive, life-changing outcomes never imagined by researchers. Congress certainly does not have the experience or the knowledge to predetermine the future value of a research project. Just because the title of a project doesn't sound particularly overwhelmingly impressive doesn't mean it isn't, and we have a gazillion examples of that in the research that has been done in the NSF. It is best to leave the scientific review process in the hands of our world-class scientists who resoundingly oppose efforts to interfere with NSF's rigorous review process. I join them in strong opposition to this bill. Now, once again, Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor debating two bills that are going nowhere. Each bill has received a veto threat from the White House because this is not serious legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is just more political fodder for the right wing of the Republican Party, sound bites for my friends on the other side of the aisle to use while on the campaign trail to attempt to sound like they are dealing with issues in a serious manner when, in fact, they are not. It doesn't matter what year it is. The American people elected us to solve problems, not pad Republicans' political talking points. I ask my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the two partisan pieces of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I have the greatest respect for my colleague from Pennsylvania, but the reason why we oppose this is because it does nothing. Actually, it attempts to pin the blame on the Secretary of the Treasury, but the reality is--and I want to repeat this for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--that Congress' decision on revenue and spending policies ultimately determine the level of debt and when the debt limit is reached. It is our responsibility. What we object to is that, instead of debating concrete issues to reduce our deficit and reduce our debt, we are involved in this kind of debating a nonissue, a bill that does nothing, that will do nothing to reduce our deficit, reduce our debt, and is a complete waste of time. At this point, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would help prevent mass shootings by promoting research on the causes of gun violence, making it easier to identify and treat those prone to committing these acts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Maybe I can clear all this up so we don't have to debate this bill. The gentleman asked a question about extraordinary measures that the Secretary of the Treasury could potentially use to deal with the debt ceiling. I would just tell him that they are defined in statute, and we will happily provide him a copy of the statute so that he can understand that. I would go back to what I said in my opening statement that, if we are serious about dealing with our deficit and our debt, then maybe we ought to be thinking in these terms, about actually not accumulating all these bills that get us to the point where we have to raise the debt ceiling. I mean, we in Congress--not the administration, but we in Congress-- accumulate all these bills and all these financial obligations. Once you do that, you have to pay for them. Our constituents, when they accumulate credit card debt, they have got to pay it. They just can't not pay it because they don't want to. So we have to start behaving like adults here and understand that we need to pay our bills. I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that one way we might want to save some money and not add it to the deficit or to our debt is to stop giving Donald Trump tax cuts that you don't pay for. If you want to have tax cuts for wealthy individuals, fine. Pay for them. Don't not pay for them. Stop subsidizing big oil companies in this country. Maybe there was a time when we first started exploring for oil that you could make the case that taxpayers ought to be subsidizing oil companies. Not anymore. Not with global warming and certainly not when they are making zillions of dollars a year in profits. Maybe we could take that money and put it toward deficit reduction. Or maybe we could pay for these wars that everybody seems to want to commit our young men and women to. If you want to go to war, you ought to pay for it, not just put it on a credit card. If you are not prepared to do that, then end these wars. But just putting in danger the lives of our brave men and women and just accumulating all these massive bills that there is no accountability of I think is unconscionable. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't understand why somehow it is okay to bar suspected terrorists from flying on airplanes, but somehow it is this terrible infringement on their rights to say that they can't go out and buy a firearm. It makes absolutely no sense. I don't think the American people--whether you are Democrat or Republican or Independent--can figure out why people are so resistant to that here in this Congress. Here is a novel idea. bring it to the floor. Allow us to have an up- or-down vote, not just a procedural vote, but a real up-or-down vote on this, and I am willing to bet that it will probably pass with a bipartisan vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the environment, protecting the health and well-being of the people of this country, especially from industry. I think we, on the Democratic side, have consistently been on the side of protecting people, and my friends on the other side have been consistently on the side of industry, no matter what it means to people. We see what is going on in Flint, Michigan, right now and the terrible water crisis that is happening there and the Republican Governor who is part of what appears to be a coverup at the expense of those citizens. It really is quite astonishing. Again, this bill is going nowhere. It is going to be vetoed by the White House. So we can go through this charade. I would just conclude right now, at least this portion of my speech here, by saying that, as I said in the beginning, if, in fact, my friends on the other side of the aisle want to get serious about legislating, there are areas of agreement on these environmental issues, and certainly on this issue regarding Iran, where Democrats and Republicans can come together. But for whatever reason, I think my Republican friends have no interest in serious legislating. I think that is regrettable because what we are doing here is wasting taxpayer money and wasting the people's time here in this Congress. We could be doing other things that could actually be moving this country forward. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists in strong opposition to H.R. 1644. Union of Concerned Scientists, September 9, 2015. Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists, with 450,000 members and supporters throughout the country, strongly opposes The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1644, the STREAM ACT. H.R. 1644, as amended, would require the public disclosure of any and all information used to promulgate rules, and even policy guidance, relating to the Surface Mining and Control Act. As we highlighted in Science, this proposal is just another example of what's becoming an old and tired song: an attempt to cloak an effort to block common-sense regulation in the guise of transparency. Furthermore, as we noted in a letter sent to the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year opposing H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act, this type of proposal represents a solution in search of a problem and greatly impedes the agency's responsibility to protect public health and the environment. The amended version improves the original bill by exempting certain types of data from public disclosure. However, the language is so vague, it will make it very difficult for scientists doing federally-funded research to know whether or not the data they have spent years collecting may be prematurely disclosed before they can publish their own studies. At the very least, this discourages scientists from doing any crucial research that may be required to be publicly disclosed. Worse, by linking agency rulemaking to public disclosure, this bill risks the timely implementation of regulations and guidance documents that protect the public health and safety and our environment. Agency rules will be delayed if any piece of underlying data used to inform rules or guidance documents is not publicly disclosed 90 days before the proposed rule or guidance is published. This is flawed because the data is not owned by the Department of Interior and the release of the data is under the researcher's control. For each day the data is delayed, the comment period is extended by a day. If the delay lasts longer than six months, the rule must be withdrawn. These restrictions apply even to emergency rules, unless a delay ``will pose an imminent and severe threat to human life.'' Notably missing here however is the environment. For example, if a stream is polluted at a level that doesn't pose an immediate risk but may pose a long-term risk, under this proposal, the environmental pollution could not be stopped until it might be too late. This proposal offers special interests a new way to game the system, by challenging the comprehensiveness of any data that the Department of Interior submits to fulfill the bill's requirements. Who decides when the data includes ``all the data?'' How much data, for example, must be released to justify an economic assessment, or an environmental analysis or a guidance document? Unanswered, too, is the question whether a regulation or guidance document based on exempt information is considered valid for purposes of this bill. Could the use of exempt information itself be grounds for a challenge? This bill would also expend taxpayer dollars by requiring the Department of Interior to spend $2 million on a study to evaluate the ``effectiveness'' of 1983 regulation to protect perennial and intermittent streams through the use of stream buffer zones. But the goal of the study is not to actually help the Department of Interior become a better custodian of our environment. The real goal is to impose a sweeping moratorium on all regulations related to stream buffer zones for the time it takes the National Academy of Sciences to complete the ``comprehensive study'' plus another year for review. Since the bill anticipates funding for the NAS in both 2016 and 2017, Interior regulations would be blocked for at least three years. If the study is never funded though, the rules would be indefinitely delayed. We recommend that you oppose Representative Mooney's amendment to H.R. 1644, as well as the underlying bill. The proposal would inhibit the Department of Interior's ability to carry out its science and evidence-based responsibility to protect human health and the environment. We strongly urge you not to report this proposal out of committee. Sincerely, Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from nine public interest, environmental, and labor organizations strongly opposing H.R. 1644. January 11, 2016. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters we strongly urge you to oppose the stream pollution bill, H.R. 1644, a bill expected on the House floor the week of January 11, 2016. This bill would put costly and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in the already overburdened regulatory process with the sole intent of ensuring that coal companies can continue to destroy streams with coal wastes. The present rules protecting such streams date to 1983. After the Department of Interior took several years to develop the proposed Stream Protection Rule, this bill requires a new study, this time by the National Academy of Sciences, on the effectiveness of the current decades-old surface mining regulation. The bill carves out two years for the completion of that study and then bars DOI from updating the rule for an additional year after that. In the meantime, communities will continue to shoulder the burden of water pollution and mining abuses. The intent of these new delays is clear: let the mining companies continue unimpeded with sacrificing the streams and health of the communities that surround their mines. Another section of the bill adds new procedural hurdles before DOI can act under the surface mining law. Today, the Secretary and the heads of all rulemaking agencies regularly make available all the information relied upon concurrently with the proposed or final rule. Doing so enables stakeholders to weigh in during the public comment period on the basis for the proposal. This bill requires DOI to publish all scientific data used in a proposed rule 90 days before publication. It is unclear what the intent of this redundant provision is other than to congest the regulatory system with even more process and delay. If the Agency fails to meet this new paperwork burden, the goal of the authors is met--the protections must be delayed even further. Unfortunately, these types of delay tactics are becoming increasingly common across the regulatory spectrum as polluters attempt to dodge their responsibilities. Thus, H.R. 1644 continues a dangerous trend of undermining public health and environmental protections under the guise of transparency. We urge you to vote against this legislation, both to protect mining communities and to our reject attempts to delay and frustrate improved regulatory protections. Sincerely, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Effective Government, Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Economic Policy Institute, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, United Auto Workers, United States Public Interest Research Group.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from eight sportsmen and conservation organizations in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 22. January 11, 2016. Re Hunters and Anglers Strongly Oppose S.J. Res. 22 Invalidating the Final Clean Water Rule Dear Representative: The undersigned sportsmen and conservation organizations strongly oppose Senate Joint Resolution 22, which the House of Representatives may vote on this week and would invalidate the final Clean Water Rule. This important rule clarifies Clean Water Act jurisdiction in a manner that is both legally and scientifically sound. This joint resolution is an extraordinary and radical action to overturn a fundamental, once-in-a-generation final rule that is critical to the effective implementation of the 1972 Clean Water Act, and that was adopted following an exhaustive public rulemaking process. The resolution would overturn a rule that finally resolves longstanding confusion and debate, promotes clarity and efficiency for regulatory programs promoting river health, and preserves longstanding protections for farmers, ranchers, and foresters. By using the Congressional Review Act, this joint resolution not only wipes out the final Clean Water Rule but also prohibits any substantially similar rule in the future. It locks in the current state of jurisdictional confusion and offers no constructive path forward for regulatory clarity or clean water. America's hunters and anglers cannot afford to have Congress undermine effective Clean Water Act safeguards, leaving communities and valuable fish and wildlife habitat at risk indefinitely. This joint resolution dismisses the voices of the millions of Americans, including businesses that depend on clean water, who support the new rule and are eager to reap its benefits. The agencies engaged in a very transparent and thorough multi-year rulemaking process that included over 400 stakeholder meetings and an extended public comment period that produced over one million comments. Nearly 900,000 members of the public commented in support of the Clean Water Rule. A recent poll found that 83 percent of sportsmen and women think the Clean Water Act should apply to smaller streams and wetlands, as the new rule directs. The Clean Water Rule clearly restores longstanding protections for millions of wetlands and headwater streams that contribute to the drinking water of 1 in 3 Americans, protect communities from flooding, and provide essential fish and wildlife habitat that supports a robust outdoor recreation economy. The sport fishing industry alone accounts for 828,000 jobs, nearly $50 billion annually in retail sales, and an economic impact of about $115 billion every year that relies on access to clean water. The Clean Water Rule will translate directly to an improved bottom line for America's outdoor industry. Opponents claiming the rule goes too far and protects water too much have filed a barrage of nearly identical legal challenges in numerous district and appellate courts across the country. On October 9, 2015, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed the Clean Water Rule nationwide. The Clean Water Rule and those who oppose it will have their day in court. Meanwhile, we want Congress to know that despite these legal challenges, conservationists across the nation are steadfast in our support for the Clean Water Rule. After nearly 15 years of Clean Water Act confusion, further delay is unacceptable to the millions of hunters and anglers eager to have their local waters fully protected again. We are confident that, when the dust settles in the courts, the Clean Water Rule will withstand challenges saying it protects our water too much. The Clean Water Act has always been about restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. It is bedrock support for America's more than 40 million hunters and anglers and for the 117 million Americans whose drinking water depends on healthy headwater streams. We thank all of the members of Congress who stand with America's sportsmen and women to block attempts to derail the rule, and ask you to reject S.J. Res. 22 and any other legislative action against the rule that may follow this year. Sincerely, American Fisheries Society, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, International Federation of Fly Fishers, Izaak Walton League of America, National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 65 environmental organizations representing millions of members in opposition to H.J. Res. 22. January 12, 2016. Representative: The undersigned organizations, and our millions of members and supporters, oppose the Dirty Water Resolution (S.J. Res. 22). The ``Resolution of Disapproval'' under the Congressional Review Act attacks the Clean Water Rule, the Obama administration's landmark initiative to restore safeguards against pollution and destruction for lakes, streams, wetlands and other water bodies. The Clean Water Rule restores important safeguards that once existed for a variety of water bodies. Those safeguards were eroded after a pair of Supreme Court decisions and by policies the Bush administration adopted, which left many water bodies inadequately protected or lacking the pollution control requirements of the Clean Water Act. The rule restores prior protections for many critical wetlands, which curb flooding, filter pollution, and provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including endangered species and wildfowl and fish prized by hunters and anglers. The Dirty Water Resolution is an extreme action that seeks to kill the Clean Water Rule using the Congressional Review Act, which goes far beyond stopping a disapproved administrative action. The Congressional Review Act says that an agency may not adopt ``a new rule that is substantially the same'' as the disapproved rule, and the breadth of that requirement is very unclear. In the context of the Clean Water Rule, it could be read to prohibit EPA and the Army Corps from issuing any rule that establishes protections for waters that the Clean Water Rule covers, like lakes, streams, and wetlands. The Dirty Water Resolution radically undermines the agencies' ability to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act--despite urging from industry associations, conservation groups, members of Congress, state and local leaders, and Supreme Court justices for such a clarification. By pursuing this anti-clean water resolution, pro-polluter members of the House of Representatives are seeking to kill a commonsense and modest rule containing scientifically-sound and legally-valid protections for the nation's waters, including critical drinlcing water supplies. Restored clean water protections enjoy broad support. In polling for the American Sustainable Business Council, eighty percent of small business owners--including 91% of Democrats, 73% of Independents and 78% of Republicans--said they supported the then-proposed Clean Water Rule. A strong majority, 71%, also said that clean water protections are necessary to ensure economic growth; only six percent said they were bad for growth. Similarly, a bipartisan research team polled hunters and anglers nationwide and discovered that 83% surveyed thought that the Environmental Protection Agency should apply the rules and standards of the Clean Water Act to smaller, headwater streams and wetlands. Support for this policy was strong across the political spectrum, with 77% of Republicans, 79% of Independents and 97% of Democrats in favor. We ask that you oppose the Dirty Water Resolution (S.J. Res. 22) because it will undermine protections for our drinking water supplies, flood buffers, and fish and wildlife habitat. This attack on clean water is not only a waste of the House's time but also an excessive and dangerous act that jeopardizes clean water for generations to come. Sincerely, Alliance for the Great Lakes, American Rivers, American Whitewater, Amigos Bravos, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, BlueGreen Alliance, Central Minnesota Chapter of Audubon, Clean Water Action, Conservation Minnesota, Earthjustice, Endangered Habitats League, Environment America, Environment California, Environment Colorado, Environment Connecticut, Environment Florida, Environment Georgia, Environment Illinois, Environment Iowa, Environment Maine, Environment Maryland, Environment Massachusetts. Environment Michigan, Environment Minnesota, Environment Montana, Environment New Hampshire, Environment New Jersey, Environment New Mexico, Environment New York, Environment North Carolina, Environment Oregon, Environment Texas, Environment Virginia, Environment Washington, Freshwater Future, Friends of the Cloquet Valley State Park, Friends of the Mississippi River, Great Lakes Committee--the Izaak Walton League, GreenLatinos, Greenpeace, Gulf Restoration Network, Hoosier Environmental Council, Iowa Environmental Council, Kentucky Waterways Alliance. League of Conservation Voters, Michigan Wildlife Conservancy, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Minnesota Conservation Federation, Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Abounds, Ohio Wetlands Association, PennEnvironment, Prairie Rivers Network, Religious Coalition for the Great Lakes, River Network, Save the Dunes, Shaker Lakes Garden Club, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Surfrider Foundation, Tennessee Clean Water Network, Wisconsin Environment, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from the Win Without War coalition, 11 million activists across the country in opposition to H.R. 3662. A Statement From Drew Proctor, Advocacy Director of ``Win Without War'' The Win Without War coalition, on behalf of our 11 million activists, urges your office to stand strong against all attempts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in Congress. In particular, we urge Representative McGovern to OPPOSE H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act. H.R. 3662, which would prohibit President Obama from delivering on sanctions relief, has the potential to damage the leadership and credibility of the United States at this critical moment just before the historic agreement is implemented. Furthermore, the timing of the House's vote-- between President Obama's State of the Union speech and the deal's implementation date later this month--appears to be a deliberately partisan act designed to undermine the President and weaken his legacy. At a time when much of the Middle East is engulfed in war, the US has rightfully seized this opportunity to solve one of our most pressing national security threats without dropping a single bomb. We must not let political interests trump our national security goals. Huge progress has been made since the Iran deal was announced last July. Just yesterday, Iran reportedly took steps to remove the core of its plutonium reactor and fill it with concrete. Sincerely, Drew Proctor, Advocacy Director, Win Without War.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I again continue to be amazed that the gentleman from Washington defends this process. I don't know how anybody can defend this process, it is so flawed. The end result is, again, bringing bills to the floor that are going nowhere and that are sound bites. They are not serious legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on all three bills in which the White House says they will veto these bills. Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 1644--stream act (Rep. Mooney, R-WV, and 34 cosponsors, Jan. 11, 2016) The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1644, which would delay for at least three years updated regulations, known as the Stream Protection Rule, to protect streams from the effects of destructive surface coal mining practices. Such a needless delay of these important safeguards would impact the communities and economies that depend on clean water and a healthy environment. The current stream protection requirements governing surface mining activities are more than 30 years old and do not incorporate significant advances in scientific knowledge and mining and reclamation techniques. An arbitrary three year restriction to block the updated modern, science-based regulations would significantly impair the ability of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to accomplish the mission and responsibilities the Congress laid out in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, including preserving clean water, human health, and the environment. H.R. 1644 would prevent the restoration of hundreds of streams, result in deterioration of water quality for thousands of stream miles, and create sustained regulatory uncertainty, as well as public health impacts for downstream communities. In addition, the bill would impose arbitrary requirements and unnecessary processes that would seriously impede OSMRE's ability to use the best available science to protect public health and the environment. If the President were presented with H.R. 1644, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Statement of Administration Policy s.j. res. 22--disapproving epa/army rule on waters of the united states (Sen. Ernst, R-IA, and 49 cosponsors, Nov. 3, 2015) The Administration strongly opposes S.J. Res. 22, which would nullify a specified Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) final rule clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science and the law, is essential to ensure clean water for future generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking from the Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The final rule has been through an extensive public engagement process. Clean water is vital for the success of the Nation's businesses, agriculture, energy development, and the health of our communities. More than one in three Americans get their drinking water from rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that are at risk of pollution from upstream sources. The protection of wetlands is also vital for hunting and fishing. When Congress passed the CWA in 1972 to restore the Nation's waters, it recognized that to have healthy communities downstream, we need to protect the smaller streams and wetlands upstream. Clarifying the scope of the CWA helps to protect clean water, safeguard public health, and strengthen the economy. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 focused on specific jurisdictional determinations and rejected the analytical approach that the Army Corps of Engineers used for those determinations, but did not invalidate the underlying regulation. This has created ongoing questions and uncertainty about how the regulation is applied consistent with the Court's decisions. The final rule was developed to address this uncertainty and it should remain in place. If enacted, S.J. Res. 22 would nullify years of work and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water. EPA and Army have sought the views of and listened carefully to the public throughout the extensive public engagement process for this rule. Simply put, S.J. Res. 22 is not an act of good governance. It would sow confusion and invite conflict at a time when our communities and businesses need clarity and certainty around clean water regulation. If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 22, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3662--iran terror finance transparency act (Rep. Russell, R-OK, and 62 cosponsors, Jan. 11, 2016) The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act, which would prevent the United States from implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by tying the Administration's ability to fulfill U.S. commitments under the deal to unrelated, non- nuclear issues. H.R. 3662 includes provisions that connect the United States' JCPOA commitment to provide sanctions relief by delisting certain Iran-related individuals and entities, including banks, to non-nuclear issues outside of the scope of the JCPOA. In addition, certain provisions would effectively preclude delisting of individuals or entities on Implementation Day of the JCPOA--the day on which the International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that Iran has completed key nuclear-related steps that significantly dismantle and constrain its nuclear program--based on activity that may have taken place and ended long before Implementation Day and involving persons or activity that will no longer be sanctioned post-Implementation Day. By preventing the United States from fulfilling its JCPOA commitments, H.R. 3662 could result in the collapse of a comprehensive diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Such a collapse would remove the unprecedented constraints on Iran's nuclear program that we achieved in the JCPOA, lead to the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating blow to America's credibility as a leader of international diplomacy. This would have ripple effects, jeopardizing the hard work of sustaining a unified coalition to combat Iran's destabilizing activities in the region, calling into question the effectiveness of our sanctions regime and our ability to lead the world on nuclear non-proliferation. The Administration has consistently made clear that the purpose of the nuclear negotiations, and ultimately the JCPOA, was to address one issue only--the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program and to verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The JCPOA is the mechanism through which the United States was able to garner international support for our sanctions and achieve a diplomatic resolution. As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration remains clear-eyed and shares the deep concerns of the Congress and the American people about Iran's support for terrorism. Powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile activities, its human rights abuses, and its destabilizing activities in the region remain in effect. Anyone worldwide who transacts with or supports individuals or entities sanctioned in connection with Iran's support for terrorism or development of WMD and their means of delivery, including missiles--or who does the same with any Iranian individual or entity who remains on Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List--puts themselves at risk of being sanctioned. The President has made it clear that he will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of the JCPOA. If the President were presented with H.R. 3662, he would veto the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 1 minute.