Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to something the gentleman from Washington said when he basically made the statement that as long as committees take action, we don't need open rules. That is a whole new approach to the way this place is being run. I thought the Speaker of the House made it very clear he wanted more open rules. The previous Speaker of the House did, too. He didn't do that. The bottom line is just because a committee took action on it, there are 435 Members of this House, and not everybody is on the same committee. We ought to be able to have a free-flowing debate, and people ought to be able to offer amendments. We ought to deliberate. I am going to make a prediction that, if we did have an opportunity to truly be a deliberative body, you might get better legislation, and you might get legislation that gets lots of bipartisan support and actually gets signed into law and we get things done. Instead, we are stuck in this pattern where we really don't have regular order. We have order enforced with an iron fist where people are just locked out. It is not just Democrats that are locked out of the process; it is Republicans as well. When you close a rule down completely, it means nobody--nobody--has an opportunity to offer anything. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to the gentleman that, if this were a serious effort to do something in response to Iran's behavior, this would be a bipartisan effort, but it isn't. It is clear what this is. This is a way to basically try to embarrass the President, I guess. That seems to be the motivation behind almost everything that is brought to this House floor. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we ought to be doing serious business here, and we are not. One of the things that we have been trying to do on our side is to bring to the floor legislation and amendments to deal with the terrible situation with regard to gun violence in our country. We are rebuffed at every moment. We can't bring anything to this floor with regard to guns, I guess because the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee doesn't want to tick off the National Rifle Association. Be that as it may, I want to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation--this is actually Democrats and Republicans who support this--that would close a glaring loophole in our gun laws allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms. This bill would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Mr. Speaker, amidst gun violence in communities across our country and global acts of terrorism, it is time for Congress to act and keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. 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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have heard a couple of speakers now talk on this, and I think some of the confusion might be cleared up if they actually read the rule. The gentlewoman from Washington who spoke earlier talked about that this would regulate puddles. Well, the clean water rule does not regulate puddles. In fact, numerous comments were submitted to EPA asking the Agency specifically to exclude puddles. I have got good news for you: the final rules does just that, and the clean water rule does not regulate most ditches either. We might as well get those facts on the table. I would urge my colleagues on the other side that maybe they ought to read the rule before they come up with a bill like the one they came up with. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say, other than the fact that this process stinks. Again, two closed rules and a structured rule on the third bill. We have a controversial bill on Iran that is one of the most partisan pieces of legislation on foreign policy that has been brought to this floor by my Republican friends. It is really frustrating because I think there is a lot of common ground on holding Iran accountable where Democrats and Republicans could come together and actually craft something that had, if not unanimous support, almost unanimous support. I think that would be a powerful signal to send not only to Iran, but to the rest of the world. But instead of going down that road, my Republican friends decided to squander that opportunity and come up with a political sound bite. The same goes for the two environmental bills that are being brought before this House. They are going nowhere, but they are nice sound bites, and they may please a particular special interest, but this is not serious legislating. I am going to say to my colleagues again, I know you are going on your retreat this week, and maybe there ought to be a side meeting that some of my friends have about what it is that they think we ought to be doing here in this Chamber and what it is that they think that their job ought to be. I would suggest that it has to be about more than just political sound bites and messaging bills. There is a lot that we need to get done. That requires us working together. I won't get everything I want and you may not get everything you want, but we need to figure out a way to make this place work because it is not working. There is a reason why the approval rating of Congress is like in the negative numbers. It is because people see consistently nothing but political sound bites and messaging bills come to the floor and get voted on and we debate them passionately, but they go nowhere. I think people would like us all better, Democrats and Republicans, if we actually accomplished something. I hope you go on your retreat and you kind of reflect on that, and maybe you will come back the week after with a new outlook. Maybe all of these promises from the Speaker of the House and the previous Speaker of the House about a more open process about regular order will be more than words when you come back. I would finally say again that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up this commonsense bipartisan bill to basically prevent those who are on the terrorist watch list from being sold guns. Again, I, for the life of me, don't understand why it is so controversial, but in this House of Representatives it is. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule, and reject this closed process. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of three pieces of legislation, and two of these bills are under a completely closed process. In fact, these are the 49th and 50th closed rules in this Congress. Last year was the most closed session in the history of our country, and I think this year will probably beat last year. I don't think that is anything to be proud of. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, but the problem is, we don't deliberate very much anymore. We don't pass legislation. Instead, we pass sound bites, and that is what we are doing here today. This Chamber has become an echo chamber, if you will, for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and its priorities, and the people's business gets tossed to the side. When Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised openness and a return to serious legislating. And my colleagues on the Rules Committee, we give them many opportunities to be more generous with granting more opportunities for Members of both sides to be able to offer amendments. And every time we do that, they vote ``no.'' And every time we bring up an open rule, they vote ``no.'' Here we are, with two more bills that will be debated under a completely closed process this week. Things have to change here, and I hope my colleagues in the leadership on the other side will reflect on what the purpose of all of us being here is supposed to be. I would say it is about trying to find ways to come together and to pass things that will help improve the quality of life for all the people of this country, as well as to ensure our security in this dangerous world. Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act. My Republican friends would have us believe that this bill is a serious effort to increase congressional oversight of sanctions relief under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran deal. I wish that were true, Mr. Speaker. Such a bill could bring together a substantial number of Members from both parties. I would be even more confident about such a bill if it were crafted with input from the administration about how Congress could be most helpful and effective in monitoring the Iran nuclear deal. Regrettably, what is coming before the House is another ultra- partisan bill that would shut down the ability of the United States to carry out its own obligations under the Iran deal. Rather than the world closely monitoring Iran's compliance, this bill would make the United States a target of condemnation for failing to fulfill its commitments. In fact, it would be the United States that is the nation in noncompliance with the Iran nuclear deal. Now, many of my colleagues who are critics of the Iran nuclear deal have already signaled that they cannot support this bill. House Republicans made no attempt whatsoever to make this bill a bipartisan bill. They made no attempt to draft a bill that might actually be signed by the President and worth the American taxpayers' time. This is political theater at its worst, plain and simple. This latest House Republican bill is even more dangerous because it plays politics with our national security. No one here wants to see Iran freed from its commitment not to develop a nuclear weapon, but that is exactly what this bill would do if it ever became law. It would make sure that the United States could not fulfill its part of the bargain, thus killing the nuclear agreement, and Iran would once again be free to pursue building nuclear weapons. That is insane. How can my Republican friends possibly think that this is a good idea? I believe that there are Members of Congress in both parties who want to work together with the administration in a bipartisan manner to build on the progress that they have made to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I do believe there are Democrats and Republicans in Congress who genuinely want to strengthen the ability of the U.S. and the international community to respond effectively to Iran's recent testing of ballistic missiles, hold Iran accountable for their support of militant and terrorist organizations in the Middle East, and secure the freedom of Americans currently imprisoned in Iran. I also believe that achieving these goals may not require legislation, but strong bipartisan actions that increase U.S. leverage with our international partners and with Iran. But playing dangerous political games with our national security by bringing legislation like this to the floor, legislation that would undermine and perhaps even kill the nuclear deal with Iran, is not the answer. Now, luckily for the American people, this bill is not going to go anywhere. Even if it were actually passed by both Chambers of Congress and made its way to the President's desk, it would be vetoed, and I strongly doubt that the Congress would be able to overturn a Presidential veto in support of such a clearly partisan bill. Last week, Congress voted for the 62nd time to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and soon afterward, that bill was vetoed by the President. That is 62 times that Republicans wasted the American people's time and taxpayer dollars trying to take health care away from millions of families, all to make a political point. Congress has already voted on the Iran deal. My colleagues who opposed the deal tried to kill it, and they failed. It is now official policy. Are House Republicans going to take us down the same path they did with the Affordable Care Act? Are we also going to vote on this bill 62 times, a bill that we know the President will veto, just so the Republicans can make a political point? Let's stop wasting the American people's time on such bills. Let's put politics aside and actually work together to responsibly monitor implementation of the Iran deal and find ways to strengthen U.S. leverage in other areas of concern on Iran. So I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3662 and reject this rule. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is also taking up two Republican bills that would have devastating effects on the environment and our Nation's public health. The first piece of legislation, S.J. Res. 22, is the Republican majority's fifth attempt to get rid of the Clean Water Rule. Here we are, having the same discussion once again, wasting the American taxpayers' time and money. The Clean Water Rule was created in response to the Supreme Court declaring that the Clean Water Act needed to be narrowed and more clearly defined. So the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers did just that--they narrowed the scope and provided for much-needed clarification. With the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers doing exactly what they were supposed to do, you would think that would be the end of it. The EPA's ability to protect our water from pollution has been narrowed and the industry received the clarification that they wanted. Unfortunately, my Republican friends are pushing new legislation to further weaken vital environmental protections. The final bill before us, H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act, is a bill that is going nowhere and is the same bill that Republicans brought up last year, with the only difference being--and this is a major difference, I guess--but the only difference is that they changed the name. Otherwise, it is the same thing. Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this Republican bill is to reverse the rule that the Department of the Interior released last year that regulates the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining. It has long been known that mountaintop removal mining heavily pollutes drinking water, destroys wildlife habitats, and puts local communities at greater risk of contracting life-threatening diseases. Keeping the American people healthy and safe should always be our first priority in Congress. Yet, this bill is more focused on making it easier for big energy companies to continue the destructive and dangerous practice of mountaintop removal and gives no thought whatsoever to the risks it poses to the American families nearby. Before the recent rule released by the Department of the Interior in July 2015, parts of the regulations for mountaintop mining were more than 30 years old. Updates were clearly long overdue, and the fact that House Republicans are now actively working against the safeguards established by the rule is astounding. Are Republicans so beholden to big coal companies that they would put the health and safety of our country's families at risk? This bill clearly suggests that the answer is yes. Mr. Speaker, we are only 2 weeks into the new year, and instead of House Republicans starting the year by working in a bipartisan way to bring serious legislation to the floor, we are, once again, debating political messaging bills that fail to address the most pressing issues we face in a constructive way. There is so much we need to do, and I believe that there is so much that we can agree on and actually move forward that will get through both Chambers and go to the White House and be signed and become law and actually improve things for the people of this country. That is what we are supposed to be doing here. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a lot better than this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to share the story of the Haymarket Cafe, started by brothers Peter and David Simpson, in Northampton, Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the surest signs of a vibrant local economy is a lively restaurant scene. You know a town or a region is humming economically when you have a wide variety of restaurants to choose from. It is a sign that people have enough money left over after paying all of their bills to spend on treating themselves and their families. It is a strong indication that people feel secure in the direction of the economy. But for millions of low-wage workers across the country, the story is more complicated than that, and the picture is not all that pretty. For all the economic vibrancy associated with restaurant culture--and though restaurants employ almost 1 in 10 private sector workers--restaurant workers are among the worst paid, worst treated within the economy as a whole. While non-restaurant private sector workers make a median hourly wage of $18, restaurant workers earn a median hourly wage of $10, including tips. The results are predictable in that more than 16 percent of restaurant workers live below the poverty line. This picture is made even worse by how it is skewed along race and gender lines. The highest paid positions in restaurants tend to be held by men and people who are White while the lowest paid positions are typically held by women and people of color. At the bottom of the ladder are undocumented workers, who comprise over 15 percent of the restaurant workforce, more than twice the rate for non-restaurant sectors. The good news is that it doesn't have to be this way. There are forward-thinking restaurant owners who are choosing the high road, restaurants where conscious efforts are made to break down gender and ethnic divisions and that choose to pay a living wage with good benefits. If you ask them, the owners of these establishments will tell you that they choose this path because it is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do financially. They choose this path because it is a solid business model that improves the chances of success in a highly competitive industry. I am proud to represent one of those restaurants in my district. The Haymarket Cafe in Northampton, Massachusetts, has led the way for almost a quarter century in treating its employees with respect and in paying them a living wage. I attended an event a couple of weeks ago at the Haymarket Cafe at which the owner, Peter Simpson, announced that his restaurant was moving to a $15 per hour minimum wage and would be eliminating tips. Now, I have known Peter for a long time, and I was not surprised that he would take such a step. Peter opened the Haymarket with his brother, David, almost 25 years ago. From the beginning, they were committed to paying a fair wage and in creating a positive work environment for their employees. In talking to Peter, I realized that his decision, while it reflected his idealism, was rooted in hard-nosed business sense. You don't survive and thrive for a quarter century in the highly competitive restaurant industry, especially in a small, tight-knit community like Northampton, if your business model isn't airtight. Every decision you make has to make sense financially in order to succeed and stay competitive. The decision to go to a $15 per hour minimum wage and eliminate tips was not something Peter took lightly. He did his homework. He looked at other restaurants in other cities that had made a similar move. He talked to all of his employees. He worked closely with the Pioneer Valley Workers Center, which is leading the charge to better the lives of low-wage immigrant workers in western Massachusetts. Eliminating tips allowed Peter to make the wages between better paid waiters and less well-paid kitchen staff more equitable. It allowed his wait staff to earn a wage they could count on, rather than having to depend on the tipping whims of customers. It also gave him increased staffing flexibility, as he could train all of his staff to do all jobs so he could more easily shift people around when necessary. In committing to a $15 per hour minimum wage, Peter also increased staff loyalty while decreasing turnover and training costs. As a result of Peter's bold decision, the Haymarket Cafe has been overwhelmed by an outpouring of support. Staff and customers are equally enthusiastic, and business has jumped. This commitment to wage equity has shown, once again, to be a sound business strategy and has shown that a business based on such principles can provide a decent living for its staff and can contribute to the economic health of the community. Mr. Speaker, the Haymarket Cafe is living proof, especially in an industry with such a dismal track record on wages, that paying a living wage is good for business and that a commitment to wage equity makes financial sense. The restaurant industry can and must do better, and I am proud to say the Haymarket Cafe is leading the way.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have great affection for my friends on the other side of the aisle, but I don't understand their obsession with trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act or their obsession with trying to defund Planned Parenthood. I mean, if they get their way on the Affordable Care Act, they would throw 22 million people out of their health insurance plans; 22 million people would lose their coverage. Young people who are 26 years old and under would lose their healthcare benefits. Right now they can stay on their family's healthcare plans up to 26. They would lose that. It used to be that if you are a woman it would be considered a preexisting condition and your insurance rates would be higher. The Affordable Care Act prevents that. The doughnut hole in the prescription drug plan, the cost to senior citizens, is closing. Ultimately, we will eliminate that doughnut hole because of the Affordable Care Act. That is all good. Medicare's solvency has been expanded because of this. Millions more people have health insurance as a result. That is a good thing. But they want to take it away. On Planned Parenthood, I mean, most of what they do is provide preventative care to women. They want to take that away. It is cruel. It is a cruel thing to do. I can't believe that there isn't bipartisan consensus in this place that health care is something that people need and we ought to make sure they have access to it. My friends have been in charge of this Congress for a long time. They can't even offer an alternative. They can tell us what they are against, but they can't tell us what they are for. They have done nothing to help expand the ability of people to get health insurance in this country. All they do is come to the floor and talk about repealing bills that will make it more difficult for people. I can't understand how you get up every morning and go to work and that is your mission, to make it more difficult for people in this country, to throw 22 million people off the health insurance rolls, to make it more difficult for vulnerable women to get preventative care at Planned Parenthood. That is the mission. That is how we are beginning this new year. And it really is sad, and it is really disheartening, I think, for a lot of us who came here to try to make a difference in people's lives, to try to help improve the quality of life for people. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible, terrible bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Right now, just me.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Other than a verbal assault against Planned Parenthood and a verbal assault against the Affordable Care Act, this bill will do nothing. It is going to be vetoed really quickly. Maybe it is red meat for the political base, but if that satisfies your political base, great. I would say they are a cheap date if this is what it takes to satisfy them. But we ought to be dealing with some serious issues here, and I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would close a glaring loophole in our gun laws allowing suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms. The bill would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. I don't know why that is so controversial, but some of my friends find that to be a controversial issue. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just have to correct the record. The gentleman said that taxpayer money should not be spent on abortions. It can't be. That is the law. I don't know what he is talking about. I also should point out to the gentleman that more than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is preventative care. So I get it. It is the political rhetoric that people get carried away with. But let's at least try to stick to facts at least a little bit. Let's also understand--so my colleague has no confusion here--that the law here is that no taxpayer money can be spent for abortions. So let's clear that up. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just respond to the gentleman that the overwhelming majority of the American people actually support Planned Parenthood. That is in spite of all the attacks and all the accusations that have no basis and that have been hurled at them by my Republican friends. I just want to remind my colleagues that Planned Parenthood provides a number of services to patients, such as family planning counseling and contraception. They provide pregnancy tests and Pap tests. They provide lifesaving breast exams. This is an organization that provides for the health and well-being of millions of people in this country, mostly poor women. Maybe that makes it easier for my friends on the other side to attack this program and this organization--because they primarily provide help to poor women--but that is what Planned Parenthood is about. And so this is an important organization, a good organization. That is why a majority of Americans support it. My friends are on the wrong side of public opinion on this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say that this debate is astonishing to me. What is so controversial on the Republican side is that millions and millions more Americans have health care. I heard someone over there say that fewer people have health care. They can't produce any validators to support that statement. CBO and a whole bunch of other validators have actually said more people have health care. If they get their way, 22 million people will lose their health care. That is what this is about. This is about whether or not people in this country deserve health care or whether or not they don't, whether or not you think health care is a right or whether, as my Republican friends say, it is a privilege. We think it is a right. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alabama says this is a monumental vote. Let me get this straight. A bill that is going to the White House that will get the fastest veto that we have ever seen ever happen in this country is somehow a monumental vote? I would suggest to my Republican colleagues, if they think this is a monumental vote, they have low standards. This is a political sound bite. This is a waste of taxpayer money. This is just a waste of everybody's time. We ought to be talking about how to strengthen this economy, about how to get more people health care, not these political sound bites that really waste precious resources here in the Congress and, by the way, cost taxpayers money. All this wasted debate here, all this wasted time is costing taxpayers money. Let's find ways to make the Affordable Care Act even better. Let's find ways to make sure that 100 percent of the people in this country have the health care that they need, not be debating a sound bite, by the way, that, if it ever passed, would throw 22 million people off of health care. How can you go back to your districts and be proud of that? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).