Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the second session of the 114th Congress, there is a long list of important issues that we could be talking about today. We could be talking about ways to support job creation, to grow the economy, to improve gun safety, to strengthen national security, to pass an immigration reform bill, and many other important priorities. Instead, we are talking about H.R. 3762, the latest attempt by House Republicans to defund Planned Parenthood and to repeal the Affordable Care Act. As our economy continues to recover, we should be focused on expanding opportunity and helping more Americans get ahead. Instead, we are starting the new year by debating a bill that, if it ever became law, would put the health care of 22 million Americans in jeopardy and would further restrict women's access to vital healthcare services. This is yet another blatant political move by Republicans to appeal to and to appease their right-wing base. Republican leaders have said it themselves. Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn called this a ``political exercise.'' He said, ``I think we all recognize the President isn't likely to sign this bill so it's not going to become a law.'' Then, why on earth are we wasting the American people's time with this terrible bill? This month we have heard that Speaker Ryan ``will push to turn the House into a platform for ambitious Republican policy ideas.'' The 62nd vote to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. The 11th vote to attack women's health. Really? That is the platform for ambitious Republican policy ideas? I think the American people should sue Republicans for malpractice. When Speaker Ryan took the gavel last fall, there was so much talk about a new chapter and fresh ideas. Instead, we are starting 2016 with more of the stale and politically motivated bills we have become accustomed to in this Republican-controlled Congress. We are constantly being told by Republicans that they have better ideas and that they have a better approach to health care. Really? Where is it? I would remind my Republican friends that, in 2011, you passed a bill that actually tasked you to come up with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. You came up with nothing. Just last year you passed another bill to come up with an alternative, and, once again, you came up with nothing. Now here we are again with a bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act and that tasks the Republicans to come up with an alternative. I am curious. Where is your alternative? Maybe it is in your notes. Is it hidden in some secret room in the Capitol? Maybe Donald Trump has it. Perhaps we should alert the Capitol Police. Better yet, maybe we could call the FBI to locate the Republican plan on health care. I remind my friends that you are in charge. You run this place. You can bring whatever you want to this House floor. Maybe you should bring a bloodhound to the House floor to try to find your alternative healthcare plan. Governing is something that my friends on the Republican side are not very good at. They are very good about saying no to everything, but they can't say yes to anything. The Republican plan on health care is, essentially, a sound bite. Their prescription is ``take two tax breaks and call me in the morning.'' Not only have the Republicans done nothing to expand health care for the American people--and, again, they are in charge--but they have actually consistently tried to undermine health access for millions of Americans, to take health care away from people in this country. If the Republicans had it their way and actually repealed the Affordable Care Act, millions of young people under the age of 26 would be thrown off their parents' health plans, being a woman would once again be a preexisting condition, and much more of the progress made by the ACA would be rolled back. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what we often hear from Republicans, the Affordable Care Act is not killing the economy. I know facts get in the way of their arguments, but the fact is that America has seen a record 69 straight months of job growth and all signs point to this historic growth continuing. In September 2012, when unemployment was at 8.1 percent, the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, claimed that the unemployment rate would stay at 8 percent if President Obama were reelected President. Well, President Obama was reelected President, and Mitt Romney was wrong. What actually happened? The unemployment rate has steadily dropped each year and is now at a 7-year low of 5 percent, with employers adding about 210,000 jobs a month through last November as more Americans get back to work. One of the frequent Republican claims that we have heard is that businesses would shift to part-time workers to avoid the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide healthcare coverage to full-time employees. A new study released this week shows that the ACA resulted in little change in the number of hours worked, including the first 6 months of 2015 when the employer mandate first took effect for larger companies. As Politico noted, this study ``pokes a major hole in a beloved conservative talking point--that ObamaCare will force employers to cut employees' hours.'' The truth is that researchers found no major changes in the probability of people working fewer hours in 2013, 2014, or 2015. We have also heard Republicans' claim that the ACA's expansion of Medicaid would decrease employment among low-income workers, but another study released this week showed no major changes in the way low-income workers fit into the labor market during the first 15 months of Medicaid expansion under ACA. Contrary to conservative talking points, the new coverage didn't push low-income adults to switch jobs, move from full-time to part-time work, or rush to find new jobs. In fact, the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act has made a tremendous difference in increasing access to health care for America's most vulnerable families. Since October of 2013, more than 12.3 million Americans have been able to get coverage thanks to the expansion of Medicaid. As a result of marketplace coverage and Medicaid expansion, hospital uncompensated care costs were reduced by an estimated $7.4 billion in 2014, resulting in huge savings for consumers across this country. That is the difference between us. Democrats believe health care is a right and my Republican friends believe it is a privilege. To make matters worse, the bill before us today would also defund Planned Parenthood, which would put millions of low-income women--and men, I would add--at risk of losing access to critical health services. The fact is that one in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood health center for care in her lifetime, and Planned Parenthood serves 2.7 million patients each year. Additionally, Planned Parenthood clinics often serve as one of the few affordable care options available for many women and men. Cutting off access to the critical health services Planned Parenthood provides to some of our most vulnerable citizens is simply wrong. It is unconscionable. Sixty-three percent of voters, including 72 percent of independents, agree. This whole effort to defund Planned Parenthood fits the Republican pattern of targeting poor people, and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous. While our Nation's community health centers do incredible work, the Republican claim that community health centers by themselves could suddenly pick up all the slack if Planned Parenthood is defunded is just not true, and my Republican friends know that. The idea that our community health centers could overnight suddenly step up and step in and cover millions of new patients is absurd. In fact, in 21 percent of the counties with a Planned Parenthood health center, Planned Parenthood is the only safety net family planning provider. Finally, let me just also voice my strong objection to the provision in this rule which extends for another year the unrestricted authority for four House committees to conduct staff depositions at any time, on any subject, for any reason. Some committees have barely used this authority in the past year, and, when they have, it has often been abused with the threat of subpoena held over people's heads. The power to compel American citizens to provide testimony under oath should be rarely used and specifically authorized. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are tired of the partisan witch hunts that we have grown accustomed to under this Republican leadership in this House. We are starting the new year, not by working in a bipartisan way to do the people's business. Unfortunately, we are starting the new year debating the same old same old, bills that put politics ahead of people. Mr. Speaker, that is truly sad. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Shrewsbury Boy Scout Troop 114. January 2016 will mark the 100th anniversary of Shrewsbury Boy Scout Troop 114. The troop, which has been chartered by the First Congregational Church of Shrewsbury since 1916, is one of the oldest troops in Mohegan Council as well as one of the oldest troops within the Boy Scouts of America. For the last hundred years, Shrewsbury Boy Scout Troop 114 has been a vibrant part of our community and helped to teach our young boys the skills that prepare them to lead and the values that strengthen our families in Shrewsbury and the surrounding communities. Troop 114, which is comprised of 70 Scouts who range in age from 10 to 17, is led by Scoutmaster Rick Spurr as well as 28 registered adult leaders. All of them work to build character and train the Scouts in the responsibilities of participating citizenship and developing personal fitness. Troop 114 helps our boys stay active and physically fit with 10 campouts per year and a week of summer camp. Since 1916, Troop 114 has spent over 2,500 nights camping throughout New England and members of Troop 114 have represented Shrewsbury proudly at every National Boy Scout Jamboree that has ever been held. Through the years, 124 members of Troop 114 have attained the rank of Eagle Scout. For the last decade, crews of Scouts have attended national High Adventure camps across the country, including Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico, Seabase in Florida and the Bahamas, and Maine High Adventure in northern Maine. Over the past 100 years Scouting, Troop 114 has kept up with the changing world by offering many new merit badges that focus on cutting- edge technologies and industries that did not exist years ago. And while much has changed, the core values of the Scouting program have remained constant since Troop 114 was founded in 1916. I am pleased to congratulate Shrewsbury Boy Scout Troop 114 as they celebrate their centennial and a proud history of helping all of our boys reach their full potential. Here's to another great hundred years.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I said at the very beginning, what we are presented with today, I think, can be fairly characterized as a mixed bag. There are some very good things that we can talk about in both these packages that we are going to debate and vote on today and tomorrow, and there are some very bad things. And I think Members are going to have to decide for themselves whether the good outweighs the bad or the bad outweighs the good. But I think the one thing we should agree on is that we need to do better in terms of process. We ought to consider all of these appropriations bills individually. And even if the other body chooses not to take those bills up, we ought to at least do our work here. We only did half the job this year, and I regret that very, very much. I will say on the good side of what is being presented today is the chipping away at sequestration, which was a horrible idea. It has done great damage to this country's economy, which has hurt a lot of struggling people in this country. This package before us today begins the process of chipping away at that. I also believe that it is good that we are doing what we should have done a long time ago, and that is provide certainty for the 9/11 responders. I want to thank the New York delegation, in particular, for their steadfast insistence that we act on this. That is in this package as well. In terms of the tax extenders, there is great concern on our side about the fact that a lot of this is all unpaid for. And yes, we do care about deficits. I wish my colleagues on the other side cared more about deficits. Everybody is saying that they are committed to reducing or eliminating our deficit. I will remind you we had a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, in office when we actually eliminated the deficit. And when the Republican, George W. Bush, got elected and we had unpaid-for tax cuts--most for wealthy people--and unpaid-for wars, we saw the elimination of the deficit balloon into these huge deficits. And we are still trying to dig ourselves out of that mess to this very day. I would say that in the tax extender bill I am grateful we have made permanent the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. These are both important antipoverty initiatives. It will help a lot of people whom this body has consistently and deliberately ignored for too long. I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who said that the child tax credit should have been indexed for inflation. We could have done that. I think that would have been even a better gesture toward trying to help people get out of poverty. We didn't do that. That is a fight that we need to deal with in the future. Finally, I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can have an up-or-down vote to eliminate what I think is an outrageous giveaway to Big Oil. It doesn't belong in this bill. We should have that debate, and Members ought to be able to vote up or down on it. The only way we are going to be able to do that, quite frankly, is by eliminating the previous question so we can bring this amendment to the floor. Having said that, this is the final action of the Rules Committee--I hope it is the final time the Rules Committee will be presenting on the floor--and, again, I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this. I want to especially thank the staff. I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and I look forward to a more productive 2016. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, here we are again. It is the end of the year, and once more we have come to the brink of a government shutdown. It is sad to say, but this has become routine. We need to return to regular order, where we pass appropriations bills one at a time and not end up with a 2,000-plus-page bill at the last minute that nobody has thoroughly read. In all candor, the excuse that it is all the Senate's fault is a bit disingenuous. Of the 12 appropriations bills the government must pass each year, we only considered 6 in the House. We stopped considering appropriations bills because some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were more interested in protecting the Confederate flag than in getting the people's business done. We have a deal before us that, if passed, would prevent us from heading toward a government shutdown and damaging our economy. Americans cannot afford another manufactured crisis, something that my friends on the other side of the aisle have become good at. The so- called deal that we will debate today and tomorrow reflects the imperfect process that produced it. I am grateful to my colleagues who worked to get a product to us that, hopefully, can avoid a catastrophe. I am especially grateful to the staff who worked around the clock these last weeks to get us to this point. Truthfully, we should be apologizing to the staff for putting them through this ordeal. This is not the way to run Congress. There are two parts to the underlying legislation: Amendment 1 to H.R. 2029, the omnibus Appropriations Act, and Amendment 2, known as the tax extenders bill. The omnibus Appropriations Act is, by any measure, a mixed bag, but, importantly, it does begin to undo so-called sequestration, which has done great damage to our economy and great harm to our people. In my view, sequestration represents an all-time high in recklessness and stupidity. We need to reverse it. This bill begins to do that. In the omnibus there will be necessary increases in funding for NIH, NSF, Head Start, Pell grants, job training, State and local law enforcement, programs to prevent violence against women, energy efficiency programs, FEMA, our national parks, VA medical service accounts, the McGovern-Dole international school feeding program, a reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and a host of other programs. I am grateful for these increases. This bill includes a 75-year extension to the Zadroga Act, which supports health care for the brave 9/11 first responders who risked their lives at Ground Zero to save others and became ill as a result. These are true American heroes, and I am pleased that Congress has finally done the right thing by ensuring that they will be able to get the care that they deserve. One of the things, however, that concerns me about the omnibus appropriations bill is that it contains a controversial cybersecurity measure that many of us feel falls short of safeguarding Americans' private information. Quite frankly, a provision like this does not belong in an omnibus appropriations bill. Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to strike this cybersecurity provision. Every single Republican--every single one--voted against my provision. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a ``Dear Colleague'' that was sent to all of us from Representatives Lofgren, Amash, Conyers, Farenthold, and Polis in opposition to the cybersecurity measure being part of this omnibus appropriations bill. December 16, 2015. From: The Honorable Zoe Lofgren. Omnibus Includes Privacy Violating Provisions: Join Reps. Lofgren, Amash, Conyers, Farenthold, and Polis in Opposition Dear Colleague: We are writing to express our concerns with the inclusion of the Cybersecurity Act in the omnibus. What was intended to be a cybersecurity bill to facilitate the sharing of information between the private sector and government was instead drafted in such a way that it has effectively become a surveillance bill, and allows information shared by companies to be used by the government to prosecute unrelated crimes. The bill intended to allow the private sector to share ``cyber threat indicators'' with government agencies. However, depending on the type of ``indicator,'' it is highly likely that private information otherwise protected by the Fourth Amendment will also be disclosed to government surveillance agencies. Unfortunately, as drafted, the bill falls short of providing safeguards to protect Americans' private information. In particular: 1. This bill allows the use of shared information for more than just ``cybersecurity purposes.'' It allows the government to investigate and prosecute specific threats to serious bodily injury or serious economic injury, computer fraud, and trade secrets violations, among other criminal violations. WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: Specific threats to serious bodily injury or economic harm are extremely broad categories of crimes. So are identity theft, computer fraud, and trade secrets violations. By allowing the use of this information for non-cybersecurity purposes, the bill encourages intelligence agencies to collect and retain as much information as they can for as long as possible, in the unlikely event that one day it might be useful. An alternative bill, H.R. 1731, which received the largest House support, prohibited these uses and limited the use of cyber indicators to only cyber security purposes for this reason. 2. The bill fails to include an express prohibition on using this information for ``surveillance'' purposes. WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: Express prohibition of ``surveillance'' is vital because past experience demonstrates that intelligence agencies will broadly interpret the included non-cyber, criminal allowances to perform surveillance. For example, few thought the National Security Agency (NSA) would interpret ``relevant'' to allow collection of every phone record in America. Surveillance is merely an investigation method, so this bill contains no protections against the NSA (or any other agency) from conducting broad surveillance using this information in the name of stopping any enumerated offenses. 3. The private sector and government are only required to remove personal information they ``know at the time of sharing'' to be included in the information they share with

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, one additional concern, for me and for many others, is an awful provision--and I stress the word ``awful''--in this bill, which constitutes a big giveaway to Big Oil and could lead to an increase in gas prices. Big Oil gives big money to campaigns, and, sadly, Big Oil is getting a very big return on its investment with this bill. This provision could intensify climate change, have devastating environmental impacts, and does nothing to save consumers money on energy costs. I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to strike this outrageous provision. My colleagues will have to decide whether the good outweighs the bad before casting their vote on the omnibus bill. Compromise is never easy, but in a divided government it is essential if we are to move forward. One of my biggest critiques of this Republican-controlled Congress has been the total disregard for Americans who struggle--those stuck in poverty. Time and time again in this Chamber, poor people have been demonized and disparaged while those who are well off and well connected get one tax break after another after another. I am pleased that in the tax extenders package there are provisions to protect millions of struggling Americans from a tax increase and boost family incomes by permanently extending essential improvements to the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit for low-income working families, as well as the American opportunity tax credit to help low- and middle-income families pay for college. All of these improvements to these tax credits were originally passed as part of the 2009 Recovery Act, and each has played a critical role in fueling America's economic recovery after the financial crisis. Making these improvements permanent would be among the biggest steps Congress can take to reduce poverty, and without action these credits would expire at the end of 2017. Every year, these improvements are expected to lift about 16 million people, including about 8 million children, out of poverty, or closer to rising above the poverty line. Simply put, making these improvements to the EITC and the CTC permanent will keep more children out of poverty than any other Federal program. The real world impact cannot be overstated. For example, a single mother with two children who works full time at the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and makes $14,500 a year would lose her entire $1,725 child tax credit without congressional action. For a family on a fixed income, this would be a terrible setback. Additionally, making the American opportunity tax credit permanent would ensure this program continues to help millions of low- and middle-income families pay for college every year. In addition to the millions of families these provisions would help, this legislation before us takes important steps to bolster investments in education, job training, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure, and research, while also strengthening national security. I am especially pleased that this deal includes a provision that would make permanent tax parity for commuters who take mass transit-- something that has long been a major priority of mine. For far too long, the Tax Code has allowed employers to offer their workers more in pretax parking benefits than in mass transit benefits. Parity between parking and mass transit benefits was first established in the Recovery Act and has been extended on a short-term basis since then. The bill before us would establish permanent parity for mass transit commuters. It is an attractive fringe benefit that employers can offer their workers. It offers significant savings to employees who rely on mass transit. It is especially important to my constituents in central and western Massachusetts who take the train every day into downtown Boston. Mr. Speaker, by averting a government shutdown and passing this deal, we will be able to bring certainty to small businesses, as well as companies investing in the United States, while extending important incentives that support hiring and investing in low-income communities. Following the historic international climate agreement reached in Paris this past weekend, I am also pleased that this deal would extend tax incentives for investments in wind and solar energy, helping to drive significant reductions in carbon pollution and other dangerous air pollutants and provide certainty for investments in clean energy. Investments like these would not be possible without the recent budget deal, which reversed about 90 percent of the cuts that sequestration would have made to nondefense discretionary programs in fiscal year 2016 with parity between defense and nondefense spending. Mr. Speaker, while there are many positive provisions in this deal, one major concern is that the House Republican tax extender bill would provide hundreds of billions of dollars in special interest tax breaks that are permanent and unpaid for. Such massive giveaways to special interests like Big Oil are a step in the wrong direction. As our economy continues to recover, we have a responsibility to the American people to pass legislation that helps to grow the paychecks of hardworking families and make the investments that will build the bright future that our children deserve. I am especially troubled by the fact that the tax extenders bill continues the misguided double standard of financing tax cuts with budget deficits while insisting on offsets for any increases in domestic spending. Quite frankly, this is dishonest coming from my Republican colleagues who so often claim to be focused on reducing the deficit. So many American families are working hard to get back on their feet and give their children opportunities that they deserve. Continuing this double standard of holding back on investments that we could be making now to help even more of our fellow citizens is inexcusable. Extending hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the most powerful interests when our country needs much stronger investment in jobs and economic growth for all is a troubling and sober reminder that we must do more to put hardworking families first. Quite frankly, I think it highlights the difference between the two parties. Democrats have long championed the importance of investing in our infrastructure, investing in our people, and investing in our economy. Mr. Speaker, the omnibus spending bill and the tax extenders package before us today is not perfect. Members on both sides of the aisle are going to have to decide for themselves whether the good outweighs the bad. Clearly, there are some good things and there are some bad things. Hopefully, in the future, we will return to regular order and do our business in a more thoughtful and effective way. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Oklahoma that I appreciate his commitment to regular order and reminding us that Speaker Ryan has committed to regular order as well. I am a little skeptical, so I am not going to hold my breath because I probably won't make it until next year if I do that. I will just remind him that the previous Speaker, Speaker Boehner, promised the same thing, and we never saw it. In fact, we have the most closed Congress in the history of United States Congresses. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would strike the provision in the omnibus that lifts the ban on exporting crude oil. 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. To discuss the proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds because I agree with her on this issue.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on Thursday, December 10, 2015 as I was attending a funeral in my district. On Roll Call Vote Number 687, on the bill H.R. 3578, the DHS Science and Technology Reform and Improvement Act of 2015, had I been present I would have voted yea. On Roll Call Number 689, on H.R. 2795, the FRIENDS Act, had I been present I would have voted yea.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on Thursday, December 10, 2015, as I was attending a funeral in my congressional district in Massachusetts. On Roll Call Vote Number 688, the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair on the Privileged Resolution offered by Ms. Pelosi of California to place on the calendar for an immediate vote H.R. 1076, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, had I been present I would have voted NO.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, what we should be talking about today is keeping the government open before funding runs out. With the horrific terrorist attack in San Bernardino taking place just 1 week ago, we should also be talking about how to keep guns out of the wrong hands. House Democrats are united in making these our top priorities so that we can address the pressing issues the American people elected us to tackle. Instead, we are talking about H.R. 2130, the Red River Private Property Protection Act. This is a bill that Republicans know is going nowhere, but they still insist that we take it up. Today I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation. Proponents of this bill claim that the Bureau of Land Management's effort to survey land along the Red River is a Federal land grab. In fact, H.R. 2130 is a land grab by the State of Texas which will harm local Native American tribes and taxpayers nationwide. H.R. 2130 would set aside existing Federal surveys of land along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River in Texas and would require the Secretary to commission and to accept, without Federal participation, surveys of the land approved by the Texas General Land Office. We should be helping to provide legal certainty to property owners along the Red River, but we should not use the approach of voiding or nullifying Federal surveys. BLM's survey and public planning process is not a land grab or a government overreach, but simply a Federal agency trying to resolve a very complex situation. If Texas wants to challenge the BLM's survey methods, they should do it in the normal way, in the courts, not through Congress. Additionally, this legislation would require the Interior Department to delegate its authority for determining Federal estate to a State agency, would be counter to near 100 years of settled law, and could reduce mineral revenue opportunities for the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache tribes and the State of Oklahoma. Passing this bill could potentially complicate oil and gas leases that local tribes rely on for income. The Kiowa, Apache, and Comanche tribes receive 62.5 percent of any royalty generated for oil and gas development along this section of the Red River. If part of this land no longer belongs to the Federal Government, then this agreement would disappear and the important source of revenue relied on by these tribes could vanish into thin air. These tribes view this bill as a threat to their livelihood and an assault on their property. In addition to potentially losing revenues from mineral revenues, tribes have also expressed concern about access to water. Water is scarce in this arid region, and tribes rely on access to the Red River significantly. So H.R. 2130 could threaten that critical access. If we want to do what is right by the people of Texas, the people of Oklahoma, the affected tribes, and the people of the United States, we have got to reject this bill in its current form. We all know that it is going nowhere and will be just another waste of the House's precious time. I ask my colleagues: Shouldn't we be tackling pressing issues, like gun violence or funding for our government? Mr. Speaker, Congress only has 1 legislative day left to avert a government shutdown. Let me remind my Republican friends about the last time that they shut down the government: The economy lost $24 billion and 120,000 private sector jobs. Veterans' disability claims were stalled. Head Start centers were forced to close. Small businesses were cut off from SBA loans. $4 billion in tax refunds were delayed. Hundreds of Americans were prevented from enrolling in NIH clinical trials. So instead of heading down that road again and damaging our recovering economy, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will do the right thing. I urge the Republican leadership to drop their demands for radical policy riders that put an omnibus funding bill in jeopardy. Work with our leadership. Work in a bipartisan way to advance a bill that will keep the government open and avert yet another Republican-manufactured crisis. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, Mr. Speaker, and it needs to be done right now. My friend from Washington earlier made reference to regular order, saying that those of us who are trying to get a vote on a bill to basically close a loophole that allows terrorist suspects to be able to buy weapons are not adhering to regular order. Well, I have news for my friend from Washington State. Regular order is dead in this House of Representatives. It died a long time ago. My Republican friends killed it a long time ago. There is no regular order in this House. Whether it is on your bills to defund Planned Parenthood, the energy package, the Syrian refugee bill, the oil bill, none of that came before us in regular order. We are on this floor day after day, demanding votes on procedural motions precisely because there is no regular order in this House. The committees of jurisdiction are not doing their job, are not even doing hearings or reporting a bill out of committee that would prevent terrorist suspects from getting access to weapons. So we are using procedural motions to try to put some pressure on the leadership in this House--if not pressure, maybe to shame the leadership of this House to bring a bill to the floor that the overwhelming majority of the American people want. As I said earlier, only in this Republican-controlled House of Representatives would the idea of prohibiting terrorist suspects from getting weapons be considered controversial. These people that we are talking about are on the no-fly list. They can't fly on airplanes, and I am glad that they can't fly with me when I go back and forth from Washington to Boston every week. I think the majority of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are glad that terrorist suspects are not on their plane flying around the country when they are on these planes. Why, then, would it somehow be a good idea to say that these people who cannot fly on our airplanes because we suspect them of links to terrorism can somehow go out and buy a weapon of war that could potentially be used against our citizens? There are a lot of things we need to do. This is one of them. I get it that there is a particular special interest out there that is putting a lot of pressure on the leadership and on some Members on the other side to not be able to bring this bill to the floor. But I would say that a majority of the members of the National Rifle Association actually agree with us on this issue. By the way, this idea that we are putting forward here today is not a democratic idea. It is introduced by a Republican Member of Congress, Congressman Peter King of New York. It is an idea that has been endorsed by a Republican President and its administration, the Bush administration prior to this one. Their Justice Department thought this was a good idea. Former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, who is the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, said this is a good idea. I mean, reasonable, rational people think this is good idea. Yet, in this House of Representatives, we can't even get it on the floor for a vote. If you don't want to vote for it, then have the courage to vote ``no.'' Allow it to come to the floor. Let your constituents know where you stand on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will just respond to the gentleman by saying that my objection is that we have become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. The difference between debating a Texas landgrab bill that is going nowhere versus a bill that could protect the American people from terror suspects who now have access to buy guns, I don't think there is any comparison here. The difference between doing this Texas landgrab bill and actually passing a bill to keep the government running, I think passing a bill to keep the government running is more important. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).