Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I close as I began, which is by reminding my colleagues that we are at an important crossroads. We still have an opportunity to do something about climate change. We still have an opportunity to be on the right side of history. We have the opportunity to do something that is good not only for all of us but for our children, for our grandchildren, and for generations to come. We have an opportunity to provide some wind at the backs of the leaders from all over the world who are gathered in Paris and who are trying to figure out how to deal with the issue of climate change. If we want to take advantage of that opportunity, we need to reject the same old, same old. We need to understand that we need to transition from our historic reliance on fossil fuels. There is a correlation between our reliance on these forms of energy and what we are seeing right now in our environment. It didn't begin that way, and we didn't think we were doing harm to the environment when we were utilizing these resources, but science, over the years, has shown us, undeniably, the damage that has been done to our planet. It is up to us to try to reverse this trend, not to bury our heads in the sand, not to deny science, not to deny climate change, but to do the right thing. I hope that my colleagues, even some of my Republican colleagues, will join with us in rejecting this legislation and will instead work with this White House and will work with other world leaders to deal with the issue of climate change We all talk about national security as being our top priority. Well, national security is more than just the number of weapons we have in our arsenal. It also includes the cleanliness and the purity of our environment. It is about time we become good stewards of this planet. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to vote ``no'' on this backward-thinking legislation that really should not be on the floor today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter that was sent to every Member of Congress who is opposed to these two bills. It is signed by the Allergy and Asthma Network, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Children's Environmental Health Network, the Trust for America's Health, the National Association of Hispanic Nurses, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, and the Health Care Without Harm. Again, they are all opposed to the legislation that we are bringing before the House today. November 16, 2015. Dear Representative: The undersigned public health and medical organizations strongly urge you to oppose Congressional Review Act resolutions H.J. Res. 71 and 72. The measures are excessive attacks on public health protections from carbon pollution from power plants. The Congressional Review Act resolutions are an extreme tool that would permanently block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s actions to reduce dangerous carbon pollution from power plants. These resolutions would prevent EPA from moving forward with any substantially similar action in the future. Carbon pollution from power plants greatly contributes to climate change, which is widely recognized as one of the greatest threats to public health. To protect public health, it is vital that our nation make progress in the fight against climate change. As U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, said during 2015 National Public Health Week, ``We know that climate change means higher temperatures overall, and it also means longer and hotter heat waves . . . higher temperatures can mean worse air in cities, and more smog and more ozone. We know that more intense wildfires will mean increased smoke in the air. And we know that earlier springs and longer summers mean longer allergy seasons.'' The science is clear: communities across the nation are experiencing the health effects of climate change now. Climate change is impacting air pollution, which can cause asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease and premature death, and fostering extreme weather patterns, such as heat and severe storms, droughts, wildfires and flooding, that can harm low-income communities disproportionately. Bold action is needed to protect public health, which is why our organizations support the Clean Power Plan. EPA's action to reduce carbon pollution from power plants will help the nation take important steps toward protecting Americans' health from these threats. Not only does the Clean Power Plan give states flexible tools to reduce the carbon pollution that causes climate change, these crucial tools will also have the co-benefit of reducing other deadly pollutants at the same time, preventing up to 3,600 premature deaths and 90,000 asthma attacks every year by 2030. Please make your priority the health of your constituents and vote NO on these Congressional Review Act resolutions, H.J. Res. 71 and 72. Sincerely, Allergy and Asthma Network; American Lung Association; American Public Health Association; American Thoracic Society; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America; Children's Environmental Health Network; Health Care Without Harm; National Association of Hispanic Nurses; Trust for America's Health.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to me, this should not be controversial, but in this Chamber that is so beholden to the National Rifle Association, this has become a point of controversy. We are talking about people who are suspected of international or domestic terrorism. I don't think any reasonable person feels comfortable with selling those people weapons. We ought to be able to come together by putting the security interests of the people of this country first and enacting this. I hope that there is a strong, bipartisan vote to defeat the previous question so that we can actually bring this up, debate it, and pass it. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from 120 organizations--many environmental organizations, many faith-based organizations--all who oppose S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24. November 30, 2015. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose Senators McConnell and Capito's Congressional Review Act resolutions of disapproval (S.J. Res. 23 and 24) that would permanently block the EPA's Clean Power Plan. These resolutions are an extreme assault on public health, the clean energy economy, and modernizing our energy sector. The Clean Power Plan puts in place commonsense limits on power plant carbon pollution, developed with the input of thousands of stakeholders, and provides the flexibility states need to develop their own plans to meet pollution reduction targets. Blocking these commonsense safeguards puts polluter profits before the health of our children. Power plants are the country's single largest source of the pollution fueling climate change and the Clean Power Plan is the single biggest step we have ever taken to tackle climate change. This plan is expected to deliver billions of dollars in benefits and will prevent nearly 3,000 premature deaths and more than a hundred thousand asthma attacks per year by 2030. Not only would these resolutions undo all of the health and economic benefits of the Clean Power Plan, they would also bar EPA from issuing any standards in the future that are substantially similar. This means that Americans would continue to be exposed indefinitely to carbon pollution and the impacts of climate change. The world's leading scientists agree that failing to act on climate change will ensure worsening extreme weather events, threaten food supplies and increase public health risks. We strongly urge you to oppose these resolutions that put the health of our children and families at risk, threaten the quality of our air, and strip the EPA of the tools to address dangerous carbon pollution. Sincerely, 350.Org, ActionAid USA, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Rivers, Appalachian Voices, Arizona Interfaith Power & Light, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Water Action, Climate Action Alliance of the Valley. Climate Law & Policy Project, Climate Parents, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, Colorado Interfaith Power & Light, Conservation Voters for Idaho, Conservation Voters of South Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife, Delaware Interfaith Power & Light, Earthjustice, Earth Ministry/Washington Interfaith Power & Light, Elders Climate Action, Environment America, Environment Arizona, Environment California, Environment Colorado, Environment Connecticut, Environment Florida, Environment Georgia, Environment Iowa, Environment Maine, Environment Maryland, Environment Massachusetts, Environment Michigan, Environment Minnesota, Environment Missouri. Environment Montana, Environment Nevada, Environment New Mexico, Environment New Hampshire, Environment New York, Environment North Carolina, Environment Ohio, Environment Oregon, Environment Rhode Island, Environment Texas, Environment Virginia, Environment Washington, Environmental Advocates of New York. Environmental Investigation Agency, Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Georgia Interfaith Power & Light, GreenLatinos, Health Care Without Harm, Hoosier Interfaith Power & Light, Illinois Interfaith Power & Light, Interfaith Power & Light, Interfaith Power & Light (DC. MD. NoVA), Iowa Interfaith Power & Light, Iowa Chapter Physicians for Social Responsibility. International Forum on Globalization, KyotoUSA, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, Maine Interfaith Power & Light, Maine Conservation Voters, Maryland League of Conservation Voters, Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, Minnesota Interfaith Power & Light, Missouri Interfaith Power & Light, Montana Conservation Voters, Montana Environmental Information Center, Natural Resources Defense Council. Nebraska Interfaith Power & Light, New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, New Mexico Interfaith Power & Light, New Virginia Majority, New York Interfaith Power & Light, New York League of Conservation Voters, North Carolina Interfaith Power & Light, North Carolina Council of Churches, North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Ohio Interfaith Power & Light, Oklahoma Interfaith Power & Light, Oregon League of Conservation Voters, PDA, Tucson, PennEnvironment, Pennsylvania Interfaith Power & Light. Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona, Physicians for Social Responsibility Maine Chapter, Polar Bears International, Protect Our Winters, Public Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, Rhode Island Interfaith Power & Light, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, Sunshine State Interfaith Power & Light, Tennessee Interfaith Power & Light. Texas Interfaith Power & Light, Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Climate Reality Project, Union of Concerned Scientists, Utah Interfaith Power & Light, Vermont Interfaith Power and Light, Virginia Interfaith Power & Light, Virginia Organizing, Voces Verdes, Voice for Progress, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Western Organization of Resource Councils, Wisconsin Environment, Wisconsin Interfaith Power & Light, Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, World Wildlife Fund.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. With all due respect to George Will, with whom I don't agree on very much of anything, quite frankly, if he or anybody else really believes that there is no correlation between human activity and climate change, I would suggest that maybe he go back to school, because the overwhelming science tells us that there is a connection. The overwhelming science tells us that our reliance on fossil fuels, in particular, has accelerated the climate change on this planet. Again, it just astounds me that, on an issue on which the scientific community has come together overwhelmingly, there is such a disconnect. Again, at a time when all the world's leaders are gathered in Paris trying to figure out how to deal with this challenge, the House of Representatives is dealing with this. I think that is sad and regrettable. I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would grant law enforcement the authority to block the sale of firearms and explosives to individuals who are suspected of international or domestic terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of the amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. But I guess from the Republican point of view, the positive thing about these bills is that they are yet another pander to big money fossil fuel special interests. I urge my colleagues to follow the money because that is what this is all about here today. It is not about serious legislating. It is about fundraising. Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24 look to stop commonsense regulations that the EPA has put in place that protect us from the harmful pollution emitted by power plants. These joint resolutions are another clear message from the Republican majority that they do not believe that climate change is real. Over 120 environmental, faith- based, and public health organizations have already come out opposing these two resolutions, including the American Lung Association, the Allergy and Asthma Network, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Public Citizen. I can stand here forever and repeat the other organizations that have a lot of public support in this country that have come out against these bills. Power plants account for 40 percent of our annual carbon pollution emissions. They are the single biggest source of carbon pollution in the country. Yet the Republican majority wants to take away the greatest step we have taken to try to curb that major source of pollution. These two joint resolutions would permanently prevent the EPA from ever, ever limiting pollution from power plants in the future as well. H.R. 8 is also a deeply troubling piece of legislation. It favors the use of fossil fuels over renewable energy and favors consumption over energy efficiency. It would ram pipeline applications through FERC in under 90 days even though most applications, by the way, are reviewed and approved in less than 1 year. It all but removes individuals from the process, allowing big gas companies to choose to build wherever they want, regardless of the consequences for local communities. It would even allow them to build through our treasured national parks. It is an early Christmas gift for big special interests. At some point, we must face the facts, Mr. Speaker. So I want to say something to my colleagues on the Republican side. I know it may make you feel uncomfortable, but it is the truth: Climate change is real. The overwhelming science says it is real, yet a huge chunk of the Republican Conference is in denial. They don't believe there is such a thing as climate change. They don't believe we have any responsibility to our children or to future generations to combat climate change. They are perfectly happy living in this fantasy world where you can rely on fossil fuels and rely on fossil fuels and rely on fossil fuels and can just make believe that it has no impact at all on the environment. Quite frankly, if climate change weren't such a serious issue, it would be comical, but climate change is a serious issue. It is a real issue. It is an issue not just for us; it is an issue for future generations. So their denial, quite frankly, is frightening. We shouldn't be propping up coal and oil industries with taxpayer subsidies. We shouldn't be using taxpayer money to destroy our environment. When the scientific community reaches a clear consensus on an issue like climate change, Congress shouldn't undermine them with dangerous legislation like this. When we receive credible, peer-reviewed study after study after study after study that tells us we are in the middle of a climate crisis and that something must be done about it, we need to listen, but the Republican majority refuses to listen. Climate change is often referred to as the most pressing issue of our time. We know that climate change is for real. We know that. We see it. We live it. The scientific community has verified it. Climate change is not a theory, it is not a hoax, and it is certainly not some silly fantasy. When arctic ice is crashing into the oceans at record rates, that is not a hoax. When species are going extinct at accelerated rates around the globe, that is not a fantasy. When extreme weather events are becoming commonplace, that is not a theory. When the global temperature of the planet continues to increase every year for decades, we should pay attention. These are the exact same scare tactics that have been used for over 45 years in opposition to climate change. It is the same old stuff. Opponents of clean air have been claiming for half a century that clean air regulations would kill jobs and hurt economic growth, but they are wrong. The truth is that the Clean Air Act alone has created $57 trillion in benefits since it was enacted in 1970. The Clean Power Plan will lead to a stronger economy, a safer climate, and better health for all of us. Why is this so difficult? Maybe it is because my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the President, so anything that he is for they have to be against. You have got to move beyond your anger. You have got to look at the issues, and you have to evaluate them based on the evidence. The evidence is that climate change is for real, but you would never know that in listening to the majority. They have no solutions, only denial. Let's keep on down the road of the same old, same old, and their ``just say no'' agenda is a recipe for disaster. As we gather here, leaders from all around the world are meeting in Paris to talk about how to deal with the issue of climate change. What we should be doing here is providing some wind at the backs of not only our President but of all of the leaders of the world who are gathering to try to figure out how to deal with this challenge. Instead of doing that, we are doing this. It is really sad that this is what we have come to. If we are going to say ``no'' to anything today, it should be to this closed rule and to S.J. Res. 23 and to S.J. Res. 24. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. I want to begin by congratulating the Republican majority for breaking a record today. Through their exemplary, heavyhanded, undemocratic leadership, this is now officially the most closed session of Congress in the entire history of the United States of America. I am not sure that is something to be proud of, but that is the title that they have earned. Today, we are debating the 47th and 48th closed rules of the 114th Congress. We are in our third legislative week since Speaker Ryan took the gavel, and we are already debating our third and fourth closed rules during his short tenure. Speaker Ryan promised a more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, more participatory process. I think he must have misspoken because, by any measure, the Republican leadership has already fallen short of that commitment. Today, we are considering three bills: two that seek to undermine the EPA's ability to protect our public health and environment and a third that offers many troubling provisions, including one which would hastily rush the natural gas pipeline approval process and allow pipelines to be built and run right through our magnificent national parks. On December 11, our government will run out of money. During the 114th Congress, we have stood in this Chamber debating Republican messaging bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, undermine the Dodd- Frank financial reform law, and weaken public health and environmental regulations while failing to consider meaningful legislation that would create jobs, boost the economy, and help vulnerable Americans rise out of poverty. Instead of focusing on these priorities, this majority will bring to the floor three bills intended to prevent the EPA from effectively doing its job. Now, if anyone is feeling deja vu, that is probably because what I just said is from a floor speech I gave on a rule for three antiscience bills that the Republicans brought before us last November. The only difference is I changed 113th to 114th Congress. And while I hate to repeat myself, unfortunately, the majority is in a rut of bringing before us the same old same old: unproductive legislation that is going nowhere. We have 6 legislative days left to ensure that the government doesn't run out of money, just 6 days; but instead of focusing on that, instead of working to ensure the government is funded, we are on the floor debating more Republican messaging bills that I think were written in the National Republican Congressional Committee because they are poorly drafted. These bills have drastic and devastating effects on public health and the environment, and they will be vetoed by the President of the United States. I include in the Record the Statements of Administration Policy on these bills, expressing the administration's intent to veto these bills. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 8--North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015 (Rep. Upton, R-MI, Nov. 30, 2015) The Administration is committed to taking responsible steps to modernize the Nation's energy infrastructure in a way that addresses climate change, promotes clean energy and energy efficiency, drives innovation, and ensures a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations. The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 8 because it would undermine already successful initiatives designed to modernize the Nation's energy infrastructure and increase our energy efficiency. Increased energy efficiency offers savings on energy bills, provides opportunities for more jobs, and improves industrial competitiveness. H.R. 8 would stifle the Nation's move toward energy efficiency by severely hampering the Department of Energy's (DOE) ability to provide technical support for building code development and State implementation. In addition, the bill would undercut DOE's ability to enforce its appliance standards and would weaken section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires a reduction in fossil fuel-generated energy in Federal buildings. H.R. 8 includes a provision regarding certain operational characteristics in capacity markets operated by Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO5) and Independent System Operators (ISOs). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and RTOs and ISOs are already well positioned, especially as technologies change over time, to ensure that capacity market structures adequately provide for the procurement of sufficient capacity to efficiently and reliably fulfill the resource-adequacy function that these markets are intended to perform. H.R. 8 includes new, unnecessary provisions that would broaden FERC's authority to impose deadlines on other Federal agencies reviewing the environmental implications of natural gas pipeline applications. H.R. 8 also would unnecessarily curtail DOE's ability to fully consider whether natural gas export projects are consistent with the public interest. Further, H.R. 8 would undermine the current hydropower licensing regulatory process in place under the Federal Power Act that works to minimize negative impacts associated with the siting of hydropower projects, including negative impacts on safety, fish and wildlife, water quality and conservation, and a range of additional natural resources and cultural values. Among the ways that H.R. 8 would undermine this process would be by creating a new exemption from licensing that would undercut bedrock environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Finally, H.R. 8 presents certain constitutional concerns. Sections 1104 and 3004 would impermissibly interfere with the President's authorities with regard to the conduct of diplomacy and in some cases diplomatic communications, and sections 1109 and 1201 raise concerns under the Recommendations Clause. If the President were presented with H.R. 8, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the gentleman as to how many more speakers he has, for I am prepared to close.

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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that was signed by 81 NGOs that work in the field of humanitarian relief and refugee resettlement in support of the refugee resettlement program and the Syrian refugee resettlement program. November 17, 2015. Dear Senator/Representative: As refugee and immigration law experts, humanitarian aid organizations, faith, labor and civil and human rights groups, we write to express our support for the U.S. refugee resettlement program. The world is witnessing the largest refugee crisis since World War II. More than 4 million Syrians have fled from their home country fleeing conflict and violence, and 6.5 million are displaced internally. At a time when the world needs humanitarian leadership, some are now calling for the suspension of the U.S. refugee resettlement program or the imposition of restrictions on funding for Syrians and other groups of refugees. We oppose these proposals and believe they would jeopardize the United States' moral leadership in the world. Syrian refugees are fleeing exactly the kind of terror that unfolded on the streets of Paris. They have suffered violence just like this for almost five years. Most have lost loved ones to persecution and violence, in addition to having had their country, their community, and everything they own brutally taken from them. Refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group of people who come to the United States. Security screenings are rigorous and involve the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Department of Defense and multiple intelligence agencies. Department of Homeland Security officials interview each refugee to determine whether they meet the refugee definition and whether they are admissible to the United States. Refugees undergo a series of biometric and investigatory background checks, including collection and analysis of personal data, fingerprints, photographs, and other background information, all of which is checked against government databases. The entire process typically takes more than two years and often much more before the refugee would arrive in the U.S. In addition the Administration is already taking steps, with its existing authority, to increase the capacity of its security and screening procedures for refugees. There is no need for Congress to impose additional restrictions or security measures. The United States decides which refugees to resettle. Because so few refugees in the world are resettled, the U.S. often chooses the most vulnerable, including refugees who cannot remain safely where they are and families with children who cannot receive the medical care they need to survive. To turn our back on refugees would be to betray our nation's core values. It would send a demoralizing and dangerous message to the world that the United States makes judgments about people based on the country they come from and their religion. This feeds into extremist propaganda and makes us all less safe. We call upon Congress to demonstrate leadership by speaking out against the scapegoating of any group during this time of crisis and to ensure that our nation's humanitarian efforts are robust. The United States is a welcoming country with a diverse society and our resettlement program must continue to reflect this. We can welcome refugees while ensuring our own security. Refugees have enriched communities across our country and have been part of the American fabric for generations. Historically our nation has responded to every major war or conflict and has resettled refugees from Africa, South East Asia, Eastern Europe as well as the Middle-East. Closing the door to refugees would be disastrous for not only the refugees themselves, but their family members in the United States who are waiting for them to arrive, and our reputation in the world. Sincerely, The Advocates for Human Rights, Alliance for Citizenship, American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Jewish Committee (AJC), American Refugee Committee, America's Voice Education Fund, Anti- Defamation League, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC, Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies. CARE USA, Center for Applied Linguistics, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Center for New Community, Center for Victims of Torture, Centro de los Derechos de Inmigrante, Inc., Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Refugee & Immigration Ministries, Church World Service, Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach, Concern Worldwide (US) Inc., Conference of Major Superiors of Men, Council on American- Islamic Relations. The Episcopal Church, Ethiopian Community Development Council, Inc., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Farmworker Justice, Franciscan Action Network, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Habonim Dror North America, HIAS, Human Rights First, InterAction, International Catholic Migration Commission, International Refugee Assistance Project, International Rescue Committee. Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States, National Advocacy Office, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Labor Committee, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Mercy-USA for Aid and Development, Mi Familia Vota, Muslim Public Affairs Council, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA). National Council of Jewish Women, National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), National Immigration Forum, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, OCA--Asian Pacific American Advocates, OneAmerica, ORAM--Organization for Refuge, Asylum & Migration, Oxfam America, Peace Action West, Presbyterian Church USA, Refugees International. Save the Children, South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), STAND: The Student-Led Movement to End Mass Atrocities, SustainUS: U.S. Youth for Justice, Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), Syria Relief Development, Tahirih Justice Center, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights. Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, United to End Genocide, United Farm Workers, United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, UURISE--Unitarian Universalist Refugee and Immigrant Services and Education, Inc., Win Without War, Women's Refugee Commission, Workmen's Circle, World Relief.

Mr. McGOVERN. I also include in the Record a statement by the Catholic Bishops that say that the U.S. should welcome Syrian refugees into the United States. [From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Nov. 17, 2015] Bishops' Migration Chair: U.S. Should Welcome Syrian Refugees, Work for Peace Baltimore.--Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Committee on Migration, issued a statement on Syrian refugees during the Bishops' annual General Assembly in Baltimore Nov. 17. Full text of the statement follows: Statement on Syrian Refugees and the Attacks in Paris On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration, I offer my deepest condolences to the families of the victims of the November 13 attacks in Paris, France and to the French people. I add my voice to all those condemning these attacks and my support to all who are working to ensure such attacks do not occur again--both in France and around the world. I am disturbed, however, by calls from both federal and state officials for an end to the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States. These refugees are fleeing terror themselves--violence like we have witnessed in Paris. They are extremely vulnerable families, women, and children who are fleeing for their lives. We cannot and should not blame them for the actions of a terrorist organization. Moreover, refugees to this country must pass security checks and multiple interviews before entering the United States--more than any arrival to the United States. It can take up to two years for a refugee to pass through the whole vetting process. We can look at strengthening the already stringent screening program, but we should continue to welcome those in desperate need. Instead of using this tragedy to scapegoat all refugees, I call upon our public officials to work together to end the Syrian conflict peacefully so the close to 4 million Syrian refugees can return to their country and rebuild their homes. Until that goal is achieved, we must work with the world community to provide safe haven to vulnerable and deserving refugees who are simply attempting to survive. As a great nation, the United States must show leadership during this crisis and bring nations together to protect those in danger and bring an end to the conflicts in the Middle East.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include en bloc in the Record a whole bunch of other materials. [From Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Nov. 17, 2015] Reform Movement Rejects Calls for New Limits on Syrian Refugees Washington, D.C.--In response to calls for new limits on Syrian refugees in the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement: The recent attacks in Paris have horrified and pained us deeply, as they have all people of goodwill around the world. Our hearts ache for all those directly impacted by these acts of terror. We pray for healing of those who were injured and comfort for the families of all who were lost. These attacks echo the kind of terrible violence that the Syrian people have lived with for the past several years, buffeted between the brutality of President Assad and the barbarism of ISIS. As such, now is the time to ensure the U.S. refugee system remains open to those fleeing Syria and who wish to contribute to and strengthen our nation. Calls to impose new limits on Syrian refugees, to impose a religious test on refugees, or to close our doors altogether ignore the reality that the lengthy and rigorous vetting of refugee applications helps ensure our national security while upholding our historic role as a place of refuge. We cannot allow the violence wrought by ISIS and its allies to overshadow our values as Americans and as Reform Jews. As Jewish tradition teaches, ``and each shall sit under their vine and fig tree, and none shall make them afraid'' (Micah 4:4). We can ensure our security and fulfill our highest aspirations as a nation rooted in compassion and commitment to religious liberty. We call on members of Congress to oppose any effort to limit the acceptance of Syrian refugees, just as we urge public officials and figures across the U.S. to reject divisive and inflammatory statements that do not reflect our history as a nation founded by descendants of those who fled persecution in search of freedom. In these trying times, we cannot lose sight of our values and what we stand for. To repair the brokenness in our world, we must stand united with those who reject violence and divisiveness and instead support those who uphold healing, safety and security for all.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I do want to say one thing. It strikes me, as we are having this debate here, that I can't help but take note of their response in France toward the Syrian refugees. Yesterday, French President Francois Hollande promised to honor his commitment to take in tens of thousands of refugees, welcoming 30,000 refugees over the next 2 years. That is 6,000 more than he committed to in September. He also announced $53.3 million to develop housing for refugees. We have all invoked the terrible tragedy that happened in France. Let's follow France's example and be a secure shelter for those most in need. As I listen to the debate here, one of the troubling things to me is that there doesn't ever seem to be a tragedy that my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to exploit for political gain, and I think today is no exception. A horrendous terrorist attack happened in Paris, an attack that has shocked the entire world. This is being used as an excuse to pass what I consider an ugly bill because this would shut down a refugee resettlement for Syrians and Iraqis. This bill is aimed at fueling fear rather than protecting the American people. We have an exhaustive screening process for refugees already in place. It takes years for a refugee from Syria to be able to be admitted to the United States--years. Can we improve the system? Absolutely. But the opportunity to do that requires us to consult with one another and to put the results ahead of political gain. But that is not what happened. We had a bill before the Rules Committee that never went through committee, that never was marked up, the content of which was not shared with the Democrats, and a lot of Republicans were locked out of the process. Here we are with a political document more than something that is going to do anything to help these people fleeing violence or help enhance our security. Now, that might be a nice sound bite in your next campaign, but it is an awful thing to do to a group of people fleeing war and terror. Who are these people? They are, as the President stated, widows and orphans mostly. They are old people trying to be reunited with distant family members in the United States. They are people who are fleeing for their lives and who are fleeing the worst terror imaginable. That used to mean something in this Chamber. We used to care about these things in a bipartisan way. Apparently, no more. This Congress is losing its humanity. Here is the deal: we are behaving in a way that I think reinforces what the terrorists are trying to communicate to the rest of the world, which is that somehow we don't care about people from certain parts of the world or we don't care about people who happen to be Muslim. We have had a lot of people on the other side of the aisle who have talked about we ought to have a religious test here and very little condemnation in response to that from my friends on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, my Republican friends said that all we are doing is responding to public opinion. Our job is to be more than just a political weathervane. We have an obligation to make sure that we state the facts--the real facts. We have an obligation to tell the truth. We have an obligation to help put issues in perspective. And, in short, we have an obligation to lead on issues like this and not be so jittery to pursue policies that we all know are wrong. So we are here with a bill that my friends say is so important that there could be no hearings and no markup on, a bill that is so important that there could be no consultation on, a bill that is so important that nobody can offer an amendment on, and we have a bill that is coming before us in an absolutely closed process. Let me just close by expressing my deep frustration with this place and how it is being run. For some time now, I have watched as my Republican friends have regularly turned their backs on the most vulnerable populations. There is no more vulnerable population--no more vulnerable group of people on this planet--than refugees fleeing god- awful war and terror. Yet, today, they are being thrown under the bus for political gain. They are being demonized. They are being characterized as terrorists. Young children, 3-year-old girls, widowed mothers, and grandmothers are being demonized as terrorists. And for what? The American people, I think, expect more from us. What we are doing here today is not about protecting the American people. It is not about helping people fleeing war and violence. This is political. That makes what is happening here today not only disappointing but, I would say, disgusting. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. First, Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the gentleman of Georgia for not wanting to talk about the rule because, today, we are about to debate the 46th closed rule of this Congress, making this the most closed session of Congress in history. Speaker Ryan promised an open and deliberative process when he took the gavel. He has already reneged on that promise. Representatives Bennie Thompson and Zoe Lofgren offered an alternative to today's bill that deserves debate on the House floor, but the Republicans on this Rules Committee prohibited debate under this completely closed process. The bill that we are about to debate wasn't even introduced until 10:14 p.m. Tuesday night. There have been no hearings--none at all--no markups, and no opportunities for bipartisan input. And, quite frankly, there was not a lot of opportunity for rank-and-file Republicans to have any input on this. Even more stunning, the Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing today--right now--on the very subject we are going to vote on in an hour. Mr. Speaker, we all understand why people are anxious and concerned. We all watched with horror as the brutal attacks in Paris played out on our TV screens. And our thoughts and our prayers continue to be with the people of Paris, whose courage inspires all of us. Keeping Americans safe is our top priority. And in the wake of the Paris attacks, that mission has never been more important. But in the days since those terrible attacks, there has been a deeply troubling debate about whether the United States should accept Syrian refugees. In the past week, we have heard far too many of our leaders stirring up fear and far too few talking about the facts. Mr. Speaker, Americans want an honest and serious debate about how we keep our country safe, but this bill, the so-called American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act, or the American SAFE Act, falls far short. Instead of debating a bill that might actually strengthen and enhance our refugee resettlement screening process, we are debating a bill that appeals to the worst in us and hurts the very people who are fleeing the violence and chaos ISIS has wrought. The authors of this bill boast that ``this legislation would put in place the most robust national security vetting process in history for any refugee population.'' But the simple truth is that the United States already has in place the most rigorous screening process for refugee resettlement in the world. Right now, Mr. Speaker, America's refugee screening process already involves seven different Federal departments and agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Beyond that, every refugee from Syria is also subjected to an additional layer of security and scrutiny. This process is so detailed that it takes, on average, about 2 years for each refugee to be fully screened and allowed to enter the United States, under the sponsorship of a local service agency, and be settled here. Two years. Now, I would think that every Member of this House would feel reassured knowing that such a process is already in place to protect our citizens and our communities. We have already resettled over 1,800 Syrian refugees over the past 4 years in 130 communities across America. In the past year, Massachusetts has resettled 62 Syrian refugees, including 24 in my hometown of Worcester. Of the 2,174 Syrian refugees that we have resettled in the United States since 9/11, not a single one has been arrested or deported on terrorism-related grounds. Not one. I recognize that there are ways that we can strengthen that process further. The Congress could consult and work with the administration, including Homeland Security, the State Department, the national intelligence agencies, and the FBI, to identify and discuss areas where enhancements can be made. But that is not what the authors of this bill did. And it is clear that it wasn't their intention either. What H.R. 4038 would actually ``achieve'' is the creation of a so- called process that would shut down all refugee resettlement from Syria and Iraq. It is not meant to make things better. It is meant to make it completely unworkable. Nothing in this bill actually improves the FBI's or any other intelligence agency's ability to conduct a more effective screening process. If you want to do that, give them more money for more personnel and consult with them directly about how to strengthen the existing screening process. This bill hasn't done that. Right now, of the more than 1,800 Syrian refugees resettled in the United States since 2012, half are children, a quarter are adults over the age of 60, and none have been involved in anything remotely tied to terrorism or violent activity. Mr. Speaker, America is at a critical crossroads. It is moments like this that define who we are as a Nation. This bill, along with the deeply troubling rhetoric that surrounds it, would only perpetuate the politics of fear and intolerance. Americans are better than that. And now, more than ever, we must stay true to our values. Our enemies want to divide us. We must remain strong and united in the face of this evil. We must not abandon the clear-eyed compassion that has made America the shining city on the hill for more than two centuries, giving hope to so many generations before us in search of a better life for themselves and for their children. In July, I traveled to Gaziantep, Turkey, near the Syrian border, with a congressional delegation led by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. While there, we heard directly from government leaders, local NGOs, and charities on the front lines helping the countless Syrian refugees who have lost their homes and many of their friends and family. They are desperate to escape the violence and are part of the world's worst refugee crisis since World War II. We cannot shrink from this moment when strong American leadership is needed. One of the most important reminders of the legacy we must live up to is the Statue of Liberty. For more than 100 years, it has stood as a promise for better life for the ``huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' We cannot turn our backs on the values at the heart of our identity as Americans. To do this would cede a victory to the terrorists. Yet the fear, anger, prejudice, and isolationism that are driving the current debate on Syrian refugees remind me of some of the darkest and ugliest chapters of modern American history. Many Americans--some in this Chamber--still remember the moment in our Nation's history when we turned away ships filled with Jewish refugees desperate to escape Nazi Germany and imprisoned our fellow citizens of Japanese heritage in internment camps. Do we really want to return to these kinds of destructive and hateful policies? Is that really who we are today? I am so proud of America's leadership in providing $4.5 billion in aid to Syrian refugees in the region--more than any other country. I am also proud that the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement places a priority on accepting widows with children and highly vulnerable individuals, especially the elderly and the infirm. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4038 would shut down our resettlement program altogether. That is what it wants to do, and that is what it intends to do. The refugees eligible for resettlement in the United States are not the refugees in Europe. The refugees coming into the United States through our resettlement program have been living in refugee camps for months--often years--under unimaginably harsh conditions. A woman and her 3-year-old little girl whose home in Syria was reduced to rubble by barrel bombs and whose husband has been killed will be denied the opportunity to go through the rigorous screening process to find a new home in America. An elderly woman who has lost everything and is barely alive now in a refugee camp will be denied a home in America, even if she has some distant relatives already in the United States. Mr. Speaker, where is our humanity? None of the Syrian refugees who have already made it through our screening process and have been resettled in the United States fit the description of the terrorists I have heard described over and over again last night in the Rules Committee. Those ugly distortions of the people we are resettling only emphasize how out of touch with reality this debate has gotten. Mr. Speaker, if we really want to help make America more safe and more secure in the wake of the Paris attacks, then we should put more money in the omnibus appropriations bill for the FBI, DHS, and for our local law enforcement agencies so that they can continue focusing on criminal and homegrown as well as possible foreign individuals and networks that might engage in violence against our citizens. And, while we are at it, we should also increase the funding for the State Department, HHS, the UNHCR, and the NGOs that provide humanitarian aid abroad and resettlement support to refugee families here in America. But let us stop wasting our time with a bill that is going nowhere and fails to offer the serious approach we need to keep America safe and address this crisis. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, those of us on our side have no problem with taking the fight to the thugs. What we have a problem with is taking the fight to orphans, widows, young children, and senior citizens who are fleeing war and terror. To turn our backs on those individuals, to basically shut this process down--and that is what this would do. By the way, the authors of the bill admitted that last night in the Rules Committee. This is not going to stop the refugee resettlement process in its place. But to do that goes against the very best traditions and values of this country. We are better than that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for clarifying that point, which now means that there are zero hearings on this bill and no markup. It doesn't make me feel very good about this process. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am stunned to just listen to the gentleman from Georgia basically tell us that you can have either a bill or you can have regular order, but you can't have both. This is the greatest deliberative body on the planet. We are supposed to discuss issues. We are supposed to debate issues. Committees are supposed to do their work and report that, then, to the Rules Committee to come to the floor. But to suggest that you have a choice here, you can't have both, is ridiculous. The Speaker of the House promised regular order. He has reneged on that promise. It is outrageous, especially on a bill like this, that we cannot have amendments; that even the committees of jurisdiction can't even do their job. It is an outrage. It is shameful. How can you defend that kind of process? I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman 15 seconds.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would simply allow us to debate and vote on a reasonable alternative in addition to the Republican bill that we are considering today. This record-breaking closed rule shuts down both Republicans and Democrats, makes it impossible for them to be able to participate in the legislative process, and prevents us from considering reasonable, commonsense alternatives. If we are truly interested in actually enhancing the security of the United States and protecting the American people, maybe we ought to come together and behave like adults and work together to come up with a solution that actually works. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent due to official business on Monday, November 16, 2015. On Roll Call Vote Number 626, on the bill H.R. 308, Keep the Promise, had I been present I would have voted No. On Roll Call Vote Number 627, on H.R. 1338, the Dignified Interment of Our Veterans' Act of 2015, I would have voted Yea. On Roll Call Vote Number 628, on H.R. 1384, the Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act, had I been present I would have voted Yea.