Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work and achievements of Dr. Robert Beall, who recently stepped down as president and chief executive officer of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. In his 35 years with the Foundation, Dr. Beall's efforts to advance cystic fibrosis research and treatment have had an extraordinary impact. When Dr. Beall began work with the Foundation in 1980, the median predicted life expectancy of a patient with cystic fibrosis was 18 years. Today, it is more than 40 years. In 1976, Dr. Beall was first introduced to the disease when he attended the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation's meeting outside of San Diego. There, he was shocked to see how little scientific understanding there was about the disease. In the words of Dr. Beall, ``the foundation was so small at that point that the parents were bringing all the food and operating the projector--and I met the parents . . . Kids were dying then at a very young age. After I met the parents, I went back to the National Institutes of Health and said: `I want to do this.' '' Dr. Beall went on to manage the National Institutes of Health's cystic fibrosis program. There, he earned a National Institutes of Health Merit Award for his significant contributions to the field. In 1980, Dr. Beall joined the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation where he served first as their executive vice president for medical affairs and, beginning in 1994, as their president and CEO. During Dr. Beall's time with the Foundation, medical awards for cystic fibrosis research grew from $4 million to over $85 million and supported groundbreaking research including the discovery in 1989 of the genetic defect responsible for the disease. Further, under Dr. Beall's oversight, the Foundation established 114 care centers and cutting-edge research facilities. We also have Dr. Beall to thank for developing and advancing the innovative concept of venture philanthropy. With this practice, Dr. Beall created the Therapeutics Development Program to connect researchers with biotech companies. Thanks to Dr. Beall's work, many children diagnosed with cystic fibrosis have lived into adulthood and it is no longer a pediatric disease. Today, more than 50 percent of patients are over 18 years of age. As co-chair of the Cystic Fibrosis Caucus, I have had the privilege of working with Dr. Beall and seeing firsthand his passion and commitment to finding a cure for cystic fibrosis. His steadfast leadership and innovative thinking has improved the lives of thousands of people with cystic fibrosis and their families. Today, I ask all Americans to join me in thanking Dr. Beall for his tireless dedication to helping people with cystic fibrosis and in wishing him the best in his new endeavors.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor retired Judge John S. McCann, who will be recognized at the 2015 Westborough Good Scout Award Dinner held by the Knox Trail Council of the Boy Scouts of America in Westborough, Massachusetts. At the heart of the Scout Oath that Boy Scouts take is the pledge to `help other people at all times.' Throughout his career, Judge McCann has been a shining example of this commitment to always serving others. A resident of Westborough, Judge McCann is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester and the University of Vanderbilt School of Law in Tennessee. He and his wife Suzanne are active members of St. Luke the Evangelist Parish in Westborough, were foster parents for five years, and have three children, Sean, Gaylen and Aidan. Judge McCann knew from an early age that he wanted to pursue a career in law. His first grammar school composition as a third-grader at the Blessed Sacrament School on Pleasant Street was titled, ``Why I Want to Become a Lawyer.'' Following law school, Judge McCann practiced law in California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine. Judge McCann returned to Massachusetts in 1970 and has since resided in Westborough. Before he became a judge, he maintained law offices in Westborough and Worcester. It wasn't until 1993 that he aspired to become a judge, when fellow members of the Worcester County Bar Association encouraged him to apply for the Westborough District Court judgeship. He was appointed to the post by Gov. William F. Weld, and in 2000 was nominated by Gov. A. Paul Cellucci to the Superior Court bench. He then served as a Recall Judge for four years; and retired again in 2014. Judge McCann has been an active member of our community through his work with Westborough Community Fund, Chamber of Commerce, Capital Expenditures Committee, Armstrong Jr. High Parent Association; Westborough Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, and Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms World Jurist Association. He was a member and officer of the Worcester Bar Association, Worcester Bar Advocates, Worcester Bar Foundation, and Legal Assistance Corporation. Judge McCann is also an avid fly fisherman and has said that in retirement, he aims ``to find a lot of rivers'' and spend quality time with his grandchildren, Conor and Mairead McCann. After a long and illustrious career, dedicated to helping others and upholding the law, I cannot think of a better way for him to spend his second retirement. I am grateful to Judge McCann for all that he has done for Massachusetts families and communities.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in September I traveled to Honduras as part of a fact-finding delegation organized by the Washington Office on Latin America. Everywhere we went we heard about people's concern over endemic corruption and impunity. An unprecedented citizens' movement has inspired thousands of Hondurans to take to the street in peaceful protest marches demanding that Honduras establish an international, independent commission with the mandate to investigate crimes of corruption and impunity and the ability to participate in their prosecution. This type of a commission is modeled on the successful work over the past decade of the ``CICIG'' in Guatemala. This movement is called the ``outraged opposition,'' or ``Oposicion Indignada.'' They are led, in large part, by an intelligent, thoughtful and politically diverse group of young people who organize using social media and who have come together because of their shared desire to end corruption in their country. They now face constant threats for their initiative, and I hope that the Honduran government will ensure their protection and investigate the threats against them so that they may continue to exercise their basic rights to freedom of speech and association. On September 28th, the Organization of American States presented to the Honduran president a proposal for a commission that would help the notoriously weak Honduran judicial system to gain capacity to carry out its responsibilities. Regrettably, I believe this proposal falls woefully short of what is required to break the culture of corruption and impunity that so characterizes the Honduran State. As we learned from Guatemala, to successfully bring to justice those who benefit from corruption and impunity, a commission must be truly independent with a mandate to investigate exemplar cases wherever the evidence warrants and participate in the prosecution of those cases under national law. Last week, on October 28th, a broad coalition of Honduran civil society, the Coalition Against Impunity, issued a statement declaring that the mission proposed by the OAS and the government is itself an obstacle to creating a genuine, independent commission that can truly tackle the rampant corruption and impunity in Honduras. Earlier, on October 4th, the ``Indignados'' issued a similar critique, pointing out the weaknesses of the OAS proposal to independently investigate crimes of corruption and ensure their prosecution. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a copy of the letter addressed to the OAS by the Oposicion Indignada that outlines their concerns with that proposal. It is my hope that the OAS will listen seriously to this unprecedented citizens' movement and ensure that any commission that comes into being in Honduras will be truly politically and financially independent, and have the mandate to undertake independent investigations into crimes of corruption and impunity and ensure their prosecution. (English translation of the letter written in Spanish is as follows:) Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 4 de octubre de 2015. Mr. Luis Almagro, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Washington, DC. We respectfully write to you to provide an official response to the proposal made by the Organization of American States (OAS) to create a ``Support Mission against Corruption and Impunity'' or ``MACCIH'' in Honduras. We consider the proposal to contain many weaknesses and insufficient to combat corruption in Honduras. The weaknesses we see in the proposal include: 1. It lacks an independent and impartial investigative unit capable of carrying out investigations of cases of corruption. Such a unit needs to be financially and politically independent and be comprised of international investigators and lawyers who can work with national prosecutors in the prosecution of high-level corruption cases. 2. The recommendations that will flow from the evaluations to be carried out by the MACCIH are not binding. It is essential to ensure the legal commitment of the Honduran government to implementing the recommendations. Recent history has shown that the government of Honduras often fails to comply with the recommendations of international bodies. An illustrative example was the failure to comply with the 47th recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which called for the creation of an International Commission against Impunity in Honduras. 3. Since 1998, Honduras has participated in three of the four rounds of the MESICIC (Follow-up mechanism for implementations of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. Despite this participation, the country is in a state of deep social crisis with endemic levels of the corruption and impunity [and so the proposal to develop a plan for implementing the MESICIC does not seem likely to lead to action.] 4. The presentation of bi-annual reports by the Secretary General of the OAS represents an unnecessary delay in addressing the impunity and corruption crisis. Considering these weaknesses, any proposal intended to lead to real results in the fight against corruption needs to have at least two essential components: 1. A politically and financially independent investigative unit able to initiate and help prosecute high-level corruption cases. 2. A mechanism by which recommendations have a binding character in order to ensure the implementation of reforms to our justice system. If the OAS proposal fails to include the characteristics needed to make a valuable contribution to the corruption and impunity crisis in Honduras, we will ask the international community not to support the proposal financially or politically. We need a proposal that can help bring about changes in our society; we want justice and democracy. Citizen Movement ``Oposicion Indignada,'' Paul Emilio Zepeda, Gabriela Liliana Blen, Marcela Alejandra Ortega, Ariel Fabricio Varela.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. McGOVERN. I am ready to close for our side.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reiterating our call for Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can restore the vote. Only in this Republican-controlled House of Representatives is the notion of protecting everybody's right to vote a radical idea. We see voter suppression efforts all across this country, and it is a Federal responsibility. It is a Federal responsibility, and we have got to live up to that responsibility. So I hope that my colleagues will vote ``no,'' so we can have this debate and we can have an up-or-down vote on this. Quite frankly, the committees of jurisdiction should have ruled this bill to the floor, and we should be having that debate. But I guess for political reasons my colleagues don't see the benefit in moving this important legislation to the floor. We have an opportunity to do that today. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and their entire team for bringing us here today with a carefully crafted compromise, 6-year highway bill, which, I think, is absolutely imperative. Our States, our cities, and our towns have been demanding this for a long, long time, and we are very close to making some progress. I would urge, like I did in my opening statement, we ought not to screw it up with a whole bunch of controversial amendments because some special interest PAC thinks it is a good idea. I will again reiterate my strong opposition, not only to the Ribble amendment, but to a whole bunch of other amendments that will allow bigger and heavier trucks on our Federal Interstate Highway System. These are Federal highways. Yes, it is a Federal responsibility. It is a Federal responsibility. I would just remind my colleagues that the people who agree with me on this include the National Troopers Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, AAA, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the American Public Works Association, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Road Safe America, Brain Injury Association of America, Parents Against Tired Truckers, Advocates for Auto Safety, Trucking Alliance, the Teamsters, and the AFL-CIO. I can go on and on and on. The overwhelming opinion on this is that we should not go down the road of bigger and heavier trucks; yet we have got a special interest out there that says we should do it, and so all of a sudden Members are clamoring to do it. It would be a mistake. It would make our roads more dangerous. It will threaten the safety of passengers on our highways. It is a bad idea. Certainly, people ought to pay attention to what they are voting on before they come here and vote for this. Unfortunately, we are not going to have the time to debate it because it is going to be 5 minutes on each side. I think it would be a threat to this bill, and I think that would be a huge mistake. Let us respect the great work that has been done by the Transportation Committee. Let's not load it up with a bunch of controversial provisions. This is about safety on our highways, first and foremost. If my colleagues don't believe that, they ought to talk to the families who have lost loved ones in accidents due to bigger and heavier trucks. They ought to talk to the drivers. They ought to talk to people who know what they are talking about and not rely on a particular special interest. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have this debate and a vote on protecting voting rights in this country to restore the vote. Let's respect the work that the committee of jurisdiction has done here, but let's vote ``no'' on these efforts to allow bigger and heavier trucks on our roads. For the sake of our constituents, for their safety, let us do the right thing and vote ``no'' on those amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am now really worried about what Speaker Ryan meant when he said that we were going to return to regular order, based on what my colleague, Mr. Woodall, just said as he defended the Boehner Congress, which, by the way, is the most closed Congress in the history of our Congress--more closed rules, over 180 closed rules. If you want to defend that process, fine. Not only the closed rules, but on major amendments, important issues were not even allowed to be brought up. We tried to debate the war--we are at war--and the Rules Committee, with the blessing of the leadership, wouldn't even allow us to bring that to the House floor. Important issues are routinely denied here. If your idea of regular order is still ``your way or the highway,'' then I don't think that much is going to be changed, just maybe the same menu, a different waiter, I guess. That is about what we can expect. I hope that is not the case. I think the record, not only how the Republicans have treated the minority with regard to important bills, but also to a lot of people on your own side, has been lousy. It has been a bad record. I am hoping that the new Speaker understands that and believes that this place could be better served if we have a more inclusive process, more regular order, and we respected our committees. By the way, speaking of committees, the Transportation Committee didn't see fit to put in a provision for bigger truck sizes and heavier trucks. That is the committee of jurisdiction. They didn't do that. Mr. Ribble has the right to bring his amendment. These other people have the right to bring their amendment. Members will have a whole 10 minutes to debate this. I would also say that not all amendments are created equally. Some are more important than others. I think this is an amendment that is more important than some of the sense of Congress language that we are going to be debating in terms of amendments later. But a whole 10 minutes and we are going to let the States decide. That is the retort from my colleague from Georgia. I get it. There are people in this House, especially on the Republican side, who think the States should control everything; that when it comes to civil rights or voting rights, let the States decide, and the Federal Government should have no role in guaranteeing that everybody in this country has their voting rights protected or their civil rights protected. I disagree with that. On this issue, it is an issue of safety. When the gentleman says that we are just trying to take these big trucks off these side roads, that is not true. These trucks still have to go on those small roads to do their deliveries. That is not going to change. They will still have to utilize those roads. On those side roads, I wish there weren't these big trucks, but at least they are going slower than they will on an interstate highway. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Andrew Matthews, chairman of the National Troopers Coalition, representing 45,000 members, asking us to oppose any amendment forcing States to allow heavier and longer trucks on our Nation's highway. Every one of us here is saying please don't do this, please don't do this. We will have a whole 5 minutes to make the case against that amendment. National Troopers Coalition, September 23, 2015. Hon. Bill Shuster, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Peter DeFazio, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: On behalf of the National Troopers Coalition's 45,000 members, we ask that you oppose any amendment forcing states to allow heavier and longer trucks on our nation's highways when you consider the transportation reauthorization. Specifically, we urge you to vote against any amendments allowing the operation of 91,000 pound single tractor-trailers or double 33-foot tractor-trailers, replacing the twin 28-foot trailers in operation today. Troopers, every day, see the dangers these longer and heavier rigs pose to the motoring public and our officers. With heavier trucks, stopping distances increase threatening the motoring public and our Trooper members. And if ``Twin 33s'' become legal, this could ultimately replace 53-foot singles as one of the most commonly used configurations, adding a dangerous 17 feet in length to our already crowded highways. The transportation reauthorization bill should not include such a far-reaching policy change, especially following the release of the long-awaited USDOT truck size and weight study, which largely concluded that not enough data exists to make a clear recommendation on changing any existing truck size and weight laws. The bottom line is bigger and heavier trucks make our roads and highways are unsafe due to, among other things, greater stopping distances and higher risk of rollover. The National Troopers Coalition opposes any changes to current truck size and weight laws and urges you to do the same. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, I can be reached. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrew Matthews, Esq., Chairman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the subject matter that we are here to discuss, I do want to respond to my friend from Georgia about Speaker Ryan's call for regular order, which I think many on our side welcome. But we are not going to get too excited yet because that same pledge was made when Speaker Boehner became Speaker of the House, and that pledge was broken over and over and over again. In fact, he presided over the most closed Congress in the history of our country, more closed rules than any other Congress in history. When my friend asked the question, ``What does regular order mean?'' well, it means that we don't bypass committees of jurisdiction. We let them do their work, and then we bring that bill to the Rules Committee, as opposed to having some committee staff write a bill in the back room someplace in the Capitol, present it, and then have the Rules Committee give it a closed rule. It means allowing for all sides to be heard. The Rules Committee has routinely blocked out amendments on legitimate issues because the Republican leadership didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to have that debate. So it means a more open and transparent process. It means a process that is more fair and more respectful of all Members, not just Democrats, but to Republicans as well. I hope that when Speaker Ryan made that pledge, it is more than just words; that we will see, in the coming weeks and months, something different around here. I would also just say that I don't mean to pick on Speaker Boehner because we do have people on the Rules Committee on the Republican side who have routinely voted to shut this process down. I hope that there is a change of attitude in the Rules Committee, as well, for a more open and a more transparent process. So having said that, Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act, a 6-year highway bill. After 35 short-term extensions--35 short- term extensions--this is a welcome step to providing the kind of certainty that our State and our local officials need. In fact, they have been clamoring for this for a very, very long time. Of the 284 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, the rule we are talking about right now makes in order 29. We expect the committee to meet later today to consider the remaining amendments. I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Chairman Sam Graves and Ranking Member Eleanor Holmes Norton for all of their hard work to get us to this point. This isn't the highway bill that I would have written, but the bottom line is that we need a long-term surface transportation authorization bill. States need to be able to count on Federal funding for more than a month at a time. Large-scale infrastructure projects take years to complete. States need certainty, and this bill is a step forward in that direction. Mr. Speaker, our roads and our bridges are already in need of massive repairs. I tell my colleagues all the time that we have bridges in Massachusetts that are older than most of your States. The underlying bill provides $325 billion in contract authority from the highway trust fund over 6 years for highway, transit, and safety programs. It would allow for automatic adjustments if more money comes into the highway trust fund. I am pleased to see that among the provisions in this bill is a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which is the same language that the House passed with strong bipartisan support last week, notwithstanding the fact that we had to use a discharge petition because the way this place operates, the will of the majority was not respected. But we should vote against any amendments--any and all amendments--that would jeopardize this provision. Not only will a long-term highway bill help our economy, but it will create and sustain thousands of American jobs, particularly in the construction and manufacturing industries that were hardest hit by the Great Recession. In all candor, I can't say that I am enamored with everything in this bill. I wish that it provided more robust funding levels. I am sorry to see that we are continuing to use guarantee fees as a pay-for on an unrelated transportation bill. G-fees should be used to protect taxpayers from mortgage losses, not as an offset on a highway bill. I also have serious concerns about the use of private debt collection as an offset in this bill. Instead of raising money, if history is any indication, it is likely the use of private debt collection agencies would result in the Federal Government losing revenue. We know that because that has happened in the past. Moving forward, I would strongly, strongly caution against loading this bill up with controversial provisions. This rule makes in order an amendment by Congressman Ribble of Wisconsin to permit States to allow bigger and heavier trucks on our interstate highways, and I understand that several other amendments have been offered to increase truck size and truck weights. I think passing these kinds of amendments is one of the most dangerous things that we can do, and I believe it would seriously threaten this carefully crafted compromise. Despite what some in the trucking industry might have you believe, bigger trucks have never resulted in fewer trucks on our road. Since 1982, when Congress last increased the gross vehicle weight limit, truck registrations have increased 90 percent. Now, some say if we allow bigger and heavier trucks on our Federal Interstate Highway System, we can somehow alleviate their presence on local roads. That is a false argument because trucks still need to make deliveries and pickups at warehouses and businesses, and local roads are the way they get there. So all the Ribble amendment would do is make more of our roads less safe. By the way, on the Interstate Highway System, these bigger and heavier trucks can drive faster, thereby endangering more and more of the others who are driving on these highways. Bigger truck crashes kill nearly 4,000 people every year, and the reality is that most of those fatalities are those in passenger vehicles, not the trucker. Big trucks pay only a fraction of the true cost of the wear and tear they cause on our roads and bridges. State budgets are stretched to the brink as it is and can't afford to make up for the multibillion-dollar underpayments. Mr. Speaker, Americans have said loud and clear over and over again that they don't want bigger trucks. A January 2015 nationwide survey by Harper Polling found that 76 percent of respondents oppose longer, heavier trucks, and a May 2013 public opinion poll by Lake Research Partners found that 68 percent of Americans opposed heavier trucks. That should be enough to give people who want to put bigger and heavier trucks on our roads some pause. But as I have learned serving in this Congress, usually this place does the opposite of what the American people want. Let me remind my colleagues that in MAP-21, the most recent long-term highway bill, Congress directed the Department of Transportation to conduct a comprehensive study on truck size and weight laws. After 2 years of careful study, DOT concluded that the current data limitations were so profound that no changes in truck size and weight laws in regulations should be considered until these data limitations could be overcome. So we asked DOT to do a study, and that is their recommendation. Yet there are all these amendments to try to get around that. I would just say to my friends who are thinking of voting for some of these amendments to allow bigger, heavier, and more dangerous trucks on the road and on our Interstate Highway System to talk to some of the families of the victims. I have, on a regular basis, talked to people who have lost their husbands, their wives, their kids, and their best friends to these senseless crashes. Think about them before you just go along with whatever particular special interest asks you to do. By the way, those who drive these trucks are opposed to this. They are opposed to this. Yet here we are with an attempt to try to kind of make our roads less safe. So loading this bill up with all kinds of exemptions to truck size and weight laws I think would be a huge mistake and would jeopardize the passage of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to reject the Ribble amendment and all these other amendments that may be made in order to put bigger, heavier, and more dangerous trucks on the road. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Teamsters Union, which most of these truck drivers are Teamsters, sent us a letter strongly urging us to oppose the Ribble amendment. Law enforcement, the drivers, all these safety coalitions say no; but a special interest comes in here and says they would like an exemption, and everybody Clambers to try to help them out. Know what you are voting for before you vote for this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that will restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We need to recommit ourselves to voter equality. This legislation would require Federal approval in some States for changes to voting practices that could be discriminatory. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you will notice many of us are wearing ``Restore the Vote'' pins here today because we are, quite frankly, appalled by what is going on in certain States in terms of taking away people's right to vote. We find that offensive, and we think that there is a Federal obligation to guarantee that right, that we just can't leave it up to the States. All of us in this country should have equal protections under the law when it comes to voting. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We need to pursue this in the manner we are doing it because, again, important issues like this don't ever see the light of day in this House. We can't talk about voting rights or vote on a bill to protect voting rights. We can't vote on immigration reform because my friends are slaves to this majority rule on their side of the aisle. These are important issues, and we shouldn't just leave them to the States in which people's voting rights are being denied. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in September I visited Honduras as part of a delegation organized by the Washington Office on Latin America. Last month I spoke about the violence and extreme poverty that force families and young people to flee the country. Today I want to focus on another urgent issue, namely, how to confront the pervasive corruption in Honduras. We heard about the problem of corruption everywhere, from the U.N., the President of Honduras, and the U.S. Ambassador, to community leaders and NGOs with expertise in justice and human rights. Everyone wanted to talk about the seemingly intractable problem of endemic corruption in Honduras. The roots of corruption in Honduras are deep and longstanding. They encompass state actors, criminal networks, and powerful political and economic interests. But after a scandal revealed that government officials had stolen more than $350 million from the country's Social Security fund, which provides public health services as well as old age pensions, and that some of the money had gone to the electoral campaign of the President's political party, there has been a huge public outcry, demanding action to end widespread corruption. Tens of thousands of Hondurans have marched in the streets over the past months, calling for an international independent commission to investigate corruption and impunity, based on the model of the CICIG in Guatemala, but tailored to Honduran reality. This unprecedented movement is led by young people, organized on social media, and called the Indignados. Our delegation met with some of these young leaders. They are thoughtful, politically diverse, and united in their desire to see their country rid of corruption. They now face threats for what they are doing, and I hope that the Honduran Government is doing all it can to ensure their safety and their freedom of association and not turning a blind eye to the threats targeting them and their families. When we met with President Hernandez, he argued that he had taken significant steps to go after corruption. I take the President seriously, and I look forward to seeing concrete results from the actions he has already announced. I also met with NGOs, including the Association of Judges for Democracy, that work on judicial, legal, and transparency issues, who unanimously felt much more must be done. At the height of the protest movement, President Hernandez called for a national dialogue on how to address the problem of corruption, asking the United Nations and the Organization of American States to help facilitate the process and develop a consensus of what needed to be done. So I was disappointed to learn that the dialogue process was not as inclusive as it could have been. The U.N. was sidelined, while the OAS carried out a quick series of discussions before developing a proposal for the President. Many were concerned not only that the OAS hadn't consulted widely enough, but that its actions fell short of the thoughtful and impartial mediation needed to generate confidence in any forthcoming proposal. On September 28, the OAS presented its proposal to President Hernandez. After studying this proposal, I have concluded that it is woefully inadequate to addressing corruption and impunity, and reforming the weak judicial institutions of Honduras. This is not just my opinion. Last week, on October 28, a broad coalition of Honduran civil society, the Coalition Against Impunity, issued a statement declaring that the mission proposed by the OAS and the government is, itself, an obstacle to creating a genuine independent commission that can truly tackle the rampant corruption and impunity in Honduras. Earlier, on October 4, the Indignados issued a similar critique, pointing out the weaknesses of the OAS proposal to independently investigate crimes of corruption and ensure their prosecution. It is clear from my discussions in Honduras and recent statements by Honduran civil society that any such commission must be wholly independent from the government politically and financially, that it must have the mandate and staffing to carry out investigations of crimes of corruption and impunity and the freedom to pursue those investigations wherever the evidence warrants. It must also have the mandate and ability to work independently with state prosecutors and investigators to bring such crimes to justice. Honduras does not need one more round of judicial studies and technical assistance or a board of international mentors, as proposed by the OAS. Such a limited proposal not only lacks the broad support and confidence of Honduran civil society, but it also falls far short of what is required to break the culture of impunity in Honduras. I hope the OAS proposal can be modified and strengthened and its mandate expanded to establish an effective and truly independent mechanism that can fully investigate corruption and have a role in prosecutions or an alternative advanced that can meet these requirements. I hope that a new proposal includes close cooperation with the U.N. I further believe that U.S. and international aid needs to be carefully calibrated to link assistance to progress on human rights and ending corruption, including a truly independent commission with the full power of investigation into corruption and impunity and the ability to be part of the prosecution of those charged with such crimes.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest health challenges facing our country right now is hunger. We have a hunger problem in the United States of America. For far too long, we have minimized the problem. Some have even ignored the problem. In short, our response has been inadequate. And we have failed to view hunger as a health issue, which it is. For our Nation's youngest and most vulnerable, our children, the negative effects of childhood hunger are pervasive and long-lasting. So last week I was pleased to see the American Academy of Pediatrics release its newest policy statement which, for the first time, recommends that pediatricians screen all children for food insecurity. The new recommendations consist of two simple questions for pediatricians to ask parents of young children at their annual well visit to identify and address childhood hunger. It also recommends that pediatricians become more familiar with our robust system of antihunger programs at the Federal, State, and local levels. When pediatricians know more about these antihunger programs and the resources they provide, they will be better prepared to help families in need. Pediatricians are among the most respected, if not the most respected, voices on children's issues; and I hope that, with the AAP's policy statement, more people will start paying attention to the devastating effects of childhood hunger on America's future. It is shameful that childhood hunger even exists in this country, the richest country in the world, that one in five children lives in a food insecure household, that 17.2 million households in this country struggle with food insecurity, that the only reliable healthy meals some kids receive are the ones they get through school breakfasts or lunches. Their mothers and fathers are forced to skip meals so that their kids can have more to eat because the family simply cannot afford to put enough food on the table. The harmful effects of hunger on children are well documented: for example, children who live in households that are food insecure get sick more often, recover more slowly from illness, have poorer overall health, and are hospitalized more frequently. Children and adolescents affected by food insecurity are more likely to be iron deficient, and preadolescent boys dealing with hunger issues have lower bone density. Early childhood malnutrition is also tied to conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life. Lack of adequate healthy food can impair a child's ability to concentrate and perform well in school and is linked to higher levels of behavioral and emotional problems from preschool through adolescence. I have personally heard from pediatricians who see kids in the emergency room come in for a common cold that has become much worse because they don't have enough to eat, and their immune systems have been compromised. Stories like these are heartbreaking. Mr. Speaker, we know that consistent access to adequate nutritious food is one of the best medicines for growing, thriving children. Children's Health Watch, a national network of pediatricians and child health professionals, found that, in comparison to children whose families were eligible but did not receive SNAP, young children whose families received SNAP were significantly less likely to be at risk of being underweight or experiencing developmental delays. If Members of Congress are not swayed by the moral arguments for ending childhood hunger, they ought to be swayed by the economic ones. Ensuring that our kids have access to enough nutritious food saves money in the form of reduced healthcare costs and helps them become more productive contributors to our economy later in life. Mr. Speaker, without our robust Federal antihunger programs, there would no doubt be more hungry children in this country. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, provides nutritious food and support for children and mothers. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is our Nation's premiere antihunger program and helps millions of low-income families afford to purchase food every month. About half of all SNAP recipients are children. And our school breakfast and lunch programs, summer meals, and Child and Adult Food Care Programs all provide nutritious meals to children in community, child-friendly settings. We can't forget about the incredible work our food banks, food pantries, and other charities do to provide healthy food for low-income children and their families. Despite the incredible work that they do, charities cannot do it alone. The demand is simply too great. Charities need a strong Federal partner to end hunger in this country. Mr. Speaker, for a while now, I have been urging the White House to convene a White House conference on food, nutrition, and hunger. We ought to bring antihunger groups, pediatricians, business leaders, teachers, hospitals, farmers, nonprofits, faith leaders, and governmental officials together to come up with a plan to end hunger in this country once and for all. I can think of no more compelling reason to end hunger now than for the health and well-being of America's children. In closing, I commend the American Academy of Pediatrics for working to solve hunger as a health issue and addressing how it affects our country's greatest resource: our children. We can and we should do more to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Linda B. Swadel, Chief Assessor from Westborough, Massachusetts. Linda is retiring this November after having served as an Assessor in several communities--including Leicester, Northbridge and Westborough-- over the last 30 years as well as serving on various committees for the Massachusetts Association of Assessing Officers. She is currently serving as the MAAO Legislative Committee Co-Chair. Like assessors throughout Massachusetts, Linda has helped to provide our cities and towns with the critical financial services essential to supporting strong budgets for our communities' schools, public safety, recreation, and so many other services our families count on every day. She is currently the Chairman of the Board of Assessors and Chief Assessor in Westborough and she serves on the Massachusetts Farmland Valuation Advisory Sub-Committee as well as the Legislative Task Force for the Council on Aging. She has served on various other MAAO Committees in her tenure, such as the Education Committee and the Telecom Committee. She is a recipient of the MAAO's Wilson Award as well as the MAAO's Past President's Award. Both of which are given to members for their service and dedication to the profession and the Association. Linda is also a two-time Past President of the Worcester County Assessors Association and I am so grateful for the difference she has made in our community. Throughout her career, she has shared her passion for her profession by speaking at conferences, inspiring and helping her peers to grow in their own careers. For all of Linda's hard work and dedication, I am proud to recognize her as she retires from a career dedicated to helping others and keeping our communities strong.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of speaking with a group of people involved with Community Voices: Why Nutrition Assistance Matters. It was inspiring to hear about the real and positive impacts our Federal nutrition programs have in the daily lives of Americans all across this country. Community Voices is a summer-long national campaign launched by the Center for American Progress, the Coalition on Human Needs, Witnesses to Hunger, the Food Research and Action Center, Feeding America, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. It was started to share the personal stories of individuals and service providers who experienced firsthand programs like SNAP or WIC or school meals. These contributors are the real experts when it comes to the importance and effect of our vital nutrition assistance programs. The Community Voices campaign culminated in this booklet, a compilation of many of these personal stories. I would like to take a moment and share a few of these stories. Jonetta, from Sacramento, California, says: ``Several years ago, I left an abusive relationship, and now I am raising my daughter by myself. My daughter participates in the school meal program and the after-school snack program. The snack program really helps so that my daughter isn't as hungry when she gets home from school. ``We also receive $356 a month in SNAP. This money is supposed to supplement my food budget, but it is really all of my food budget because my income barely covers my rent. Right now, I'm homeless, and it is hard to find a place to live for less than $500 a month. ``Because of SNAP, we are not starving. As a mom, I try to cut out a lot of bad food from my family's diet, but it is a difficult task to buy the healthier food because it is expensive. It's also very difficult because we have been homeless for a couple of months, so I have to use other people's refrigerators. ``I am very thankful for these programs and to all the people who are trying to make all these programs better. They really helped me and my daughter.'' Let me share another story from Linda from the Massachusetts Coalition of the Homeless: ``Several years ago, I volunteered at a summer program at a park in Morgantown, Kentucky, assisting with skill-building activities. Without this nutrition program, the kids who came would not have had lunch, since school was not in session. If the kids didn't come to that park for nutritional food, I'm not sure they would have gotten it anywhere else. None of the food was wasted; and if there was any food left over, the kids would take it back to their families. ``Food is a basic human right, and our government sometimes forgets that and needs to be reminded. This is a moral imperative for our country to make sure that all people, especially children, have the resources needed to develop--even more so for families and children in poverty.'' I want to thank Jonetta, Linda, and all of those who took the time to share their stories. They remind us that these programs are helping real families who are trying to do their best in very difficult times. Mr. Speaker, all too often the discussion around SNAP and our other antihunger programs is punctuated by misinformation, false stereotypes, or downright nasty rhetoric. It is frustrating, and it is wrong. Community Voices reminds us what a positive difference these programs make for families who are really struggling. The data backs up just how important these programs are. In 2014 alone, for example, SNAP lifted 4.7 million people out of poverty, including 2.1 million children. Ninety-two percent of benefits go to households with incomes below the poverty line, which includes millions of struggling families working hard every day to put food on the table. Federal investment in our nutrition programs is one of the smartest investments we can make. For example, for every $1 spent on preventive services for a pregnant woman in WIC, the program saves $4.21 in Medicaid costs by reducing the risk of preterm birth and associated costs. Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that we need to hear firsthand from the people who are directly touched by SNAP, WIC, or school meals. They are the real experts, and they can guide us, as Members of Congress, as we work to strengthen and improve these programs. Every Member of Congress should have received a Community Voices booklet. It is a call to action to protect our vital nutrition assistance programs. I encourage you to read the stories about how these programs are helping families who need them most. Without them, hunger would be much, much worse in this country. I urge you to keep their stories in mind the next time proposals come before Congress to cut funding for WIC or restrict access to SNAP or make it more difficult for kids to get healthy meals in school. Harmful changes like these would hurt real families who are already struggling. We should not make their lives more difficult. We should not be making hunger worse in this country. Mr. Speaker, we can and we should do more to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Pakachoag School. Pakachoag School, located in Auburn, Massachusetts, was recently named a 2015 National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education. Pakachoag prides itself on its dedication to providing students with the tools they need to succeed in the dynamic and fast- paced world surrounding them. Auburn schools have a history of educational excellence. In 2014, the Julia Bancroft School won a Blue Ribbon award. Due to redistricting, Julia Bancroft and Pakachoag have since merged. Educators of the Auburn Public Schools provide committed and enthusiastic leadership, creating a comprehensive and inviting educational environment. The Pakachoag pledge, ``We are Prepared, Aware, and Kind!'' echoes the school's focus on ensuring students can become considerate and intelligent luminaries in the world outside the classroom. To inspire civic responsibility and leadership, Pakachoag promotes numerous Community Service Learning Projects. Through fundraising, volunteer work, and reading programs, the importance of ``giving back'' is instilled in students. The school also offers a number of events and programs such as food drives and community reading days that not only reflect upon the student's development, but benefit the community as a whole. Pakachoag School also strives to provide a comprehensive and inclusive environment within the school's walls. Pakachoag's special needs program is one of the most intensive in the Auburn school system. Extracurricular activities like student government and a student- written newspaper, along with on-site before and after-school childcare through the Galaxy Program, demonstrate how Pakachoag is deeply committed to the success, nurturing, and overall wellbeing of each and every one of its students. None of these wonderful educational achievements would be possible without the talented educators and staff members at Pakachoag School. Administrative leadership under Superintendent Dr. Maryellen Brunelle can be associated with her passion for the success of her students, as well as a dedication to creating a warm and welcoming learning environment. The tireless efforts by all of those involved can be credited to Pakachoag's success. I am so proud to represent the faculty, students, and staff of the Pakachoag School and the Auburn School System, and I look forward to what they will continue to accomplish in the future. I ask you to join me in congratulating the Pakachoag School for being named a 2015 National Blue Ribbon School.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter signed by a number of civil rights organizations, all opposed to this bill because of the provision that Ms. Waters and I have been talking about now for close to an hour. October 5, 2015. Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 3192, which insulates lenders from accountability when they make misleading disclosures to homeowners. The bill, which suspends liability to individuals and government for the first four months after the new mortgage disclosure rules take effect, undermines compliance with the new rules by letting lenders off the hook even where homeowners have been harmed. Homeowners who would receive false or misleading mortgage cost disclosures during such a period would have no remedy. Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent by suspending liability where legal rules apply. The mortgage industry, after having had approximately two years to implement the new disclosure requirements, was given an additional reprieve when the effective date was extended to October 3, 2015. Moreover, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has repeatedly demonstrated its responsiveness to concerns about implementation of this rule and to mortgage rules generally. Director Cordray announced in June that the Bureau would be sensitive to good faith efforts to implement the new rule, and recently the Bureau and the prudential regulators offered greater detail on how initial examinations for compliance with the rule will take into account systems adopted to promote compliance. The Bureau successfully used a similar approach for implementation of the ability to repay rule and also demonstrated its responsiveness to lenders by adjusting the small creditor definition for that rule. The time has now come to let the combined TILA/RESPA disclosures take effect. The disclosure form will give consumers expanded information before making the biggest purchase of their lives. A carve-out will provide an opportunity for some to evade the rules and will generally inhibit incentives to comply promptly. A rule without enforcement is no rule at all. H.R. 3192 seeks to establish a ``good faith'' standard for exemption from the rule. However, the CFPB already has the authority to take into account good-faith efforts to comply with regulations. In contrast, a homeowner who receives false or misleading disclosures would face significant hurdles in overcoming a good-faith requirement. Even if a lender acted in good faith, the homeowner would still have agreed to the loan based on incorrect information and would have no recourse. It would be dangerous to set a new precedent of suspending private enforcement for violations of a law that is in effect. The ability of consumers to protect themselves is essential to the efficacy of legal requirements. An individual homeowner, however, is not in a position to prove whether the lender operated in good faith. While few homeowners ever bring a legal case, those who do generally have faced substantial harm and have a right to redress. Lenders are not subject to any liability at all under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for violations of the disclosure requirements because the law does not allow for private rights of action for such cases. In addition, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) already includes provisions protecting creditors from errors made in good faith (such as timing of disclosures). For TILA errors involving numerical disclosures, Congress already has allowed creditors to overstate the actual amount without penalty, and the CFPB's rule for the new disclosures permits third party fees to exceed the earlier estimates by up to ten percent. As a result, homeowners who seek redress have received markedly inaccurate disclosures. Litigation is a last resort and rarely undertaken. Few consumers seek out attorneys even when they are injured. Moreover, TILA provides for payment of attorney fees only if the lawsuit is successful, so attorneys are reluctant to take on cases unless violations are clear. The incidence of private litigation under the Truth in Lending Act is fairly rare, especially in comparison to the volume of mortgage loans and credit generally outstanding in the United States. Even during a financial crisis that rivaled the Great Depression, only a tiny fraction of mortgage loans became the focus of TILA litigation. We urge you to oppose H.R. 3192, which would remove key incentives for lenders to comply with the new mortgage disclosures and leave homeowners who have been misled with no recourse. Sincerely, Americans for Financial Reform California Reinvestment Coalition Connecticut Fair Housing Center Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) Empire Justice Center Homeownership Preservation Foundation Housing and Economic Rights Advocates Local Initiatives Support Corporation

Mr. McGOVERN. Then vote against it.

Mr. McGOVERN. When the Republicans took the majority in 2011, Speaker Boehner and the entire Republican leadership promised the Democrats a right to ``a robust debate in open process.'' He promised us the opportunity to ``make our case, offer alternatives, and be heard.'' Instead, the Speaker has presided over the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America, and Democratic alternatives are often prevented from coming to the floor. By the way, not only are Democratic alternatives prevented from coming to the floor, Republicans can't even bring amendments to this bill because it is totally closed. Now, I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are meeting as a conference tomorrow to choose a nominee to become the next Speaker and have other leadership battles ahead. I hope that they are able to have an honest discussion about the ability to work through regular order and an open process that allows the House of Representatives to work its will and for both parties to be heard. Now, maybe my friend from Ohio can help me understand why an amendment offered by the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, Ms. Waters, an amendment that would protect consumers, was not made in order. I mean, we would have preferred an open rule. We would have preferred that many amendments would be made in order. But the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction had an amendment that is germane to this bill, and it wasn't made in order. I don't quite understand it. One amendment, just one. Maybe it was an oversight. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we amend this rule and that the Waters amendment be allowed so that we can debate it.