Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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 going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of Leader Pelosi's resolution, which basically says that any State flag containing the Confederate battle flag would be prohibited from the House wing of the Capitol. Given what the Republicans, our leadership, tried to do on the Interior Appropriations bill yesterday, I think this is especially timely. As I mentioned earlier, while South Carolina voted this week to take the Confederate flag down, Republicans in Congress appear ready to put it back up. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Just I.

Mr. McGOVERN. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up again the Pelosi resolution that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose not to debate. The reason why this is important, the reason why we should do this is very simple: because it is the right thing to do. Every once in awhile we ought to come together in this Chamber and do the right thing. The Confederate flag is a symbol of hate; it is a symbol of division; it is a symbol of so many things that we all abhor. The time has come to follow some of the other States in this country and here in Congress do something the American people can be proud of. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule because it is restrictive. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, the 21st Century Cures bill is a good bill. I want to thank Mr. Upton and Ms. DeGette for working in a bipartisan way to come up with this product. It invests in NIH. It invests in lifesaving medical research. It makes it more possible that we will find cures to diseases like cancers and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, diabetes, HIV, and so many other terrible diseases that afflict so many of our fellow citizens. This is important stuff. Who knows, maybe we will even find a cure to the disease that resulted in so many in this House voting for the destructive sequestration initiative that, by the way, cut medical research and put off the day of some of these lifesaving cures. We need to do better than this, but this is an important start, an important step in the right direction, and I hope that my colleagues in a bipartisan way will support it. Secondly, as I mentioned before, I want to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment I would offer in the Record if we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, before I speak on this bill, I want to thank Leader Pelosi for leading today's efforts to hold House Republicans accountable for their divisive Confederate flag amendment. You know, it is stunning to me that my Republican friends decided to refer the minority leader's resolution to committee so we could not have a debate. The legislature in South Carolina could have a debate, but my Republican friends here in the House of Representatives ensured that we in Congress cannot have that debate. And the fact is that Americans, I think, are ready to leave behind the discrimination and hate symbolized by the Confederate flag, but my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have a different idea. Last night House Republicans introduced an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that simply has no place on this House floor. It would undo the successful Democratic amendment adopted by voice that would have barred the display of Confederate flags in Federal cemeteries and barred the National Park Service from doing business with gift shops that sell Confederate flag merchandise. Simply put, while South Carolina voted this week to take the Confederate flag down, Republicans in Congress were ready to put it back up. And even more troubling, House Republicans tried to sneak this amendment into the bill late last night, hoping that nobody would notice. We noticed. The American people noticed. And I am ashamed that, in 2015, Congress would even consider a measure that seeks to perpetuate the hate and racism that the Confederate flag represents. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle, especially the leadership, seem to be in a little bit of disarray. The Speaker of the House is trying to distance himself from the measure, notwithstanding that the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee who offered the amendment said that he did so at the request of the Republican leadership. The Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and a reminder of one of our Nation's darkest periods of division. It has no place in America's National Parks. Congress should not promote this symbol of hate. And now is the time to come together. I am proud to join with my colleagues who are standing up today for all Americans united against hate. I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can bring up the Pelosi resolution before all of us here and have that debate and have that vote. I hope my Republican friends will join with me. I just want to say one final thing. The fact that the Interior Appropriations bill was pulled from consideration on this House floor by my Republican friends because they believed that, without this pro- Confederate flag amendment, that they could lose up to 100 of their own Members, is stunning to me. It never ceases to amaze me. Just when I think that this institution can't sink any lower, then something like this happens. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to stand with me and vote against the previous question so we can actually have this debate, a debate I think the American people would want us to have. Now, Mr. Speaker, on the underlying bill before us, H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act, I just want to say that this is the product of bipartisan hearings, stakeholder meetings, drafts and redrafts. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the version of H.R. 6 that was passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 51-0. A vote like that doesn't happen often, especially in this Congress. I want to commend Chairman Upton and Congresswoman DeGette for leading this initiative and tirelessly working to get H.R. 6 to the floor. I think it represents the kind of investments that we should be making to help families stay healthy and to grow our economy. It provides $8.75 billion in mandatory funding over the next 5 years to the National Institutes of Health to spur scientific innovation and discovery by the country's premier medical researchers and scientists. During the Clinton administration, Congress doubled the NIH budget and made a real commitment to keeping America on the front lines of scientific research. That investment led to exponential advances in medicine. We should continue that progress by once again giving NIH the resources they need to make new advances in medicine. We shouldn't let our politics limit our ambition. As Members of Congress, we were elected to be leaders, and this is an opportunity to ensure America continues to lead the way on new breakthroughs in health. Now, I would have preferred to see the original $10 billion in NIH funding that was included in the bill that passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I hope that we can increase NIH funding back to that level as the bill moves forward. We know without a shadow of a doubt that basic medical research produces results. In fact, NIH-funded research at institutions like the University of Massachusetts Medical School in my hometown of Worcester has been the single greatest contributor to advances in health in human history. Today the average American lives 6 years longer than in the 1970s largely because of pioneering NIH investments. All across the country, NIH-supported researchers are forging a path toward treatment and cures for debilitating diseases that impact patients everywhere. But their success depends upon us. Our decision to invest in NIH is imperative to their success in improving health for all Americans. Just consider UMASS Medical School as one example. For years, UMASS has been in the forefront of medical innovation because of investments from NIH. In 2006, Dr. Craig Mello received the Nobel Prize in medicine for his groundbreaking discovery of RNA silencing, which, in layman's terms, means shutting off bad cells. UMASS has researchers working toward finding cures for AIDS, Down's Syndrome, and Lou Gehrig's disease. All of this is possible because of our investment in NIH. But I hear over and over again from scientists and medical researchers that they worry about the uncertainty of NIH funding because of crazy things that we do, like sequestration. They worry about our commitment to advancing basic medical research. Fewer and fewer research grants are being funded. Countries like China, India, and even Singapore are luring away the best and brightest American researchers because they are committing to making meaningful investments in medical research. 21st Century Cures helps to reverse that trend, but I worry it is not enough. I am pleased to see that H.R. 6 takes a number of steps to modernize clinical trials, improve how the Food and Drug Administration approves new drugs and devices, and encourages the development of next generation treatments through the use of precision medicine, which President Obama highlighted in his State of the Union speech. Just last week we saw the approval of a major new drug that will improve the quality of life for more than 10,000 people living with cystic fibrosis. The investments included in 21st Century Cures will help us to make more of these kinds of groundbreaking advances a reality. Mr. Speaker, for all of the bipartisanship and positive aspects of this bill, I would be remiss if I didn't point out one glaring inconsistency. Despite numerous hearings, round tables, and forms on this bill, a controversial policy rider that restricts access to abortion was added to the bill that came before the Rules Committee. It is like the majority couldn't help themselves. They couldn't resist an opportunity to add a contentious rider to an otherwise bipartisan package to advance medical research. I am pleased that the committee made in order an amendment offered by my friends Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, and Yvette Clarke to strike these controversial policy riders. Unfortunately, the committee prohibited a number of other amendments from coming to the floor for debate. Out of the 36 amendments submitted for consideration, only eight will be considered on this floor during debate on this legislation. Many of our colleagues came to the Rules Committee last night to testify on their amendments. They raised important issues and made suggestions as to how we can improve this legislation. So while I support the underlying bill, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, which prohibits debate on a number of amendments worthy of consideration. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for yielding me the time and for his leadership on this issue and on so many other issues. I also want to thank Chairman Royce; Subcommittee Chairman Salmon; my friend and fellow co-chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, Congressman Joe Pitts; as well as my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Smith, for working in such a bipartisan way to bring this resolution to the House floor during this week when we are all celebrating the 80th birthday of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. I especially want to thank Democratic Leader Pelosi for her many years of leadership and support of the Tibetan people. She is a true champion in the struggle to protect their basic human rights and autonomy. We are all here because we care about the fundamental human rights of Tibetans, including the right to worship as they choose and to enjoy and protect their culture. But we may be running out of time to guarantee those rights. As we celebrate the 80th birthday of Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, the Chinese Government has recently asserted its right to approve his successor. The very continuation of the ancient line of Tibetan spiritual leadership and reincarnation is in question. Next Tuesday, on July 14, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission will hold a hearing on the situation in Tibet with the aim of identifying new, creative ideas to advance the basic human rights of Tibetans and to ensure Tibetan autonomy. I share the concerns of my colleagues that the situation in Tibet is dire. Since 2009, more than 130 Tibetans inside China have taken the unimaginable step of setting themselves on fire. At least 112 are believed to have died. Some chose self-immolation to protest Chinese Government policies, others, to call for the return of the Dalai Lama. In response, Chinese authorities have intensified official reprisals. Surely the people of Tibet must wonder whether anyone is hearing their desperate cries. With this resolution, we are attempting to send a clear message back to Tibet that, yes, we hear you. You are not alone. Regrettably, the human rights abuses in Tibet are neither new nor unknown. On the contrary, Tibet is a very sensitive issue in U.S.-China relations. U.S. policy is supposed to be guided by the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, which encourages dialogue between the Chinese Government and representatives of the Dalai Lama, but Chinese intransigence has closed down dialogue since 2010. China also severely restricts access to Tibet and Tibetan regions, especially for U.S. journalists, officials, and citizens, even though, I might add, Chinese citizens and officials enjoy unrestricted access here in the United States. In April, the Chinese Government issued a new white paper on Tibet, with its own unbelievable version of history and an unprecedented demand that the Dalai Lama publicly state that Tibet has been an integral part of China since antiquity as a precondition for improving relations with China. Madam Speaker, we need to be doing something different. We need to have the guts to take some action. Everyone in the world says how much they admire the Dalai Lama. Every head of state, every international organization all declare how much they care about Tibet and worry about Tibetan human rights abuses, but things have only gotten worse. We must all come together now to change the status quo, to change the game the Chinese Government has been playing for so many decades. The situation is urgent. It can wait no longer. And shame on all of us if we stand by with empty words and continue to watch the people of Tibet suffer and their culture, religion, and way of life be exterminated day by day, year by year, until nothing is left. So I thank my colleagues for bringing this urgent matter to the attention of Congress, and I urge all my colleagues to support H. Res. 337.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the end of an era at Frontier Regional School in Deerfield, Massachusetts. After 35 years at Frontier, yesterday eighth grade science teacher Kathleen Sheehan retired. Kathy, or Sheehan, as her students call her, over the years wore a variety of hats and held a variety of teaching positions. She has served her entire teaching career at Frontier. Over her 35 years she has held many leadership positions, including Science Department Chair, Middle School Team Leader, Field Hockey Coach, and President of the Frontier's Teacher's Association. Sheehan's impact and influence on the students and communities of Deerfield, Conway, Whately and Sunderland extended far beyond the classroom. Always challenging her students to make the most of their education both inside and outside of the classroom, Sheehan proved a role model having taken her own advice. In 2003, she earned her law degree from Western New England College School of Law and immediately put her legal skills to use helping other teachers across the Commonwealth through the Massachusetts Teachers Association. She plans to continue this role as she transitions out of the classroom and onto retirement. Finally, Sheehan's commitment extends not just beyond the classroom, but beyond the school year. As students move on from her middle school classroom, she continues to foster relationships and offer guidance as they navigate high school and plan for college. Once graduated, she continues to stay connected to and support her students. She will happily tell you how many college graduations, advanced-degree graduations, and weddings she has attended of former students. Sheehan values community and has tirelessly integrated herself into that of Western Massachusetts. As we all know, teachers are a vital asset to society. As a role model for students and teachers alike, Sheehan will leave a legacy behind at Frontier which is unmatched by any other. On behalf of my constituents that attend and have graduated from Frontier Regional School, I thank Kathy Sheehan for her commitment to education, her students and the community.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last Congress, we passed a new farm bill. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I could not support it, either in committee or on the House floor. I couldn't support it because it cut SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, our Nation's premier antihunger program. I couldn't support a bill that I believed made hunger worse in America. At the time, members of both parties offered many assurances that the changes to SNAP's relationship with LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, wouldn't hurt SNAP recipients, that the changes were merely ``closing a loophole'' rather than a true benefit cut. I was skeptical of those assurances at the time--and with good reason. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the change would reduce benefits for about 850,000 low-income households by an average of $90 a month in the 14 States and the District of Columbia that took advantage of a State option to link LIHEAP and SNAP. States chose to use this option to alleviate some of the heartbreaking choices that poor families face. Seniors and the disabled are all too often the ones forced to choose between buying food or heating their homes or paying for their prescriptions. Throughout the farm bill process, antihunger advocates in the ``heat and eat'' States vigorously opposed the LIHEAP cuts to SNAP, saying their effects would be much greater than the Congressional Budget Office estimates. I'm sorry to say they were right. These cuts are much more than just abstract numbers. We are starting to hear real stories from real people who are seeing their SNAP benefits cut. Hunger is worse in this country because of these cuts. Take Judy Beals, a disabled senior from Belleville, Wisconsin. Earlier this year, she saw her SNAP benefit cut from $120 a month to $16 a month. Let me repeat that, she now gets $16 a month in food assistance. That is it. That is unconscionable. How could anyone afford to feed themselves for a month on that? Ms. Beals says she is forced to eat just once a day now that her SNAP benefit has been cut as she tries to figure out how to pay her other bills. To add insult to injury, Ms. Beals found out that her SNAP benefit had been cut at the register at the grocery store with a full cart of groceries. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Beals' story is not unique. The Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee estimates that, in Wisconsin alone, 255,000 families have seen their SNAP benefits reduced since the LIHEAP cuts went into effect. We are hearing similar stories in New Jersey, another State that did not extend its heat and eat program. The Food Bank of South New Jersey estimates that 160,000 New Jersey residents have lost about $90 a month in SNAP benefits due to the farm bill cut. Now, to be fair, there are several States, including my home State of Massachusetts, that did the right thing and found a way, mostly with State funds, to make up the money lost by the LIHEAP cut in the farm bill. Republican and Democratic Governors stepped up and recognized that those already struggling to put food on the table would be worse off if they didn't find a way to fix the cut. In those States that did not make up the money, we will continue to hear stories of people who have seen their SNAP benefit cut. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve on the House Agriculture Committee. Since the beginning of this Congress, the committee has been conducting a top-to-bottom review of the SNAP program. Now, I have no idea where these hearings are going and, once again, we have heard assurances that there will be no cuts in SNAP, but I have this sinking feeling in my stomach that these hearings are not leading to a place that is good for millions of struggling Americans. The fact is SNAP is a good program. It works. It is effective, and it is efficient. It is one of the most efficiently run Federal programs that exists, with an unbelievably low error rate. Instead of cutting SNAP or making other harmful policy changes, we should be strengthening the program. Democratic and Republican witnesses alike have testified before the Agriculture Committee that the SNAP benefit is already too low. We have heard that the certification and recertification process is time-consuming and onerous, especially for working families. We have heard about people who are eligible to get renewed benefits who fall off the program because of these onerous, new requirements. We have heard from charities that they cannot solve the problems of hunger on their own. Charities do incredible work, but they cannot meet the demand for food assistance. They need a strong Federal partner. We need better coordination among all stakeholders--Federal agencies, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, and businesses--to end hunger. That is why I have been advocating for a White House conference on food, nutrition, and hunger. We need a coordinated, holistic plan to end hunger now. If we make further cuts to SNAP, we will no doubt hear more stories like Ms. Beals where those who are already struggling to put food on the table see their food assistance benefits cut. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we should not be making hunger worse in this country. We should end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, let me say to my colleagues that they should be appalled by this process. This is again being brought up under a process where nobody--not just Democrats, but Republicans as well--can offer amendments. In the United States Senate when TPA was considered, they were able to offer amendments, but when it came before the House last week, we were told we could offer no amendments. The excuse we were given is because, if we passed it, it would go right to the White House. But what we are doing today is actually not going to the White House. It is going back to the Senate, yet we are again being presented with a closed process. Why can't Members of both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to make their views known on this important issue? Why are we being shut out when it comes to the issue of trade and TPA? I heard a number of speakers say that this debate is not about TPP. Well, this is indeed about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Whether or not TPP is implemented will depend almost entirely on whether the President has fast track in place. The vote on fast track, or TPA, will determine the fate of the TPP trade deal. So a ``yes'' vote on TPA is a ``yes'' vote on TPP. It is that simple. History shows that is how it has worked time and time and time again. Fast track is not just about TPP. If we vote for TPA for fast track, we are fast-tracking any trade deal that any President negotiates anytime in the next 6 years. We have no idea who the next President will be, but you are giving the next President--or next Presidents--the authority to have fast-track authority on whatever they want. Why are we just giving away all of our ability to play a role in these negotiations? The problem with these trade deals is that only the well- off and well-connected have a seat at the table. I urge my colleagues to put American workers first. Vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. Again, Mr. Speaker, the TPP is modeled after a failed trade agreement. It will further erode our national economy and change the rules in ways that hurt American workers. We are supposed to be here to protect the American workers and to create more opportunity, and we are yet going down the road of another trade deal that is going to rob America of important middle class jobs. It is appalling, and this process is appalling. Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter to Members of Congress from the general president of the International Association of Firefighters opposing House Resolution 321 when it attaches trade promotion authority to H.R. 2146, the Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act. International Association of Fire Fighters, June 18, 2015. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 300,000 professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, I strongly urge you to oppose H.Res.321 which attaches Trade Promotion Authority to HR 2146, the Defending Public Safety Employee's Retirement Act. The underlying legislation provides an important measure of retirement security to the federal fighters who protect our nation's defense installations, VA hospitals and other vital facilities. It should not be politically exploited and used in a last ditch, desperate effort to pass TPA. HR 2146, which simply enables federal fire fighters to access their own retirement savings once they reach retirement age, was passed by the House by a vote of 407-5 and adopted unanimously in the Senate with a technical amendment. This amended legislation deserves to be considered free of political gamesmanship and procedural tricks. The IAFF urges you to oppose this rule, and consider HR 2146 without controversial amendments. Sincerely, Harold A. Schaitberger, General President.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we should have passed an AUMF before we got into this latest war. We have been at it for 10 months. We are asking Congress to do its job in the next 6 months. How much longer do we want? I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).