Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this House, this Congress, is not working. The fact that we can be in the middle of a new war, spending all these resources, committing all these young lives into harm's way, and we can't even bring an AUMF to the floor to have a debate, it is appalling. I don't know how we can face our constituents, look them in the eye, and say we are doing our job here. We are not. I don't know anything more important that we should debate and deliberate on than war. I mean, war is a big deal. The unfortunate thing in this institution, war has become too easy. I am tired of the excuses, and I am tired of the whining. The President has done what he is supposed to do. Everybody has done what they are supposed to do except us. I am not going to vote for any bill that appropriates more money for a war that we don't even have the guts to authorize. So, Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this grab bag rule, vote ``no'' on this ridiculous COOL repeal, and vote ``no'' on the defense appropriations bill. Let's vote these down and come back and do our job the way the American people expect us to do our job. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. How does this rule give us more time to debate the COOL repeal? It is a pretty straightforward, limited debate that we are given. I would argue that what you are doing is denying us the right to debate appropriately these important issues. We are not saving time. What the Republican majority is doing is limiting our opportunity.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this grab bag rule and both underlying pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 18th time in this Congress that House Republicans have brought to the floor a grab bag rule, a single rule that governs floor debate for two or more unrelated pieces of legislation. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, the use of grab bag rules has dramatically increased by over 400 percent. Using one rule to govern multiple, oftentimes unrelated bills stifles debate, which I guess is the point of them merging all these bills under one rule on the House floor, and leads to disjointed and confusing discussion between two sides. Ranking Member Slaughter and my Democratic colleagues on the House Rules Committee have raised these concerns with Chairman Sessions, but unfortunately, we are back on the floor today to consider one rule for two completely unrelated measures. Today's rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act, also known as COOL, under a completely closed process. No amendments are allowed, none. Clearly, this is an issue that we need to address sooner rather than later, but H.R. 2393 is not the answer. It was introduced just 2 days after the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States' country of origin labeling requirements for meat. H.R. 2393 is a knee-jerk reaction to the WTO ruling that completely does away with labeling requirement for beef, pork, and chicken, which wasn't even addressed in the WTO ruling. We know from past WTO disputes that there are several steps that need to occur before retaliation would take place. The arbitration panel takes at least 60 days, but in the U.S.-Brazil cotton case, it took 15 months to produce a ruling. The sky is not falling; we have some time to come up with a workable solution. Instead of H.R. 2393, we ought to be working toward a more thoughtful approach that balances consumers' right to know where their meat comes from with our trade obligations. More than 60 countries have successfully implemented COOL-like labeling requirements that comply with WTO standards, and we ought to look toward these programs for a workable solution. Such an important issue that impacts the safety of food we eat and the health of American families deserves the most robust debate possible, but this closed rule from House Republicans prevents us from having that kind of debate. As I said, not a single Member, Democratic or Republican, is allowed to offer an amendment to this bill. It is completely closed. Today's rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 2685, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fiscal year 2016 Defense Appropriations Act, there is much to praise about the bill. It contains many important provisions and strong funding for suicide prevention and training, improved response to sexual assault and prevention, and medical research. I applaud the hard work put into drafting this bill by Defense Subcommittee Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky, along with Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey. However, this bill suffers from two major--I emphasize the word ``major''--flaws, which to my mind makes it difficult, if not impossible, to support. First and foremost, this bill continues to use the overseas contingency operations account, or OCO, as a slush fund to get around parts of the Budget Control Act that Republicans don't like--namely, the caps on defense spending--while ignoring the damage the caps are doing to all our nondefense programs. This bill, like the Defense Authorization bill before it, completely bypasses the caps set down by the BCA by increasing OCO funding by $38 billion above the President's request. The bill shifts $38 billion from the defense base budget and shoves those moneys into the off-budget OCO meant to cover the costs of our various wars. Rather than wrestle with the hard question of how to get rid of the sequester and the budget caps and bring our spending back into regular order, the Republicans have decided to wallow in a slush fund. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace. Mr. Speaker, don't you think it is about time that we found a way to provide for our national security needs without relying on war contingency slush funds to pay for the everyday expenses of the Department of Defense? Members on both sides of the aisle have recognized that the sequester does not work. Shouldn't we be honest about that? Shouldn't we negotiate a workable plan, rather than play these games of smoke and mirrors that actually undermine the Pentagon's ability to budget and plan for the long term? Second, Mr. Speaker, this bill continues to appropriate billions of dollars to carry out the war against the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere; but Congress has not even debated, let alone authorized that war. The leadership of this House continues to fail in carrying out its responsibilities under the Constitution and bring an AUMF before this body to authorize the military operations that have been ongoing since last August. In fact, just last night, we learned that the U.S. presence in Iraq will increase even further, with the administration planning to establish a new military base in Anbar province and send hundreds of additional American military trainers. This move is aimed at helping Iraqi forces to retake the city of Ramadi from the Islamic State, but it is clear our involvement is getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger--but still, no word from this leadership that it has the political will or intention to bring an AUMF to the House floor this month, next month, or the month after. With Americans investing more and more in this conflict--we are told that we spend about $3.5 million an hour on this latest war against the Islamic State--there has never been a greater urgency for this Congress to debate and to vote on this war. Time and again, bipartisan letters have been sent to the Speaker asking him to bring an AUMF to the House floor. Time and again, individual Members have sought to bring amendments up for debate that would authorize military operations in Iraq and Syria, only to have the Republican majority on the House Rules Committee reject them, depriving them of consideration and depriving them of debate. Just last night, I offered an amendment that simply states that no funds in this act may be obligated or spent on military operations in Iraq and Syria in the absence of an AUMF for such operations. It was also rejected by the Republicans of the House Rules Committee. Some stated that they voted to reject it because 10 minutes, which is the amount of time limiting debate on all amendments to the defense bill, is simply not enough time to debate a serious question. Well, I agree. Ten minutes is not enough time, but the Rules Committee has the power to increase that limit to as much time as it feels appropriate, and it failed to do so. The Rules Committee could provide 2 hours of debate or 2 days of debate or 2 weeks of debate; that is the power of the Rules Committee. Don't hide behind this excuse as a reason for Congress not to live up to its constitutional responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, it seems that we can always find the time and find a way to spend billions of billions of dollars to fund wars; we can always find a way to send our brave men and women overseas to fight and die in these wars, but we can't ever seem to find the backbone or the time to debate and authorize them. Each night, each week, the Members of this House get to go home to their families and their communities, surrounded by loved ones and people who support them. If we don't have the stomach to take responsibility for sending our troops into danger, then the least we can do is bring them home to their families so that they might enjoy the same peace and privileges that we take so much for granted. If we want to spend our Nation's treasure on these wars, if my colleagues believe that the war in Iraq and Syria is a priority for our Nation and our national security, then we should carry out our constitutional mandate and debate and vote on an AUMF. Now, I welcome the fact that the House Appropriations Committee, in a bipartisan vote, supported an amendment by the honorable gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, that says: ``Congress has a constitutional duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize the use of military force against ISIL.'' That provision is in the Defense Appropriations bill. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we shouldn't just be saying that Congress has a constitutional duty; we should actually be carrying out our constitutional duty. So I hope that every single one of my colleagues will remember that when they cast their votes for final passage of this bill, you are providing money and equipment and lives to carry out a war that this House doesn't even have the courage to debate and vote on. The leadership of this House has to stop whining and stop trying to shift the responsibility on to anyone and everyone except to whom the responsibility really falls. It falls upon each of us to say to this leadership that the time has come to bring an AUMF before this body, and for the leadership to let us debate it and vote on it. It is time that we stopped acting like cowards and started behaving like Members of Congress our constituents elected to make the tough decisions. So I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the customary 30 minutes, and 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. I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for his eloquent statement and for his passion on this issue and for his courage on this issue because I know that it is not easy to stand up and raise some of these questions. He has done so consistently, and I think the country owes him a debt of gratitude, so I thank the gentleman for that. I think, as Mr. Jones pointed out, there is a constitutional principle at stake here. We have a responsibility when it comes to matters of war, and it is a little bit puzzling to me that we have a lot of complaining in this Chamber by some in saying that the President is not consulting enough with Congress or he is doing too many things with executive actions; yet, when it comes to the issue of war, we don't want to have anything to do with it. It is just too easy to do nothing. I know that these issues are uncomfortable--they are complicated; they are difficult--but our job is not to run away from an issue if it is uncomfortable. We have to deliberate on a lot of issues that are important to the American people and to the national security of this country. I don't think it takes any courage for a Member of Congress to be quiet on this issue and cheer the White House on if the military operation is going well or criticize it if it is not, but never have to take a vote. That is not leadership; that is cowardice. That is shirking our responsibility. I don't care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. We all, for the sake of protecting the integrity of this institution, should insist that we assume our proper role when it comes to issues of war. War is a big deal. It is a big deal--at least it should be a big deal. As I said earlier, what bothers me is that, in this Chamber and in this city, it has become easy. We don't talk about it. We had a debate on the defense authorization bill last week. A number of us tried to bring amendments to the floor to kind of force this issue, and we were told this is not the place to talk about the war--the defense authorization bill, which authorizes a lot of the funding for this war. If that is not the place to talk about it, then where is the place to talk about it? With every attempt that we have launched to try to force a debate on the floor, we have been frustrated. We have been told you can't do it. Here we are in June, and we have been at war now for many, many months. The time has come for us to stand up and be heard on this issue. Look, I have great reservations about the White House's policy in Iraq and Syria. I don't support much of what the President is doing right now. I know his heart is in the right place, but I don't think that the ultimate answer here is to expand our military footprint. I have reservations. Even if you believe that you ought to give the President all of the power in the universe to do whatever he wants around the world, you still ought to support what Congressman Jones and Congresswoman Lee and I are trying to do, and that is to make sure that Congress has a role in this, that we authorize whatever action is going to take place from this point forward. Again, you could vote to expand the President's authority. You could vote to limit the President's authority. You could vote to say we don't believe the President should have any authority to launch even more wars in the Middle East. That is what the debate should be about. We should be talking about the specifics of our policy. I mean, is there a clearly defined mission here? I don't see it. A clearly defined mission has a beginning, a middle, and an end; but we ought to have that debate. How does this all end? We were told initially, Oh, it won't be that long; then it was a few years. Now, it is going to be a generation or two. The length of time that we are going to be expected to be engaged here gets longer and longer and longer and longer with each passing month. Isn't that worth a discussion? Isn't that worth a debate? We debate a lot of things on this House floor that I would say are pretty trivial. We debate a lot of legislation that we know is going nowhere. Why can't we take the time to debate this issue of war? Why can't we take the time to do what is right by our servicemen and - women, who are being put into harm's way, to make sure that we are getting it right with regard to Iraq and Syria and the war against the Islamic State? Again, I know it is uncomfortable; but so what? We need to do our job. I will just close by reiterating something that Congressman Jones said, and that is that we have a lot of needs here in the United States. We can't get a long-term highway bill passed. We have tens of millions of fellow citizens in the United States of America, the richest country on the planet, who are hungry. We have some schools that are in disrepair. Quite frankly, our kids deserve a heck of a lot better. We have infrastructure needs. I can go right down the list of the things that we need to do. We have people who are unemployed, and we have people who are homeless. We need more housing for people. There are so many things that we have to do, and we are told we can't do any of it because we don't have the money; but, when it comes to wars that never end or wars that are going to last generations or more, we are an ATM machine. If the money is not there, we will give you an IOU. We will put it on our credit card. People talk about the deficit and the debt; yet we are adding all of these billions and trillions of dollars because of these wars that are not paid for. No one says anything about that around here, but that is one of the biggest contributors to our debt. We ought to realize that. When we talk about national security, I would just say to my colleagues that national security also includes the quality of life for people here in this country, whether people have a job, whether people have access to a good education, whether people have health care, whether people have food, whether they have shelter. All of those things are important parts of our national security and our national defense. We are neglecting them on a regular basis, but we are spending every cent we have on these wars overseas. This deserves a debate. Again, we would prefer that an AUMF come before the full House under regular order, where the House Foreign Affairs Committee would report out a bill, and we would just debate it, but we have been patient long enough, and nothing has been forthcoming. Here we are in June with still no promise that anything may be coming--more excuses. That is why we introduced this privileged resolution. We are going to force a debate, and we are going to force a vote. We will do it again and again and again and again until this Congress lives up to its constitutional responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, along with my colleagues Walter Jones of North Carolina and Barbara Lee of California, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 55 in order to force this House and this Congress to debate on whether U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq and Syria. We introduced this resolution under the provisions of section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution. As all of my House colleagues know, last year, the President authorized airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on August 7. For over 10 months, the United States has been engaged in hostilities in Iraq and Syria without debating an authorization for this war. On February 11 this year, nearly 4 months ago, the President sent to Congress the text for an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or an AUMF, on combating the Islamic State in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, yet Congress has failed to act on that AUMF, or bring an alternative to the House floor, even though we continue to authorize and appropriate the money required for sustained military operations in those countries. Frankly speaking, Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. This House appears to have no problem sending our uniformed men and women into harm's way. It appears to have no problem spending billions of dollars for the arms, equipment, and air power to carry out these wars. But it just can't bring itself to step up to the plate and take responsibility for these wars. Our servicemen and servicewomen are brave and dedicated. Congress, however, is the poster child for cowardice. The leadership of this House whines and complains from the sidelines, and all the while it shirks its constitutional duties to bring an AUMF to the floor of this House, debate it, and vote on it. Our resolution, which will come before this House for consideration in 15 calendar days, requires the President to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and Syria within 30 days or no later than the end of this year, December 31, 2015. If this House approves this resolution, Congress would still have 6 months in which to do the right thing and bring an AUMF before the House and the Senate for debate and for action. Either Congress needs to live up to its responsibilities and authorize this war, or by its continuing neglect and indifference, our troops should be withdrawn and come home. It is that simple. I am deeply, I am deeply troubled by our policy in Iraq and Syria. I do not believe it is a clearly defined mission with a beginning, a middle, and an end, but rather just more of the same. I am not convinced that by enlarging our military footprint, that we will somehow end the violence in the region, defeat the Islamic State, or address the underlying causes of the unrest. It is a complicated situation that requires a complicated and more imaginative response. I am also concerned by recent statements by the administration about how long we will be engaged in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere fighting the Islamic State. Just yesterday, on June 3, General John Allen, the U.S. envoy for the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIL, said that this fight may take ``a generation or more.'' He was speaking in Doha, Qatar, at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum. Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record a Times of Israel article entitled, ``Islamic State Fight May Take `Generation or More'--US Envoy.'' [From the Times of Israel, June 3, 2015] Islamic State Fight May Take `Generation or More'--US Envoy As key Iraqi province falls to Islamic State, Gen. John Allen says failure to defeat group would `wreak havoc' on humanity The Islamic State group is a ``global threat'' which will take a generation or more to defeat, Washington's envoy for the US-led coalition fighting the jihadists said Wednesday. Despite ``strategic momentum'' against IS--'' or Daesh as he called it--General John Allen conceded that the fight would continue for several years in a keynote speech to the US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar. And he added that if IS was not defeated it could ``wreak havoc on the progress of humanity.'' ``This will be a long campaign,'' he said. ``Defeating Daesh's ideology will likely take a generation or more. But we can and we must rise to this challenge. In an age when we are more interconnected that at any other time in human history, Daesh is a global threat.'' In a wide-ranging speech, Allen added that IS also poses a new type of threat because of its ``depravity.'' ``As someone who has spent nearly four decades as a United States marine, I have come closer than many to the reality of inhumanity. ``But I have never seen before the kinds of depravity and brutality in this region that ISIL represents and, in fact, that ISIL celebrates,'' he added, using an alternative acronym for IS. Allen was speaking the day after attending talks in Paris with ministers from around 20 coalition countries. The meeting followed the fall of the city of Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's largest province Anbar, to IS. That loss has been described as the worst defeat for the coalition since it formed nearly a year ago. US Pentagon chief Ashton Carter blamed Iraqi forces, saying there was ``an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight,'' in comments that angered Baghdad. Iraq on Tuesday pleaded for more global support in the fight against IS. The loss of Ramadi in Iraq plus the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria has led some to question the effectiveness of the US-led coalition in recent weeks. Allen said the coalition had achieved some gains against the extremists. He noted that IS had been defeated in many places in Iraq and that it has ``lost over 25 percent'' of the populated territory it once held in the country. Another area of coalition success, Allen claimed, was its ability to disrupt the group's access to finance. ``We are sharing information to block their assets to the global financial system. We are uncovering their points of access in the region and abroad for financial support,'' he said. He said the coalition had gained valuable intelligence on the organisation's financial enterprises, but admitted that ``Daesh still maintains financial resources''. These included extortion, looting, kidnapping for ransom, and human trafficking, said Allen.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to invest a generation or more of our blood and our treasure in this war, then shouldn't Congress at least debate whether or not to authorize it? According to the National Priorities Project, based in Northampton, Massachusetts, which is in my congressional district, every single hour the taxpayers of the United States are paying $3.42 million for military actions against the Islamic State--$3.42 million every hour, Mr. Speaker. This is on top of the hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent on the first war in Iraq. And nearly every single penny of this war chest was borrowed money, put on the national credit card, provided as so- called emergency funds that don't have to be accounted for or subject to budget caps like all other funds. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that we always seem to have plenty of money or the will to borrow all the money it takes to carry out wars? But somehow, we never have any money to invest in our schools, our highways and water systems, or our children, families, and communities? Every day, every single day, this Congress is forced to make tough, serious, painful decisions to deprive our domestic economy and priorities of the resources they need to succeed. But somehow, there is always money for more wars. Well, if we are going to continue to spend billions on war, and if we are going to continue to tell our Armed Forces that we expect them to fight and die in these wars, then it seems to me the least we can do is stand up and vote to authorize these wars, or we should end them. We owe that to the American people. We owe that to our troops and their families. And we owe that to the oath of office that each of us took to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker: I can no longer criticize the President, the Pentagon, or the State Department when it comes to taking responsibility for this war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. I may not agree with the policy, but they have done their duty. At every step of the way, beginning on June 16, 2014, the President has informed Congress of his actions to send U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria and to carry out military operations against the Islamic State. And on February 11 of this year, he sent to Congress the draft text of an AUMF. Mr. Speaker, while I disagree with the policy, the administration has done its job. It has kept the Congress informed, and as military operations continue to escalate, they sent an AUMF to the Congress for action. It is this Congress, this House, that has failed and failed miserably to carry out its duties. Always complaining from the sidelines, the leadership of this House failed to act last year to authorize this war, even as it escalated and expanded nearly every month. The Speaker said it wasn't the responsibility of the 113th Congress to act, even though the war started during its tenure. No, no. Somehow it was the responsibility of the next Congress, the 114th Congress. Well, the 114th Congress convened on January 6, and it still hasn't done a single, solitary thing to authorize the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The Speaker asserted that Congress couldn't act on the war until the President sent an AUMF to Congress. Well, Mr. Speaker, the President did just that on February 11, and still the leadership of this House has done nothing to authorize the use of military force in Iraq and Syria. And now the Speaker is saying he wants the President to send Congress another version of the AUMF because he doesn't like the first one. Are you kidding me? Well, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't work that way. If the leadership of this House doesn't like the original text of the President's AUMF, then it is the job of Congress to draft an alternative, report that revised AUMF out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, bring it to the floor of the House, and let the Members of this House debate and vote on it. That is how it works. If you think that the President's AUMF is too weak, then you make it stronger. If you think that it is too expansive, then set limits on it. If you are opposed to these wars, then vote to bring our troops home. That is what we are here to do. That is what we are charged to do under the Constitution. And that is why Members of Congress get a paycheck from the American people every week--to make the hard decisions, not run away from them. All I ask, Mr. Speaker, is that the Congress do its job. That is the duty of this House and of the majority in charge of this House--to simply do its job, to govern, Mr. Speaker. But instead, all we witness is dithering and twiddling and complaining and whining and blaming others, and the complete and total shirking of responsibility over and over and over and over again. Enough, enough. So with great reluctance and frustration, Representative Jones and Representative Lee and I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 55. Because if this House doesn't have the stomach to carry out its constitutional duty to debate and authorize this latest war, then we should bring our troops home. If the cowardly Congress can go home each night to their families and loved ones, then our brave troops should receive that same privilege. Doing nothing is easy. And I am sad to say that war has become easy, too easy. But the costs in terms of blood and treasure are very, very, very high. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and demand that the leadership of this House bring to the floor of this House an AUMF for the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria before Congress adjourns on June 26 for the Fourth of July recess. Congress needs to debate an AUMF, Mr. Speaker. It needs to do its job. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from North Carolina, Congressman Walter Jones.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. Since my friends on the other side of the aisle have assumed the majority, they have made it their mission to undermine the Dodd-Frank Act and hamstring the ability of our regulators to put in place strong rules to prevent another financial crisis, and this legislation is no exception. H.R. 2289 reauthorizes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission through 2019 while making substantial changes to the CFTC's internal operations and rolling back key Dodd-Frank provisions intended to strengthen our financial regulatory framework. I have specific concerns with the new cost-benefit requirements imposed in title II of the legislation. The CFTC already conducts cost- benefit analyses on its rulemakings, and this provision could significantly slow down the rulemaking process while also creating openings that will put the CFTC at the risk of increased litigation. Title II of H.R. 2289 also proposes several unnecessary changes to the Commission's internal operations that can make it more difficult to manage the agency. According to CFTC Chairman Massad, the provisions contained in title II could weaken the Commission's ability to respond in a timely and effective manner. For example, if these measures were currently in place, it would have made it more difficult for the agency to positively respond over the past 10 months to concerns raised by market participants. Also included in this bill are substantial changes to rulemakings taking place at the Commission under the Dodd-Frank Act. I am particularly concerned by the cross-border language contained in the bill, which will undercut the efforts already underway by the Commission to negotiate on an international system of safe and robust derivative rules that are necessary to apply to the global derivatives market. H.R. 2289 requires the CFTC to create a rule that will automatically allow U.S. banks and foreign banks conducting business in the U.S. to do so under the rules imposed by foreign jurisdictions, all of which are currently more lenient than our own. We have seen this kind of race to the bottom before, and we all know how it ends. Worse yet, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation hamstrings an agency that is already woefully underfunded. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the CFTC will need 30 additional personnel annually to handle the increased workload imposed by both the new cost-benefit analysis requirements and the mandated cross-border rule contained in this legislation. Will my friends on the other side of the aisle provide the necessary funding increases to the CFTC to carry out these requirements? I doubt it. Dodd-Frank significantly expanded the CFTC's role in overseeing our financial markets, and they have already completed over 80 percent of their required rulemakings, the best rate of any financial regulator. They have done so despite the fact that Congress has not done its part to provide the agency with the resources it needs to police these incredibly complex markets, populated by highly sophisticated and extremely powerful entities. Remember AIG, the insurer brought down by derivatives trades that the CFTC is now policing? If that memory is fuzzy, I am sure you will remember the funds we provided to bail AIG out, which came to a total of $67.8 billion. That would be enough to fund the CFTC at the level requested in the President's budget for over 200 years. The Commission needs a reauthorization, but it certainly doesn't need one saddled with changes that will hamstring its internal operations, prolong its rulemakings through an inflexible cost-benefit analysis requirement that opens it up to litigation risk, and force it to allow a race to the bottom on international rules governing a global market. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I think that basically says it all. While I respect the intentions of my colleagues who drafted this bill, I think it is a deeply flawed bill, and it creates hurdles for the CFTC that will not be fully funded and will cause all kinds of problems. I think we ought to make sure that the CFTC can do its job. I don't want a repeat of the financial crisis that resulted in the Great Recession. And I think the American people don't want a repeat of that. I get very worried when I see this Congress chipping away at Dodd- Frank and the provisions in Dodd-Frank that get us back to what got us into this mess to begin with. I think we can do a lot better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2289 and just read a little bit of it so that my colleagues understand how strongly the administration is opposed to this: ``The administration strongly opposes the passage of H.R. 2289 because it undermines the efficient functioning of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission . . . by imposing a number of organizational and procedural changes that would undercut efforts taken by the CFTC over the last year to address end user concerns. ``H.R. 2289 also offers no solution to address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding. The CFTC is one of only two Federal financial regulators funded through annual discretionary appropriations, and the funding that Congress has provided for it over the past 5 years has failed to keep pace with the increasing complexity of the Nation's financial markets. ``The changes proposed in H.R. 2289 would hinder the ability of the CFTC to operate effectively, thereby threatening the financial security of the middle class by encouraging the same kind of risky, irresponsible behavior that led to the great recession.'' The statement concludes, Mr. Speaker: ``If the President were presented with H.R. 2289, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.'' Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2289--Commodity End-User Relief Act (Rep. Conaway, R-TX, June 2, 2015) The Administration is firmly committed to strengthening the Nation's financial system through the implementation of key reforms to safeguard derivatives markets and ensure a stronger and fairer financial system for investors and consumers. The full benefit to the Nation's citizens and the economy cannot be realized unless the entities charged with establishing and enforcing the rules of the road have the resources to do so. The Administration strongly opposes the passage of H.R. 2289 because it undermines the efficient functioning of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by imposing a number of organizational and procedural changes and would undercut efforts taken by the CFTC over the last year to address end-user concerns. H.R. 2289 also offers no solution to address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding. The CFTC is one of only two Federal financial regulators funded through annual discretionary appropriations, and the funding the Congress has provided for it over the past five years has failed to keep pace with the increasing complexity of the Nation's financial markets. The changes proposed in H.R. 2289 would hinder the ability of the CFTC to operate effectively, thereby threatening the financial security of the middle class by encouraging the same kind of risky, irresponsible behavior that led to the great recession. Prior to enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the derivatives markets were largely unregulated. Losses connected to derivatives rippled through that hidden network, playing a central role in the financial crisis. Wall Street Reform resulted in significant expansion of the CFTC's responsibilities, establishing a framework for standardized over-the-counter derivatives to be traded on regulated platforms and centrally cleared, and for data to be reported to repositories to increase transparency and price discovery. The changes proposed in H.R. 2289 would hinder the CFTC's progress in successfully implementing these critical responsibilities and would unnecessarily disrupt the effective management and operation of the agency without providing the more robust and reliable funding that the agency needs. In order to respond quickly to market events and market participants, the CFTC needs funding commensurate with its evolving oversight framework. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to authorize fee funding for the CFTC as proposed in the FY 2016 Budget request, a shift that would directly reduce the deficit. User fees were first proposed in the President's Budget by the Reagan Administration more than 30 years ago and have been supported by every Democratic and Republican Administration since that time. Fee funding would shift CFTC costs from the general taxpayer to the primary beneficiaries of the CFTC's oversight in a manner that maintains the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of the Nation's futures, options, and swaps markets, and supports market access for smaller market participants hedging or mitigating commercial or agricultural risk. If the President were presented with H.R. 2289, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleague from Washington State with regard to the funding of the CFTC that the agency has never received the funding that it has requested, and that is just a fact. Here we are imposing new requirements, new mandates. CBO, as I mentioned in my opening, estimates that the CFTC will need an additional 30 personnel annually to handle the increased workload imposed by the new cost-benefit analysis requirements of the mandated cross-border rule contained in the provisions in this bill, and so we are asking an agency that has never been properly funded to even do more and not provide it with the proper funding. I don't think that is a smart way to move forward when it comes to an issue so important. I also want to point out to my colleagues that they should have received a letter from the Consumer Federation of America strongly opposing this bill. Let me just read you the first paragraph. It says: We are writing on behalf of the Consumer Federation of America to ask you to oppose H.R. 2289, which the House is expected to vote on this month. This legislation would hamstring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from effectively overseeing and regulating commodities and derivatives markets, leaving consumers exposed to fraud, manipulation, and abusive practices, and putting the safety and stability of the U.S. financial system at risk. The language in this bill largely mirrors the language offered in last year's CFTC reauthorization bill, which the Obama administration strongly opposed because it undermined the efficient functioning of the CFTC and offered no solution to address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding. We urge you to resist this relentless attack on the CFTC by voting against this misguided and harmful legislation. I would tell my colleagues who are observing this debate that each one of them received a copy of this letter from the Consumer Federation of America strongly opposing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include the statement for the Record. Consumer Federation of America, June 2, 2015. Re Oppose H.R. 2289 Dear Representative: We are writing on behalf of the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) to ask you to oppose ``The Commodity End User Relief Act'' (H.R. 2289), which the House is expected to vote on this month. This legislation would hamstring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from effectively overseeing and regulating commodities and derivatives markets, leaving consumers exposed to fraud, manipulation, and abusive practices, and putting the safety and stability of the U.S. financial system at risk. The language in this bill largely mirrors the language offered in last year's CFTC reauthorization bill, which the Obama Administration strongly opposed because it undermined the efficient functioning of the CFTC and offered no solution to address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding. We urge you to resist this relentless attack on the CFTC by voting against this misguided and harmful legislation. First, this bill would impose an assortment of new, onerous cost-benefit analysis requirements on the CFTC which are likely to delay and obstruct agency action. Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC already has a statutory mandate to evaluate the costs and benefits of its actions in light of numerous considerations, including the protection of market participants and the public, efficiency, competitiveness, financial integrity, price discovery, and sound risk management practices. This bill would add seven new considerations for the CFTC to undertake. Included in the new economic analysis regime is a requirement for the Commission to assess available alternatives to direct regulation and to determine whether, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those alternatives to direct regulation maximize the net benefits. The practical effect is a further tilting of the regulatory process in favor of adopting an approach that best benefits industry rather than the public. Essentially, if this bill is adopted, the CFTC will be required to undertake an in-depth, burdensome economic analysis for each regulation it proposes and compare its proposal to every conceivable alternative. Such a framework likely will create insurmountable barriers that cripple the agency from putting forth rule proposals and finalizing them in a timely manner so as to effectively protect market participants and the overall economy. In addition, the CFTC would be required to evaluate the cost to the Commission of implementing the proposed action, including providing a methodology for quantifying the costs. While this provision is clumsily worded, it appears that the practical effect of requiring the CFTC to consider costs to itself and its staff will be to paradoxically add time and costs to the cost side of the equation, thereby hindering rulemaking. It is also disturbing that this legislation would require the CFTC to undertake exhaustive cost-benefit analyses without providing the agency with the necessary resources to fulfill those obligations. The new cost-benefit analysis requirements also are likely to result in increasing opportunities to thwart CFTC regulations through legal challenges. The practical effect of the new heightened requirements will be that any time an industry participant objects to new rules, it will have several new bases for a lawsuit, and it will seek to defeat those rules by claiming that the agency did not undertake a proper economic analysis by considering, and then disposing of, all the possible theoretical alternatives. It is reasonable to believe that armed with such strong ammunition, industry-supported lawsuits seeking to dismantle any new regulations will be successful, a problem again made worse by the agency's lack of funding to effectively defend against such suits. This legislation also subverts the CFTC's authority to regulate foreign derivatives activities that have a direct and significant effect on U.S. commerce. As our nation has learned painfully and repeatedly from the collapses of Long Term Capital Management, AIG, and Lehman Bros., and from the JPMorgan London Whale trading debacle, even when derivatives contracts are booked through a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. financial institution, the risks of those derivatives often flow back to the United States, threatening the U.S. economy and potentially putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook for any resulting losses. That is why Dodd-Frank gave the CFTC broad authority to regulate overseas derivatives when they put our national economic interests in peril. Pursuant to that cross-border framework, the CFTC allows a foreign host country's regulations to substitute for U.S. regulations only after the CFTC has made a finding that the foreign host country's regulations are comparable to U.S. rules. However, this bill would create a presumption that each of the eight foreign jurisdictions with the largest swaps markets automatically have swaps rules that are considered to be comparable to and as comprehensive as U.S. swaps requirements. The bill makes this determination despite the fact that the CFTC has found only six jurisdictions to be comparable for certain entity- level requirements, and has declined to make comparability determinations for transaction-level requirements for jurisdictions other than the European Union and Japan. Switching the presumption will subjugate the CFTC's authority and expertise on the matter. Furthermore, combining the reversed presumption and overwhelming cost-benefit analysis requirements could mean that the CFTC is effectively thwarted from applying the appropriate regulatory safeguards to certain foreign derivatives transactions. As a result, the CFTC's ability to protect the U.S. economy from the dangers resulting from foreign derivatives transactions could be impaired. Derivatives markets affect the U.S. economy in profound ways, and the risks that derivatives pose to the U.S. economy are well-known. The Dodd-Frank Act brought meaningful reforms to increase transparency and accountability in the derivatives markets and provided the CFTC the necessary authority to properly oversee and regulate the market. However, this legislation would put those reforms at risk and hamper the CFTC's ability to adequately protect consumers, market participants, and the U.S. economy. We cannot afford to suffer the grave consequences of another derivatives-laced financial crisis, but this legislation makes it more likely that we will. Accordingly, we urge you to oppose H.R. 2289. Sincerely, Micah Hauptman, Financial Services Counsel. Barbara Roper, Director of Investor Protection.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Again, I would urge all my colleagues to look in their mail for the letter from the Americans for Financial Reform strongly opposed to this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to be clear on one thing. Yes, this is an authorization bill. It is not an appropriations bill. But the issue of funding for the CFTC is relevant in the discussion of this authorization bill because we are essentially proposing that we give additional responsibilities or require additional actions from the CFTC with no guarantee that we are going to provide the resources for them to do their job. We haven't provided them the adequate resources to do what they have been expected to do from the very beginning. I also want to say that most end user relief in this bill is not objectionable, but the CFTC is already addressing them through rulemaking. A better way to address these concerns than in statute would be more flexibility for them to do rulemaking, which can be adjusted. In addition to end user provisions, this bill also contains all the problems that we have already identified with regard to cost benefit and cross border. So there are some significant issues here. The DelBene amendment was mentioned earlier. I want to make it clear that that does not prevent litigation. It just restates the standard of review from the Administrative Procedure Act abuse of discretion. I will also point out to my colleagues that the cost-benefit analysis is mandated by section 202. So, again, I would feel better about all of this if we addressed the funding shortfall in the CFTC. We are not doing that. And I don't expect that this majority is going to work with us on that. I also will insert in the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter that was sent to all Members of the House from Americans for Financial Reform strongly opposing H.R. 2289. Let me just read the opening paragraph: ``On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform, we are writing to express our opposition to H.R. 2289. . . . This legislation would have a severe negative impact on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and its ability to police commodity and derivatives markets. The new restrictions it places on the CFTC would require additional years of bureaucratic red tape prior to agency action, would enable numerous industry lawsuits against the agency, and would create inappropriate statutory restrictions on the agency's ability to properly oversee markets crucial to the financial system.'' Americans for Financial Reform, Washington, DC, June 3, 2015. Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform, we are writing to express our opposition to HR 2289, ``The Commodity End User Relief Act.'' This legislation would have a severe negative impact on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and its ability to police commodity and derivatives markets. The new restrictions it places on the CFTC would require additional years of bureaucratic red tape prior to agency action, would enable numerous industry lawsuits against the agency, and would create inappropriate statutory restrictions on the agency's ability to properly oversee markets crucial to the financial system. At the same time, this legislation includes no provisions that address the CFTC's most fundamental problem--the lack of resources to accomplish its mission. Due to the agency's massive new responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Act for hundreds of trillions of dollars in previously unregulated derivatives markets, as well as the growth of traditional commodity markets, the size of CFTC-regulated markets has increased roughly 15-fold over the last decade. But the agency's funding lags far behind. As CFTC chair Tim Massad recently stated: ``The CFTC does not have the resources to fulfill our new responsibilities as well as all the responsibilities it had-- and still has--prior to the passage of Dodd Frank in a way that most Americans would expect. Our staff, for example, is no larger than it was when Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010. . . . Simply stated, without additional resources, our markets cannot be as well supervised; participants and their customers cannot be as well protected; market transparency and efficiency cannot be as fully achieved.'' While the CFTC's funding is appropriated, the agency authorization process is an appropriate mechanism for introducing mechanisms that would supplement appropriations with some form of agency self-funding. Such self-funding mechanisms are used by all other financial regulatory agencies and have been endorsed for the CFTC by every administration going back to the Reagan Administration, including the Bush and Obama Administrations. Instead of addressing the pressing problem of funding, HR 2289 would instead load down the CFTC with additional mandates that would drain resources and act as a roadblock to necessary oversight and enforcement. Section 202 of HR 2289 would more than double the number of cost benefit analyses the agency must perform prior to taking any action. The CFTC already has a statutory requirement to consider the costs and benefits of its actions, and to evaluate these costs and benefits as applied to a number of significant considerations, including market efficiency, price discovery, and protection of the public. However, Section 202 would massively expand this requirement. The section would enormously expand the number of different factors the CFTC must evaluate in any rulemaking, order, or guidance. It would also change the standard of evaluation from consideration of costs and benefits to a much more extensive and burdensome ``reasoned determination'' of costs and benefits. The section includes a particularly sweeping mandate that would require the agency to assess whether an action ``maximizes net benefits'' compared to all possible regulatory alternatives. This requirement alone, which seems to require comparison of any actual regulation to a potentially vast number of theoretical alternatives, could be read to require dozens of additional agency analyses. Some of this language does replicate cost-benefit instructions from the Office of Management and Budget that already applies to agencies within the executive branch, although not to independent financial regulatory agencies like the CFTC. However, a crucial difference is that HR 2289 would add this language in statute, meaning that each and every additional instruction regarding cost-benefit analysis could become grounds for a Wall Street lawsuit against a CFTC rule. These extensive new cost-benefit requirements amount to a playbook for industry interests to tie up regulations in endless litigation, delays, and red tape. With critical rulemakings such as position limits to control commodity price manipulation still incomplete almost five years after they were passed, the addition of major new barriers to action would be dramatic movement in the wrong direction. Section 314 of the legislation would also greatly weaken the authority of the CFTC to properly regulate derivatives transactions booked in foreign subsidiaries of U.S. banks, even when such transactions have a direct and significant connection to the U.S. economy. We need only look at the example of J.P. Morgan's ``London Whale'' transactions, or the London derivatives transactions of AIG Financial Products which resulted in the largest bailout in U.S. history, to see that derivatives transactions conducted through nominally overseas entities can have a profound impact on the U.S. economy. Over half of Wall Street derivatives transactions are currently booked in nominally foreign subsidiaries, and even more could be transacted in this way if there was an incentive to do so to avoid regulation. Section 314 would force the CFTC to perform burdensome ``determinations'' in order to regulate foreign subsidiary transactions. Its discretion in performing these assessments would be limited in numerous ways by the legislation. To take just one example, the agency would be banned from considering the actual physical location of personnel doing swaps trading in determining whether a transaction was conducted inside the United States for the purposes of applying U.S. law. It defies common sense to impose such extraordinary restrictions on the discretion of a regulatory agency charged with oversight of the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market. HR 2289 also includes many additional changes. Some of them, such as amendments to indemnification requirements for swaps data repositories, are reasonable. However, others create significant statutory loopholes that could permit evasion of derivatives regulations by large banks. For example, Section 301 of the legislation permits large financial institutions affiliated with commercial entities to take advantage of exemptions from key Dodd-Frank risk controls that were intended to apply only to commercial end users. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has stated that the language included in Section 301 ``could potentially allow large banks to trade swaps with other large banks and not be subject to the clearing or exchange trading requirements as long as one of the banks had a nonfinancial affiliate.'' Some of the other problematic parts of the bill expand the definition of ``commercial end user'' to include financial entities (Section 306), create sweeping exemptions from CFTC oversight for broad classes of complex financial instruments (Section 309), weaken Commission authority to require swap dealers to raise equity capital to back up their trades (Section 311), permit marketing of complex institutional commodity pools to retail investors (Section 312), and weaken limits on commodity market speculation (Section 313). All of these sections appear significantly overbroad and could enable evasion of appropriate regulatory oversight. In general, the ``end user'' changes in this bill fail to recognize the very substantial administrative exemptions provided to end users by the CFTC. The CFTC has already exempted end users from numerous Dodd-Frank regulations in areas targeted by this bill. By acting through administrative processes the agency has maintained appropriate safeguards as well as the ability to act if market participants use exemptions to evade important risk controls. In contrast, many of the provisions in HR 2289 would provide sweeping statutory exemptions that lack appropriate controls on risk and could easily become dangerous loopholes. But even before considering these issues, the major new restrictions on the agency created by the cost-benefit and cross-border provisions of this bill create overwhelming reasons to reject this legislation as currently written. So long as those provisions are a part of this legislation, supporting appropriate derivatives regulation requires opposing this bill. We urge you to vote against HR 2289 and preserve the CFTC's capacity to properly regulate crucial futures and derivatives markets. For more information please contact AFR's Policy Director, Marcus Stanley at marcus@ourfinancialsecurity.org. Sincerely, Americans for Financial Reform.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and I want to associate myself with his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of the Transportation-HUD and CJS appropriations bills. First, let me express my astonishment at the big giveaways to the trucking industry in this Transportation-HUD bill. This bill is loaded up with pet projects of the trucking industry that threaten the health and safety of the traveling public. The lack of regard for the safety and well-being of those on the roads and bridges is stunning. It is hard to believe that some of the provisions that are contained as policy riders in these appropriations bills are actually there. This bill should focus on strengthening America's infrastructure, repairing crumbling bridges, investing in public transportation, and making our roads safer, but instead puts the trucking industry in the driving seat, leaving the average American left behind. The bill would, one, increase truck weights in Idaho and Kansas; two, allow twin 33-foot trailers on interstates; three, delay full implementation of DOT's hours of service rule, which requires minimum rest periods for truckers; and, four, prohibit the Department of Transportation from increasing minimum insurance requirements for big trucks and motor coaches. Mr. Speaker, with all that we know, it is simply outrageous that we would allow bigger and heavier trucks on our highways. Today's bill is intended specifically to appropriate funds, not authorize new policy. Yet this is exactly what these policy riders are doing. They don't belong on this bill. Furthermore, there was not a single hearing on these trucking riders: not one subcommittee hearing, not one full committee hearing. These issues are important enough where they should be openly debated as part of a comprehensive surface transportation authorization bill, not tacked on to an appropriations bill. They don't belong here. But this process has become so corrupted that anything goes. Committees of jurisdiction are routinely disregarded and disrespected. Making these controversial policy changes before the Department of Transportation finishes their comprehensive truck size and weight study that was required by MAP-21 would be irresponsible. We should allow the Department of Transportation the time it needs to get their study right. Simply put, these trucking industry riders will make our highways less safe at a time when our infrastructure funding is woefully inadequate and our roads and bridges are crumbling. In just the past 4 years, we have seen a dramatic 17 percent increase in the number of truck crash deaths and an alarming 28 percent increase in injuries. Instead of advancing safety measures to make our roads safer, Congress is about to roll back significant safety laws and regulations that will result in more deaths and more injuries on our roads and highways. In fatal truck and car crashes, 96 percent of the fatalities are occupants of the passenger car. Mr. Speaker, public opinion is clear: Americans do not want bigger trucks or tired truck drivers on the road. Seventy-six percent of Americans opposed longer and heavier trucks, and 80 percent were opposed to increasing truck driver working and driving hours. Yet here we are with authorizing language on an appropriations bill to make our roads less safe. Why are my friends doing this? It might be good policy for fundraising purposes, but it is lousy policy for the American people. These dangerous riders don't belong here. They threaten the safety of everyday Americans on the road, and we ought to insist that they be removed. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to express my concern about the dangerous and backward-thinking riders that are included in both the CJS and Transportation-HUD Appropriations bills regarding Cuba. Obviously, there are several Members here in this House who are nostalgic for the cold war, who are still living in the past. I just want to say, thanks to the leadership of President Obama and this administration, we are making real progress in normalizing relations with Cuba and connecting them with a 21st century economy. We are ending an embarrassing, dumb, and counterproductive policy that by all accounts has been a miserable failure for the last five decades. In 2011, after President Obama reinstated the rules allowing Cuban Americans to visit their relatives on the island and permitting all Americans to send remittances to Cuba, hard-liners used the appropriations process to prevent the policies from being implemented. Thankfully, Senate Democrats kept the hard-liners' provisions out of the omnibus bill, and legislation reversing the modest but hopeful travel and remittance reforms never reached the President's desk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of trips between the U.S. and Cuba have taken place every year since, reuniting families and increasing the number of Cubans receiving the economic support they need to run their own businesses and lead more independent lives. Instead of celebrating the progress, hard-liners are once again trying to shut down the new openings for greater citizen diplomacy created by this administration. This is the wrong thing to do for America; this is the wrong thing to do for American companies, and it is the wrong thing to do for the American people. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in six decades, the United States Government is encouraging citizen diplomacy, greater travel and trade, and telecommunications and other industries to build relationships and stronger ties with counterparts among the Cuban people and new entrepreneurs. American businesses are already seeing the potential for economic growth. That is why JetBlue and other airlines are expanding charter services and planning commercial routes, why ferry companies are planning to set sail for Havana, why Airbnb and Netflix are hoping to build real businesses in the Cuban market, why Governors in red and blue States alike are trying to position companies in their States to succeed. The provisions in these bills are antibusiness. Airlines and maritime businesses have already taken steps to initiate travel service to and from Cuba based on the administration's December 17, 2014, announcement, and these provisions in these bills will block them. Even the United States Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes these provisions, and they have sent a letter to Congress basically making the case why we ought to have better and more open travel and trade with Cuba. It is why Americans across the country and Cuban Americans in communities where they live are so deeply committed to a policy that puts the cold war behind us and puts our country on a path to creating a new and brighter future with Cuba. Simply put, these provisions in these appropriations bills are trying to pull the plug on new efforts by U.S. citizens and U.S. companies to expand their presence in Cuba. As the policy moves forward, they keep trying to pull us back into the cold war and a policy that has failed for over 50 years. Let's be clear. The Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill would ground new commercial or charter flights that came into being after March 15, 2015. JetBlue and Tampa International Airport are just two beneficiaries of the President's new policy who would be adversely affected. With new ferries leaving port, as much as $340 million would be pumped into Florida's economy. These provisions would hold back that economic growth, hurting American businesses in Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. Mr. Speaker, the CJS bill would shut down U.S. exports to Cuba in ways that will affect telecommunications firms now in negotiations to open up phone and Internet connections on the island. Do we want Cubans to be better connected to the outside world? I thought the answer was a huge bipartisan yes, but apparently not. The ugly truth is that these provisions in these bills are hiding their real intent, and that is to shut down the growing connections between Cuba and the United States and our citizens and U.S. companies. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues that these provisions, first of all, do not belong in appropriations bills. They are authorizing language. They don't belong even in this debate. I would suggest to them that these appropriations bills aren't going to see the light of day as long as these provisions are in this bill. I would urge my colleagues to put the cold war behind them and to get rid of these provisions, and let's move on to a better and more productive relationship.

Mr. McGOVERN. I would just respond to the chairman by saying the thing about this rule that is so frustrating is that important amendments are only given 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes on each side. Some of these issues are important and deserve more than 5 minutes of debate. We are not going to have debates. We are going to offer amendments and then, essentially, vote. I am not so excited about the way this rule has been constructed, especially given the fact that very little time is being allotted to discuss some of these important issues.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at the end of March, I had the privilege of spending some time with the Highland Valley Elder Services' Meals on Wheels program in Northampton, Massachusetts, as part of their ``March for Meals Month'' to raise awareness about senior hunger. I began my visit in the kitchen at the Walter Salvo Elder House, where an average of 550 healthy meals are prepared from scratch every weekday for delivery to homebound seniors and disabled residents of Hampshire County. I had the opportunity to chat with Highland Valley director Allan Ouimet and nutrition program director Nancy Mathers. Then I helped volunteer driver Arthur Mongeon pack up the day's meals in insulated coolers to keep the food hot. This day's meal was homemade chicken covered in gravy, mashed potatoes, green beans, cranberry sauce, applesauce, and milk. The food looked and smelled delicious and reminded me of what my grandmother used to make. I joined Arthur on his normal N1 route, making stops at 15 homes in Northampton. At each stop, I had the opportunity to deliver the meal and chat with the residents. It was an eye-opening experience, and I thoroughly enjoyed hearing people's stories. Each meal delivered contains one-third of the daily nutritional recommendations. For many individuals, the meal they receive from Meals on Wheels is the only well-balanced meal they eat all day. The individuals who receive these meals are low-income and often have significant health challenges that make it simply too difficult to prepare a full meal, never mind going out to the grocery store to shop. Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things I learned from my visit is that Meals on Wheels is so much more than just a meals program. People who are homebound--many, who live alone--look forward to the brief, daily visits from the volunteers. These visits lift their spirits and allow them to socialize, and volunteers can check in and see how they are doing. Because of programs like Meals on Wheels, seniors can stay in their own homes where they are most comfortable and live independently longer. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about food insecurity in this country, nearly everybody talks about children, and we are right to want to do everything we can to end childhood hunger. But lost in that narrative is the reality that, among the food insecure, the rising population is seniors. One in twelve seniors in our country is faced with the reality of hunger. That is 5.3 million seniors who don't have enough to eat. Many are living on fixed incomes that often force them to choose between prescriptions and food--or paying their medical bills or heating their homes. Seniors and the disabled represent about 20 percent of those who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. The average SNAP benefit for households with seniors is a meager $134 per month. Unfortunately, we also know that eligible elderly households are much less likely to participate in SNAP than other eligible households. Many seniors may not realize that they qualify for assistance, or they may simply be reluctant to ask for help. Seniors have unique nutritional needs. Hunger is especially dangerous for seniors and can exacerbate underlying medical conditions. Food- insecure seniors are at increased risk for conditions like depression, heart attack, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Mr. Speaker, May is Older Americans Month, and national organizations like Feeding America, the nationwide network of food banks, are focused on raising awareness about senior hunger through their #solveseniorhunger social media campaign. In July, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Older Americans Act, which provides a range of critical services, including Meals on Wheels, that enable about 11 million older adults to stay independent as long as possible. To honor that significant anniversary, I hope that Congress will pass a strong reauthorization of OAA programs, which have been flat-funded over the past decade and without a long-term authorization since 2011. Demand for OAA programs and services continues to rapidly increase as our population ages, and to think that more and more seniors will experience hunger is heartbreaking. It is unacceptable in this country. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the wonderful people and the work that they do at Highland Valley Elder Services throughout western Massachusetts. Every day they are making the lives of seniors a little better and a little brighter. We in Congress should do our part to ensure that our Nation's seniors don't go hungry. We should pass a strong reauthorization of the Older Americans Act and adequately fund programs like Meals on Wheels, and we should reject harmful cuts to SNAP that will disproportionately harm the most vulnerable among us: children, seniors, and the disabled. Mr. Speaker, we should urge the White House to hold a White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Hunger to come up with a comprehensive plan to end hunger once and for all in this country. We can and we should end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chairman for including my amendment in the en bloc set of amendments. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply create a service medal to be awarded to atomic veterans or their surviving family members in honor of their service and sacrifice to our Nation. Between 1945 and 1962, 225,000 members of our Armed Forces participated in hundreds of nuclear weapons tests. The atomic veterans were placed in extremely dangerous areas, constantly exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in the performance of their duties. They were sworn to secrecy, unable to even talk to their doctors about their past exposure to radiation. Thankfully, Presidents Clinton and George H. W. Bush recognized the atomic veterans' valiant service and acted to provide specialized care and compensation for their harrowing duty. One of my constituents, Joe Mondello from Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, is an atomic veteran and is very proud of his service to our country. Like me, he believes it is past time for the Defense Department to honor with a medal the unique service carried out by atomic veterans. The DOD has claimed that it would be too difficult to identify which veterans would be awarded this medal. Thankfully, the U.S. Code clearly identifies exactly which veterans are considered atomic veterans. This is a good amendment, and I urge the support of it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, 355 amendments were submitted to the House Rules Committee on a wide variety of issues relevant to the National Defense Authorization Act. Of those, only 135 were made in order, or about 38 percent. That means that the Republican majority of the Rules Committee rejected over 60 percent of amendments submitted by their House colleagues. This is a very exclusive structured rule. The amendments included under this rule are important amendments, worthy of the time and attention of this House, but I believe that all the amendments submitted merited debate and should have been included under an open rule. Further, each amendment included under this rule only receives 10 minutes of debate maximum, equally divided. That is no way to treat debate of significant issues regarding our national security. Madam Speaker, I have served in Congress long enough that I remember when it used to take 4 or 5 entire days to debate the NDAA. Amendments that would significantly affect our defense policies and operations were provided with enough debate time so that all Members had the opportunity to speak and air their views. Of course, that was back in the days when the House actually worked 4 or 5 full days each week. That simply doesn't happen anymore. There are fewer and fewer Members in this Chamber who remember when matters of substance were given the time, attention, and debate that they deserve. There is much to admire in the FY 2016 defense authorization bill, but there is also much to be concerned about, from dangerous spending to increase our nuclear arsenal, to continuing to tie the hands of the administration on how to handle the transfer of prisoners out of Guantanamo who have been cleared of all charges. One of the most blatant and egregious demonstrations of excess spending in the NDAA is what the bill has done to the President's overseas contingency operations fund, the so-called OCO fund. This bill adds $38 billion to the OCO fund on top of the $51 billion requested by the President to fund our various wars. This $38 billion will not be spent on war-related costs, but instead, it transfers money from the operations and maintenance account to the OCO to fund what should be base bill requirements, all as a ruse to evade the Budget Control Act caps. In the coming weeks, my House colleagues will see at least four appropriations bills come to the House floor that are prepared to cut more than $20 billion in urgently needed domestic programs, all in the name of staying within the caps set by the Budget Control Act; yet, when it comes to the Pentagon, nearly twice that amount is added to the OCO as a slush fund in order to avoid those very same caps. This is madness, Madam Speaker, absolute madness. The strength of our Nation--the health, welfare, and prosperity of our people and our communities--requires that we invest in our transportation and infrastructure; in our urban and rural development; in science, engineering, and technology; in medical research and our healthcare and education systems; in our children, our families, our workers; in our local businesses and new entrepreneurs. Our national and economic security is based on so much more than just our force of arms. It is based on the role of the Federal Government in supporting strong quality of life for each and every one of our people, regardless of age, income, geography, or political affiliation. No one is offering them a slush fund; instead, we are cutting those programs to the bare bone. When it comes to helping the neediest among us, Madam Speaker, the majority in this House has, once again, prevented debate on this critical issue. I am disappointed that an amendment offered by my friend from California (Mr. Vargas) was not made in order for debate under this rule. Under current law, military servicemembers who do not live on base are provided with a basic allowance for housing. Because this stipend is offered to military families in lieu of on-base housing, it is exempted from Federal taxes and from being considered as income when determining eligibility for certain tax credits. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of uniformity in how the allowance is treated for various basic needs programs. For example, the basic housing allowance is being considered as income for the purpose of calculating SNAP benefits, which results in eligible households receiving a lesser SNAP benefit or being cut off from the program altogether. These are families who are struggling, and it makes absolutely no sense that receiving housing assistance means our military families should receive less food assistance. It is shameful that an ever-increasing number of military families are struggling to make ends meet. More and more of these families are relying on SNAP benefits to put food on their tables, and we need to be having a larger conversation about how to make sure that our servicemen and servicewomen and their families who have sacrificed so much for our country have economic security. Military families have unique needs, and we must make sure that they are receiving all the necessary assistance that they deserve. Mr. Vargas' amendment would have simply excluded the basic housing allowance from any calculation of income or resources for any purpose under Federal, State, and local law. It is a good amendment, and it is a commonsense amendment, and this House should have had the opportunity to debate this important amendment; but while we shortchange the American people, local communities, and our neighbors living in poverty, we have plenty of time to add to the national deficit and debt by funding a myriad of wars on the national credit card. Speaking of the many wars in which the U.S. is currently engaged, last night in the Rules Committee, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina, the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee--Congressman Adam Smith of Washington--and I offered an amendment that would do one simple thing: it would have the President tell Congress next year what our mission is in Afghanistan and how much longer our servicemen and servicewomen would continue to be deployed over there. Then Congress would have 30 days to vote on whether or not to authorize or to modify that mission. We have been in Afghanistan for nearly 14 years. It is the longest military engagement in U.S. history. Over the past few years, the mission of our Armed Forces has been constantly altered. Supposedly, we ended combat operations at the end of last December; yet our forces still engage in combat. We are now supposed to be engaged in training the Afghan military and police forces and be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2016; but every day, I open up the newspaper, and I read how we are going to need to remain in Afghanistan for much, much, much longer. In the underlying bill, this NDAA says that the U.S. should remain engaged in counterterrorism and special operations after 2016. All the President is required to do is let us know if he wants to keep our troops in Afghanistan to continue training Afghan forces until they can stand on their own. Is it too much to ask for the President to tell us next spring what the plan is for keeping our uniformed men and women in Afghanistan and then having a vote on that plan? Don't our troops and don't their families deserve much more from us? I guess it is too much to ask because this Congress--once again, the majority on the Rules Committee--decided not to make the McGovern- Jones-Smith amendment in order. So U.S. engagement in Afghanistan--our blood and our treasure--simply continues on and on and on and on. It is a long, endless war that Congress barely pays attention to anymore, not even as members of our Armed Forces come home in coffins or wounded in body, heart, and mind. One of my constituents was the first to fall this year under our new post-combat operations mission in Afghanistan. Who will be the last U.S. servicemember to die in Afghanistan? These are brave and honorable men and women. This House, however, is a disgrace. This House--this Congress--is incapable of being accountable for the wars we so easily send our servicemembers to fight and die in, and it is completely incapable of carrying out its constitutional responsibilities to specifically and explicitly authorize these military operations. It has been over 8 months since the United States began sustained combat operations in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State. Last year, the Speaker said that it was not right for the 113th Congress to vote on this new war started on its watch. It should be up to the next Congress--this Congress, the 114th Congress--to authorize the war. Then the Speaker complained that Congress couldn't act until the President sent us an AUMF. Madam Speaker, the President sent Congress an AUMF on February 11. That was over 3 months ago. It is not an AUMF that I would support, but the President did his job, and still Congress fails to act. Why? Because the leadership of this House says it can't find its way to 218 on an AUMF. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but that is not how it works. The job of the Congress is to take a vote on an AUMF--period. If you don't like what the President's proposal is, then change it, vote against it, or bring another version to the House floor. Congress has the constitutional obligation to authorize the use of military force to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or elsewhere. Congress has the responsibility to specifically debate and authorize sending servicemen and servicewomen into hostilities in Iraq and Syria. The party in charge of the House and the Senate has a responsibility to legislate. We don't have the right to say, ``Oh, this is just too tough of a job, and we don't want to deal with it.'' If you want to be in charge, then you have to govern. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I don't see the leadership interested in governing on this most serious matter. Once again, reluctantly, Congressman Walter Jones, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and I will be introducing a privileged resolution under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution to force a debate on whether our troops should remain engaged in combat operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or whether they should withdraw. We have been patient. We have waited and waited and waited for the Republican leadership of this House to tell us when it would act on an AUMF for Iraq and Syria, but it has now become clear that this House has no intention of debating an AUMF on the fight against the Islamic State. It is perfectly happy to just drift along and not take any responsibility whatsoever for the lives that we are putting at risk in Iraq and Syria and for the millions of taxpayer dollars that we are spending each and every day. Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose this underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).