Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to respond to something that my friend on the Rules Committee said when he said that this bill is all about issues that have to do with the national defense of our country. I don't know what we are doing in Afghanistan or what we are doing in Iraq again or what we are doing in Syria now if it isn't supposedly in the name of the national defense of our country. I mean, this is the bill considered by the Armed Services Committee. If this is not an appropriate place to talk about war and about all of the military equipment we are sending halfway around the world, then I don't know what bill is appropriate. We are told over and over and over again that these are inappropriate vehicles in which to talk about war. This is the Armed Services Committee. This is the National Defense Authorization Act. This is the bill. This funds the wars. There is this notion that it doesn't belong here. Well, where the hell does it belong? This is important stuff, and we treat war as if it is nothing. We have men and women in harm's way, and we don't even debate whether or not the mission is something that we support or not. This is ridiculous. This is disgraceful. It is outrageous that amendments that are germane to this bill--that the Parliamentarian tells us are germane to this bill--are denied over and over and over again. These aren't just mine. Ms. Lee has amendments on repealing the old AUMFs from 2001 to 2002--denied, denied. They are germane, but no one wants to talk about it. We are going to force you to talk about it. We are going to have a privileged resolution. We are going to force this debate. Just one other thing on the Gallego amendment. I have to tell you that I am always amazed at the anti-immigrant rhetoric on the other side of the aisle. The notion that we can't allow the Secretary of Defense to make decisions on whether or not DREAMers can actually serve our country in the Armed Forces to defend our Nation is ludicrous. Just so people understand this, unlike a lot of things that my friends on the other side of the aisle do, this was not snuck into something. This actually went through regular order. It was actually debated and voted on by the House Armed Services Committee. They voted ``yes'' to accept it. By the way, the Army has already allowed almost 50 DREAMers to enlist in our Armed Forces. What are you going to do--go and try to find these people and tell them that they have now been discharged? I feel a great kind of sense of pride that there are people in this country who have been mostly raised in this country and who want to serve this country. That is something, I think, that every American takes pride in. That the rhetoric is so nasty and so demeaning, I think, is beneath what this House is about. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I want to commend the gentleman for his very sensible remarks, and I appreciate it. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke as well. I think we wouldn't be having any of this debate if my friends on the other side of the aisle would have allowed us to vote on a comprehensive immigration reform package last year, the one that the Senate passed in a bipartisan way. Anyway, they chose to deny us that ability to even have a debate and a vote on that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that we are not cutting the military. My friends created a slush fund so they can get around sequestration, with regard to the Pentagon. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a lot in this bill that we all support, and there is much in this bill that many of us find very objectionable. I still have a tough time understanding why this House refuses to deal with the fact that we are engaged in a number of wars around the world and this Congress refuses to live up to its constitutional responsibilities to deal with it. The gentleman tells us that this is not the place. Well, the OCO account is in this bill. It funds some of the wars, so the bill that funds wars seems like the place you would go to talk about these wars; yet not only the amendment that I offered, along with the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Smith, and Walter Jones of North Carolina, but the amendments that my colleague Barbara Lee of California offered on the AUMFs, we were told we can't debate them--no debate. We have got men and women in harm's way, but we are not going to debate the wars. We are not going to talk about whether this is a good mission. We are not going to talk about the future of the missions. We are not going to talk about how much it is going to cost. We are not going to talk about anything. We are going to make believe that that is not part of our national defense discussion. It is unconscionable. For the life of me, I can't quite understand why the leadership of this House and the leadership in the Senate refuse to do their job. If you can't handle it, then maybe it is time to leave. The second thing is this debate over the Gallego amendment. I remind my colleagues it is germane to this bill. This is not some extraneous thing that has nothing to do with this bill. The Parliamentarian said it is germane. The Armed Services Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, debated it. That is what committees are supposed to do. They even voted on it, which is what committees are supposed to do, and they voted ``yes'' in favor of it. If you don't like it, fine; you can strike it, but save all this anti-immigrant rhetoric, this nastiness. Stop belittling these men and women who came to this country as children, who know no other country than this country, who want to serve this country, who want to put their lives on the line for this country. Please don't diminish what they want to do or what some of them are already doing. My colleague says this bill is not about immigration. It isn't about immigration. This is about the military. The only people that are making this about immigration are my friends on the other side of the aisle, the ones that are saying: If we don't strip the Gallego amendment from this bill, we are going to vote against the whole NDAA. This resentment, this contempt for immigrants has resulted in this kind of knee-jerk reaction that we can't support anything because of that. It is ludicrous. The bottom line here is that I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle vote against the Brooks amendment and vote for the Gallego amendment. We can do better than this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I thank the Ranking Member for yielding me this time and for his leadership on so many national security and defense issues. I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for supporting my efforts to bring this amendment to the floor for debate and making it part of this en bloc amendment. Mr. Chair,is amendment will maintain the current simplified acquisition threshold--or SAT--for a wide variety of items, including textiles, tents, tarpaulins, flags, clothing, apparel, footwear, head gear, a wide variety of cotton, wool, silk and synthetic yarns, and the list goes on. But most importantly, this amendment ensures that that small and medium-sized American companies, with American workers, using American- made content will continue to have the opportunity to do business with the Pentagon and provide textiles, clothing, apparel and other such materials to our service men and women at good prices. In Dorchester, Massachusetts, AbilityOne provides employment opportunities for people who are blind or who have significant disabilities. They manufacture Berry-compliant items, including uniforms, chemical protective garments, tents, tarpaulins, hats, caps and other clothing and textile items. This amendment protects their jobs and their relationship with the DOD. It means textile, footwear and apparel manufacturers in North Brookfield, Fall River and elsewhere in Massachusetts can continue to support our troops with their high quality products and materials. The current language in the NDAA would raise the SAT from $150,000 to $500,000. My amendment simply maintains the $150,000 threshold. Now the difference between $150 and $500,000 might not sound like much. But if that threshold had been raised in FY 2014, then 6,813 contracts totaling over $337 million in textile and clothing alone would have been exempt from the Berry amendment. This amendment keeps the Berry Amendment strong, and it keeps America strong. Mr. Chair, this amendment is a compromise. The original amendment that I submitted to the House Rules Committee would have also maintained the current SAT on food and on specialty metals, hand tools, measuring tools, and so forth. Chairman Thornberry did not support maintaining the current SAT on those items, and in the spirit of compromise we narrowed the scope of the amendment to textiles, clothing, apparel and related materials. I hope as the NDAA moves through the legislative process that the scope of my original amendment will be reinstated. This amendment is supported by a broad array of national textile and manufacturing organizations, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the en bloc amendments in total. May 14, 2015. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned nine trade associations ask for your vote in support of McGovern Amendment #74 under the rule (see H. Res. 260). It will be in order during consideration of FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735) today. Offered by Cong. Jim McGovern Amendment #74 fixes a provision in Section 854 of H.R. 1735 that would seriously harm the U.S. textile, apparel, and footwear industry. As written, Section 854 would increase the Simplified Acquisition Procedure threshold (SAT) from $150,000 to $500,000. This change would exempt contracts up to $500,000 from compliance with both the Berry Amendment and the Kissell Amendment. An increase of this magnitude will cause significant strain on the U.S. textile, apparel, and footwear supply chain by reducing contracting opportunities for manufacturers, large and small, covered under the Berry Amendment. Analysis of DOD-funded contracts under the SAP attached as Addendum 1 on page 4. McGovern Amendment #74 solves this problem by lowering SAT back down to $150,000 for fiber, textile, apparel, footwear, and other textile products covered by the Berry Amendment at 10 USC 2533a. With fierce competition for contracts, the Berry Amendment has spurred substantial innovation in the area of military textiles, apparel, and footwear by domestic manufacturers. Weight-saving carbon fibers, ballistic-resistant fabrics used in personal protective equipment, fire resistant fabrics, medical fabrics, and collapsible fuel bladders are among the thousands of products developed for the military that also have commercial applications. These innovations have helped America's textile manufacturers stay at the forefront of technical textiles, enhancing safety and boosting employment and exports. Substantial capital investment, including a $500 million ballistic-resistant fiber plant built in South Carolina within the last five years, illustrates the industry's commitment to the technical fiber/fabric industrial base. Thanks to the U.S. government's longstanding policy with respect to military procurement encompassed in the Berry Amendment, that plant had a ready-made market, an important factor in calculating the risk when deciding to make that investment. Also, it is important to note that some textiles used by the military do not have a commercial market. For national security reasons, DOD does not allow certain textile technologies to be exported. Classified dyeing and finishing techniques used to reduce heat signatures or to create a secure environment for electronic communication are just two examples of U.S. investments made to develop military- specific textile products exclusively for DOD use. Congress enacted the Berry Amendment in 1941 (USC, Title 10, Section 2533a) to ensure that a strong U.S. defense industrial base is always ready to meet the needs of the troops. It requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to procure certain products such as food, specialty metals, hand measuring tools, and textiles made with 100 percent U.S. content and labor. Since then, Congress has reaffirmed its support for the Berry Amendment by strengthening its provisions, recognizing that textiles and clothing are indispensable to our warfighter's safety and ability to execute their missions. Understanding the need for periodic adjustments in the SAP, Congress enacted Public Law 108-375 which allowed for inflation adjustments to the SAP every five years. However, further increase in the SAT beyond what is currently proscribed by Public Law 108- 375 will seriously erode the U.S. textile, apparel, and footwear industry's ability to supply the defense industrial base, compromise U.S. investment in textile manufacturing operations, put at risk highly skilled and good paying textile jobs, and inhibit the domestic industry's competitive advantage in commercial markets. As the House works on this important legislation, we urge that McGovern Amendment #74 be adopted so that the FY 2016 NDAA does not erode the important value that the Berry Amendment brings to the U.S. textile, apparel, and footwear industry and our warfighters. Again, please ensure that America continues to strength its domestic textile, clothing, and footwear supply chain. Vote for McGovern Amendment #74. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Auggie Tantillo, President, National Council of Textile Organizations; Gifford Del Grande, Chairman, Narrow Fabrics Institute; Juanita D. Duggan, President & CEO, American Apparel and Footwear Association; Sarah Y. Freidman, Executive Director, SEAMS, the National Association for the Sewn Products Industry; Marc Fleischaker, Rubber & Plastic Footwear Manufacturers Association; Paul O'Day, President, American Fiber Manufacturers Association; Bret Kelley, Chairman, United States Industrial Fabrics Institute; Tom Dobbins, President, American Composites Manufacturers Association; Gary Adams, President/CEO, National Cotton Council.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, MomsRising, a national grassroots organization of moms, delivered a petition signed by more than 25,000 moms from all across the country urging this Congress not to cut SNAP in the fiscal year 2016 budget. Every Member of this House received the petition signed by moms in their districts. Today, that petition has grown to nearly 50,000 signatures, and it keeps on growing. This is just the latest petition from MomsRising urging Congress to prioritize children in the budget and protect SNAP from cuts and other structural changes. I want to share one of the stories from a mom. Monique from Ohio writes: I was raised to always work and so was my husband. We have tried to instill this in our daughter, even going so far as to work opposite shifts and have family babysit if there was an overlap. When my husband was laid off 2 years ago and then couldn't find work, I tried my best to keep us floating on just my income, walking to work because I didn't have the bus fare, often having $20 or less after paying the bills to feed my family for a week. I resisted getting on welfare, having been raised never to take a handout. My pastor was the one who pointed out that I had already paid for that right through my taxes over several decades. Since signing up for SNAP benefits, I can feed my family filling, nutritious meals again. Of course, my husband is still looking for work, and that will pick up the slack again if he gets work, and once he finds it, we will happily forego the benefits again. Until then, all I can say is thank God and the government for having a safety net in place. Unfortunately, Monique's story is not unique, but it shows that, without SNAP, her family would have been much worse off during these tough times. One in five children in the United States experiences hunger. Without the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, that number would sadly be much higher. Already, nearly half of all SNAP participants are children under the age of 18--nearly half, Mr. Speaker. This is despite the fact that SNAP households with children have high work rates. Families with children who are working continue to earn so little that they still qualify for SNAP, and they will struggle to put food on the table. Mr. Speaker, we know that hunger can lead to a myriad of negative outcomes for children. From health problems and compromised immune systems, to poor nutrition, to an inability to concentrate and succeed in school, childhood hunger means kids suffer. Despite these sobering statistics, the Republican budget resolutions passed by the House and Senate made draconian cuts to SNAP and other critical programs to help poor children and their families. The budget conference report only makes these cuts worse. It builds upon the $125 billion cut to SNAP in the House budget. To achieve a cut of that magnitude by block granting the program and capping its allotment means that States would be forced to cut benefits or cut eligible individuals and families off the program. There are simply no good choices. In short, it would make hunger worse in America, much worse. Mr. Speaker, SNAP is one of the only remaining basic protections for the very poor. For many of the poorest Americans, SNAP is the only form of income assistance they receive. SNAP provides food benefits to low- income Americans at a very basic level. SNAP benefits are already too low. They average less than $1.40 per person, per meal. We should not be balancing the Federal budget on the backs of the poor and working families. We should not be making childhood hunger worse in America. I commend MomsRising for their leadership and for taking action to protect SNAP and ensure that all children have access to healthy, nutritious foods. Later today, MomsRising will start a Twitterstorm under the #missionpossible to highlight how building a strong economy for women, families, and the Nation is mission possible with policies to protect SNAP, promote healthy nutrition, guarantee paid sick days, require equal pay for equal work, and make child care more affordable. These are economic security priorities that boost our families and our economy. As the old adage goes, ``Mother knows best.'' We should listen to our moms, especially as we gather only a few days after Mother's Day. We should be strengthening families' economic security, and we should be working to end hunger now, not making it worse.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule. I just wanted to make that clear before I continue here. Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating to come to the floor and have to squeeze into a very short period of time three different bills on one rule. These are three very controversial bills. You have heard about the bill that essentially is a war on women in the District of Columbia, that denies women and men their privacy and their right to reproductive health care. We have a bill in here also that essentially tries to gut the Clean Water Act, which is very controversial and has a very direct impact on the health and well-being of the people of this country. And then we have this budget that was filed minutes before the Rules Committee met. Nobody read it. I should also point out that the Rules Committee reports that, although the resolution waives all points of order against provisions in H.J. Res. 43, the committee is not aware of any point of order. Well, one of the points of order is the 3-day layover, which is being violated, so the committee is waiving a point of order with regard to that. Look, we should be debating an immigration reform bill. We should be debating a pay equity bill. We should be debating an increase in the minimum wage. We should be debating a comprehensive long-term highway and transportation reauthorization bill to help rebuild this country. There are so many important things that we should be debating, and, instead, we are bringing these wedge issues to the floor. We are bringing an anti-environmental bill to the floor that is going nowhere, and we are bringing a budget to the floor that paves the way for a lot of nothing. Unless we fix the sequestration problem, the Senate is not going to take up any of these appropriations bills, and neither should we. We ought to put the American people first and put the electioneering off. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. McGOVERN. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 2 minutes.