Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while I have great respect for the gentlewoman from North Carolina, I don't have a lot of respect for this process. I would like to begin today by saying a word or two about the process being used by the Republicans here on the floor--actually, three words: ``It stinks. Again.'' We are all very happy--delighted even--to hear our Republican friends say that they wanted to make this Congress into a place where we could work together, but actions speak louder than words, and here are some of their actions: five closed rules. Until yesterday, 100 percent of our Rules Committee meetings have been called so-called emergency meetings, and 100 percent of the bills the committee has sent to the floor have drawn a veto threat, and once again, the Republicans are using one rule for multiple bills. This is a disturbing pattern that is quickly becoming a bad habit. The Republican leadership apparently isn't content to exclude Democrats from offering substantive, germane, and thoughtful amendments. They are also shutting down the debate itself. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is only a few weeks old. We have 23 months left to go. Are the Republicans really saying that we can't find an extra hour for debate during the next 23 months? Of course we can. They just prefer not to. It is unfair, it is undemocratic, it is unnecessary, and it needs to stop. Now, as to the bill that is before us today, last night, as we all know, President Obama laid out a bold, clear, and exciting agenda to spur economic growth and ensure that prosperity is shared by all Americans, not just the wealthy few and special interests. I thought it was a terrific speech. Apparently, my Republican friends weren't paying very close attention. I know they were there in this Chamber because I saw many of them. The Speaker himself was sitting right behind the President. Maybe they were sending each other cat videos or taking selfies because the President made it very clear that if Congress sends him bills that move us backward, he will veto them, and both of these bills deserve his veto. The first, H.R. 161, is a solution in search of a problem. It is as simple as that. The bill would automatically approve natural gas pipeline projects if FERC or other Federal agencies do not act on required permits or certificates within a rigid, unworkable timeframe. A GAO report concluded that FERC's pipeline permitting process is predictable and consistent, with 91 percent of pipeline applications receiving a decision within 12 months. During committee testimony last Congress, even industry representatives agreed that the current permitting process is ``generally very good.'' It is not every day that regulators and industry agree that the current system works. So why would we move forward on a bill that disrupts a system that works is beyond me. In fact, this bill makes it more likely that FERC will deny more projects just to comply with the severe timeline. In Massachusetts, we are dealing with the proposed Tennessee Gas pipeline which would run through parts of my district and would cut through a number of environmentally sensitive lands, including Northfield State Forest and the Montague aquifer and management area. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment with my good friend Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, whose district would also be affected by the proposed pipeline, to keep the existing review process in place for proposed pipelines that cross Federal, State, or local conservation or recreation lands because, if we have already invested Federal and State money into identifying these lands as environmentally sensitive, it doesn't make any sense to expedite the approval of a pipeline that could bulldoze right through them. It is worth a debate. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Rules Committee voted down this commonsense amendment in a party-line vote. As the gentlewoman from North Carolina pointed out, both of these rules are completely closed. Even though they did not go through regular order, even though there were no hearings in this Congress or no markup, nobody--no Democrat, no Republican--can offer an amendment. Then there is H.R. 36. This is just the latest Republican assault on women's reproductive rights. It is their latest attempt to put politicians in the middle of the private medical decisions of women. It is blatantly unconstitutional, and it fails to take into consideration the fact that some pregnancies can have catastrophic, heartbreaking complications, even after 20 weeks. To make matters worse, this legislation lacks a reasonable exception for victims of rape and incest by requiring victims to report cases of rape and incest to law enforcement in order to have access to an abortion, this despite the fact that research shows that the majority of sexual assaults are unreported, and on top of that, the exception on incest is only for minors. Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about bills like this is that the same people who vote for them routinely vote to cut the WIC program, to cut Head Start and childcare programs and SNAP and school lunch programs, and elementary and secondary education funding. This hypocrisy is breathtaking. Mr. Speaker, leading medical groups agree that doctors, in consultation with women and their families, should make medical decisions, not the politicians. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They deserve a better process, and they deserve better legislation. We certainly have a lot to do to help get this country to continue on the road to prosperity, to make sure that everybody can share in this economy's growth. I urge my colleagues: let's focus on those issues, let's come together and do something for the American people, and enough of these message bills. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just recap for my colleagues here. First of all, vote ``no'' on this rule. This continues a trend that has nothing but contempt for regular order. These bills had no hearings in this Congress. There was no markup, and now, they are brought to the floor with no amendments-- two closed rules. Notwithstanding the pledge of the Speaker for a more open and transparent process, people who have other ideas on ways to improve or change these bills are denied that opportunity. I would say, with all due respect to my colleague from North Carolina, we can't use the excuse that we have got to keep the government running. We are in the beginning of the session. We are not doing much of anything. Clearly, the bills that we are debating in their current form are going to be vetoed anyway. Secondly, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule because of the bills that are being brought up: this bill that is clearly an attack on women's health and reproductive rights, which does not belong on this floor; and the other bill is a bill that basically allows there to be a process for pipelines to be approved without necessarily going through all the proper oversight. And I am going to urge Members to vote against the previous question so we can bring up this bill that I talked about earlier on campaign finance reform. Look, the legislative agenda in this Congress is about rewarding the highest donors. I think to any objective observer, when you see what is coming on the floor, including this pipeline bill which is not in the interest of the American people, we are not out there trying to protect their safety and well-being. It is a big kiss to the energy industry. And I would argue that the reason why bills like that--or some of the tax bills that are brought to this floor that reward big corporations and the wealthiest individuals--are brought to the floor is because those people who represent those wealthy interests have the most sway in this Congress. They are the biggest donors to political parties. They are the biggest donors to Members of Congress. And while that is happening every day here, average people who can't contribute tens of thousands of dollars to political parties, who can't contribute millions of dollars, are increasingly becoming marginalized. The issues that matter most to working people, those struggling in the working class, those struggling to get into the middle class, we don't even get a chance to debate those issues on the House floor. I will say to my Republican friends: I have had many conversations with you over the years about how you hate raising money as much as I hate raising money. Too much of our attention in this Congress, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, is about raising money for the next election, and it is getting worse and worse every election cycle. It is time to do something about that. It is time to give Congress the authority to regulate or put a cap on how much campaigns cost. I mean, we are going to spend billions of dollars in the next Presidential election. It is obscene. With all the problems that we have in this country, we ought to be spending more time debating those problems and not worrying about raising money. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can bring up this commonsense campaign finance proposal, and I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), somebody who believes in protecting women's rights.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that I will offer if we defeat the previous question in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a champion for women's rights.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say for the record that facts are facts are facts. There is no denying that the last Republican Congress held the record for the most closed rules in the history of the United States. Maybe I am misunderstanding the current rule, but to the best of my knowledge, not a single amendment is allowed, notwithstanding that in this Congress there have been no hearings and no markups. Is it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for me to ask unanimous consent to amend H.R. 36 and make it an open rule?

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, I yield myself such time as I may consume as I want to respond to this issue about process. When Speaker Boehner became the Speaker of this House, in his opening speech, one of the things he said was: You will always have the right to a robust debate and an open process that allows you to represent your constituents-- to make your case, to offer alternatives, and to be heard. Clearly, we have not been granted that in any way, shape, or form. While the gentlewoman may point to the sins of the past of Democratic majorities, nothing compares to what the Republicans did in the last Congress. The Republicans presided over the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. I mean, you made history, and that is not something to be proud of. When my friends talk about openness and transparency and about the desire to allow this to be a deliberative place where people of varying viewpoints can have a forum to debate, it is not reflective of reality. We are beginning this Congress just as my colleagues conducted the last Congress--in the most closed way possible. I regret that very much, especially on bills that have not even been through the committee hearing process in this Congress or that have not been marked up. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sadly, we have seen all too well how money has polluted our politics and is undermining our democracy, so I am going to urge people to vote against the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of a sensible constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 22, a measure that I have sponsored with my friends, Ted Deutch of Florida, Donna Edwards of Maryland, and John Sarbanes of Maryland, to overturn these decisions and make clear that Congress and States have the authority to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money to influence elections. To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlewoman from North Carolina yield?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule. Here we are, just 2 weeks into the brandnew Congress, and the Republican leadership has decided to combine three major controversial bills into one rule. They aren't content to exclude amendments. Now they also want to stifle debate. It is ridiculous, it is shameful, it is undemocratic, and it needs to stop. And why are they doing all of this? To what end? So they can attach poison pill amendments to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. We had a perfectly fine bipartisan bill ready to go last year, but no, the Republicans would rather play Russian roulette with our homeland security. They are being driven by the most extreme anti- immigrant voices in the Republican caucus. So we are going to waste at least this entire week and maybe even more weeks to come debating ugly anti-immigrant amendments that are likely dead on arrival in the Senate and will most certainly be vetoed by the President. I say to my Republican friends: I get it. You can't stand this President, and it is making you irrational to the point that you are doing real harm to this country. And I understand that you would rather tear immigrant families apart than keep them together. But you had the opportunity last Congress--for months and months and months--to legislate on this issue. You chose not to. Instead, you have chosen to make a mess of a very important Homeland Security Appropriations bill. You have chosen to demagogue rather than legislate. With all that is going on in the world and with what happened in France, I ask my Republican friends: What are you thinking, playing politics with our national security? For 6 years, the Republicans have blocked all efforts to fix our broken immigration system, and then they keep wailing and whining about it being broken. They keep punishing individuals and families who have been in our country for years, working hard, paying taxes, raising families. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to choose fairness and compassion and to vote down this shameful rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor today to give a voice to those who are hungry, to share their struggles, and to challenge my House colleagues to take meaningful action to end hunger now. Last week the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a troubling new report estimating that roughly 1 million unemployed Americans will be cut off from SNAP benefits over the course of 2016. The report anticipates that those affected will lose between $150 and $200 per person per month in food benefits--cuts that will cause serious hardship. Mr. Speaker, this is shameful, and it deserves our attention. We should be working to end hunger now, not making it worse. The 1996 welfare law limits individuals aged 18 to 50 who are not disabled or caring for young children to 3 months of SNAP benefits in any 36-month period if they aren't employed or in a work training program for 20 hours or more a week. That sounds reasonable, but when jobs and job training are not available, it isn't so reasonable. During times of high unemployment, Governors can request a waiver to the 3-month time limit for their State. During the Great Recession, Governors, both Republicans and Democrats, in 46 States have requested and have been granted some type of waiver from the 3-month time limit. This enabled unemployed adults to continue to look for a job in a tough job market without going hungry. Mr. Speaker, our economy continues to improve and unemployment rates across the country are falling, but we are not out of the woods yet. The most vulnerable among us--those with limited education and skills-- continue to struggle to find work. In October 2014, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated there were two unemployed workers for every available position. By that measure, even if every available job were filled by an unemployed individual, there still would not be enough jobs for everyone who needed one. When the current 3-month time limit waivers expire, the problem is that most States offer few, if any, job training programs. They aren't required to do so. And in States that do offer work programs, the number of individuals who need them far outnumbers the available slots. Come 2016, an unemployed adult actively looking for work, no matter how many job postings they respond to or how many resumes they send out, will arbitrarily be cut off from receiving food benefits through no fault of their own. The 3-month time limit as it is drafted is a severe penalty that hurts an already vulnerable population. According to USDA data, those who would be affected have an average monthly income of only 19 percent of the poverty line. They often do not qualify for any other types of assistance. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that 1 million of the poorest Americans would be cut off from food benefits because their State does not offer job training programs or does not have the capacity to meet the demand for those who need help improving their skills. These individuals would be left on their own at an already difficult time. They may be forced to choose between food and rent or other necessities. Mr. Speaker, we need to adequately fund our job training programs, which this Congress has consistently failed to do, and we need to ensure that unemployed adults who are diligently searching for a job do not go hungry while they look for work. I am concerned--deeply concerned--about reports that Republican leaders want to launch yet another assault against SNAP. They want to cut the program even more. That would be a mistake and a disservice to one of the most efficiently and effectively run Federal programs. Even more important, it would be a disservice to so many of our citizens who are struggling in poverty. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about a Republican majority that is more interested in adhering to a political sound bite than in pursuing sound policy. Let's focus on ending hunger and ending poverty. Let's bring to an end the nasty, cruel, and negative rhetoric that has been used to demagogue SNAP and those who rely on the benefit that was so evident in the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is tough to be poor in America. It is hard work. We in Congress should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. We can do better. We can and we should do more to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it appears that the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Republican majority talks a good game. They talk about an open process, but when push comes to shove, they fall back on the same old tired, closed, heavy-handed, undemocratic business as usual. If you believe their speeches, you would think they believe in regular order. You would think that they believe that all Members, Republicans and Democrats, deserve to be heard and that a fair and substantive process will be the practice of this body. But actions speak louder than words, Madam Speaker, and if the American people judge us by our actions, as they should, the House is off to a very, very bad start. Just look at the rule before us today. On two incredibly important and controversial issues, the Keystone pipeline and making major changes to the Affordable Care Act, the Republican majority has decided to shut the House down, to say to every single member of this House, ``Take it or leave it.'' Do you believe that the Keystone pipeline won't actually do much to move the United States toward energy dependence or might harm our environment? Too bad, your amendment won't be made in order. Do you believe that the 54th vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act is a waste of time? Too bad, the Republican leadership doesn't want to hear about it. Are you a duly-elected Member of the House of Representatives with an interesting and substantive idea about how to change the underlying legislation? Too bad, according to the Republican leadership, your voice doesn't matter. It is no wonder that an almost unprecedented number of Republican Members voted against the current leadership. They are fed up, and I don't blame them. That is where we are in the House of Representatives. What about the Senate? According to Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post, a Republican spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: Restoring the Senate to a place where legislation is debated and voted on, rather than simply using it as a campaign studio, is a priority for Senator McConnell. Frankly, Madam Speaker, given Mitch McConnell's past record, I will believe it when I see it, but at least he is saying something constructive. Unfortunately, here in the House, we have the same old- same old: a completely closed process that denies all Members the opportunity to be heard. If this week is any indication, it is clear that the Republican leadership will keep using the House of Representatives as a campaign studio. They will continue to bring legislation to the floor that the President will veto, with no chance of amendments. What a waste of time, what a squandered opportunity--but I have got an idea. This is a radical idea. Let's restore the House of Representatives to a place where substantive issues are debated and considered and voted on. My friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk about democracy. Let's restore a little bit of democracy in the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the temptation to close this process down. I urge them to vote ``no'' on rules like this one that are closed for no good reason. Let me just say to my Republican colleagues: this is a lousy way to start the new Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for the time. Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should simply take this time to say to my colleagues: welcome back, happy new year, and I missed you. Technically, we are considering, debating, and voting on the Republican majority's ``rules package,'' but that is sort of a misnomer. The word ``rules,'' as most of us understand it, means a set of procedures that someone is required to follow, but if my Republican friends have demonstrated anything over the past few years, it is that they have absolutely no intention of following the rules of the House. They routinely waive, ignore, or break the rules of this House whenever it is convenient or politically expedient for them to do so. The gentleman from Texas says the Speaker of the House promised the most open Congress in history. I hate to remind him that the Republicans presided over the most closed Congress in history during the 113th Congress. Let me just mention a couple of the most egregious provisions in this package before us today. First, my Republican friends believe we should adopt the voodoo economics of so-called dynamic scoring. Under this fairy tale, they would have us believe that tax cuts for the very wealthy don't increase the deficit. Never mind that time after time after time in our history, those tax cuts for the rich have caused an explosion in our deficit. This rules package would have us believe that up is down and left is right. Second, this package would allow committee staff from the Ways and Means Committee, Financial Services, Energy and Commerce, and the Science Committee to take depositions under oath. Currently, only the Oversight Committee has that authority. Mr. Speaker, I served as a staff member in this House for the late Congressman Joe Moakley. Our staff members are dedicated public servants who work incredibly hard, but this provision, quite frankly, goes too far. Mr. Speaker, we ought to be spending our time on rebuilding our aging infrastructure and increasing workers' paychecks rather than making it easier to conduct more political witch hunts, which the American people are fed up with. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to serve on the Rules Committee, and that word ``rules'' used to mean something. My hope is that in this Congress, enough of my Republican colleagues will demonstrate the political courage to make it mean something again. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to respond to my colleague, I should remind my colleagues here that there were five appropriations bills that never saw the light of day here on the House floor. Of the ones that we did deal with, none of them included the rollback of Dodd-Frank provisions or the rollback of campaign finance reform. We can blame the United States Senate all we want, but they have nothing to do with whether or not we bring up a resolution to authorize another war in Iraq or not. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.