Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I will ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Again, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the Rules Committee expressing his willingness to ponder and reflect and consider and contemplate and speculate on this legislation. But, look, time is of the essence here. If the House votes to defeat the previous question, you know, we can bring this up. There is no reason why we can't bring this up. The Rules Committee has jurisdiction over this issue too, and if there are any glitches here, quite frankly, the Rules Committee can meet immediately and waive all the rules, because that is what my friends do on so many other bills. One of the frustrations that we have on our side of the aisle is that my friends in the majority keep on bringing bills to the floor that mean nothing, that are going nowhere. This issue of flood insurance is a big deal. You have heard from Members from all across the country. They want action now, not sometime in the future. They want it now. By voting to defeat the previous question, we can bring this up, we can deal with this, we can actually help some people in this country for a change and do the right thing. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if they don't defeat the previous question, defeat the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. It is an omnibus bill that has been cobbled together in a back room by the Republican leadership. While the Resources Committee has considered some of these bills, not every bill made it through the committee process. In fact, two of the measures in this bill were never reported out of committee, and no committee considered this omnibus bill. So much for regular order. Madam Speaker, we have a number of major time-sensitive issues that we should be tackling here in this Congress. We should be extending unemployment benefits for the 1.6 million Americans whose benefits expired on December 28, and the 72,000 more who lose them each week we fail to act. We should be raising the minimum wage to help the too many Americans who work two jobs and still struggle to make ends meet. We should be finding common ground on comprehensive immigration reform to finally fix our broken immigration system. We should be bringing to the floor a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling, which yesterday Treasury Secretary Lew said we will hit by the end of the month. Defaulting on our national debt risks another downgrade of our credit rating. But we are not considering any of those items today. Instead, we have before us another cobbled-together lands bill that goes much further than just expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands. It undermines a number of commonsense, longstanding environmental laws that protect the beautiful lands that outdoor enthusiasts love, and it is loaded up with an array of unrelated provisions, like making it easier to import polar bear trophies. Madam Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that 75 percent of all Federal lands are open to recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting. There are ample opportunities for hunters and fishermen to pursue these recreational activities, and H.R. 3590 effectively overrides several important, commonsense conservation laws, and elevates hunting and shooting ahead of all other legitimate uses of land. It does so without including several important bipartisan reauthorizations sought by outdoor sportsmen and -women and conservation groups. Not only is the underlying bill bad policy, the process of bringing this bill is lousy. Despite the fact that this omnibus bill wasn't considered by any committee, the Rules Committee decided to close down the amendment process. The truth is that this rule makes in order every single Republican amendment, while only making in order one-third of the Democratic amendments. So much for openness and so much for fairness, Madam Speaker. I am particularly disappointed that last night the Rules Committee failed to make in order an amendment that I was proud to offer with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and several other of my colleagues that would have reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund program uses royalties from oil and gas drilling to protect and preserve access to Federal and State lands. The stateside program has been especially important to the creation of parks and recreational facilities in my home State of Massachusetts. The Holt amendment reauthorizing LWCF is critical. This program will expire soon, and it needs to be reauthorized. The Holt amendment is germane and does not require any waivers, yet the Republican leadership blocked it, along with two-thirds of the amendments offered by the Democrats. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3590 is a bill in search of a problem. We saw a similar package last year that went nowhere in the Senate. I expect a similar fate for this year's version, because gutting environmental laws is a nonstarter for so many Members. Madam Speaker, we should be focusing our time on the real challenges facing our economy. We should be extending unemployment insurance. It is unconscionable that we are just sitting here doing things like this, things that are going nowhere, while so many of our fellow Americans have lost their unemployment benefits. What are they to do? These are people looking for jobs and can't find them. We should be raising the minimum wage. We should be giving the American people a raise. My friends on the other side of the aisle complain about all these government social programs. Well, the fact is that in the United States of America you can work full time and still earn so little that you will require things like food stamps and other government subsidies. We should stop subsidizing places like McDonald's or Walmart who don't pay their workers a livable wage. We should raise the minimum wage. If you work in this country and you work full time, you ought not to have to live in poverty. We should fix our broken immigration system. We should also pass a clean extension of the debt ceiling so that we don't ruin this economy. These are the things we should be talking about. These are the things we should be debating. Those are the priorities facing our country and we are doing nothing. So, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, let me just say to my colleague from Texas, I think the Republican Party, and especially the Republican leadership of this House, should be ashamed of the obstructionism that has gone on to block every major initiative that this President has put forward to try to create jobs, and I think they should be ashamed of their indifference toward working families in this country. My colleague talks about the Affordable Care Act. Millions and millions of people now have health insurance who before did not have it. That is just a fact. You may not like it, but it is a fact. Being a woman is no longer considered a preexisting condition with regard to health care. That is a fact. That is a good thing. That is a good thing. I would like to think my Republican colleagues would cheer that. Millions of young people can stay on their parents' insurance while they are looking for a job so they have the security of health care. That is a good thing. CBO continues to say that the Affordable Care Act will reduce our deficit and repealing it, as my Republican friends want to do, would increase the deficit. That is nuts. I repeat. What we should be talking about on this floor is extending unemployment insurance for those who have lost it; 1.6 million people lost it on December 28 and 73,000 people have lost it each additional week that has passed. The fact that we don't have a sense of urgency to do something about that is shameful. That is what we should be talking about. My colleagues say we should have a pay-for, notwithstanding the fact that George Bush extended long-term unemployment benefits on a number of occasions and they never asked for a pay-for. But my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) came up to the Rules Committee with a pay-for saying we would pay for it with the savings from the farm bill. My friends say, well, that is not enough. I don't know what is enough. How long does this indifference have to continue? We need to do immigration reform. We need to raise the minimum wage so that when you work in this country you don't live in poverty. With regard to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, we want to extend it for 5 years, not for a year at a time. We want to give communities an opportunity to plan--that is a good thing--and my friends have blocked that. It was germane, and my Republican friends said, no, you can't have a debate and a vote on it on the House floor. Madam Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3370, the bipartisan House companion to the flood insurance premium increase relief bill, which the Senate has already passed. I also want to say to my colleagues that it is an issue we should be talking about now. That is more important than this bill that is before us and that is going nowhere. To discuss the urgency of passing flood insurance relief, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think the Rules Committee ought to stop pondering and maybe start acting. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say that we don't have to wait for the Financial Services Committee to act. The Rules Committee shares jurisdiction on this bill. We should bring this to the floor now. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I want my colleagues to understand why those of us who are opposing this bill because of the SNAP cuts are so concerned. On November 1, when the ARRA moneys ran out, all 47 million people who are on SNAP received a cut. For the average family of three, that was about a $37 reduction per month, which is a lot of money when you are struggling to put food on the table, because, quite frankly, the SNAP benefit in and of itself is not adequate. People end up going to food banks anyway. If this bill passes, for over 800,000 families, well over 1 million people, for the average family of three, an additional $90 cut will go into effect. That is $120. I don't know where they are going to make that up. I don't know where they are going to go to get help. We can say, yeah, let the States pick it up. Well, the States aren't rushing to pick anything up. Well, let the charities pick it up. Read the newspaper. Last week, The New York Times said that all of our food banks are at capacity. They can't do it. So what is going to happen to these people? In the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, we ought to all pledge that nobody--and I mean nobody--ought to go hungry. That is what this fight is about.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this point.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if there are no other speakers, but my understanding is that Mr. Peterson may have one other speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, let me say that I am grateful to Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson. I appreciate their hard work. I appreciate their dedication on these issues. It is a privilege to be on the Agriculture Committee, and I am proud to serve with them, as with the other members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, I cannot support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by speaking to my fellow Democrats. Last night, we sat in this Chamber and we listened to the President give his State of the Union address. When he talked about raising the minimum wage, we all stood up and cheered. When he talked about the need to address income inequality, we all applauded. But cheers and applause aren't enough. I ask my colleagues to think back, to remember listening to their parents or their grandparents talk about how Franklin Roosevelt always stood up for the little guy. Remember those pictures of Bobby Kennedy touring through Appalachia and touching the cheeks of hungry children. That is why we became Democrats in the first place. Those are the people that got us into politics. Those are our people. Don't throw that away just to be able to say you voted for a farm bill. Don't turn your backs on our heritage and on our history by giving bipartisan cover to what I believe is a flawed bill. We don't have to do this. The price of admission to pass a farm bill should not be more cuts to SNAP. Make no mistake about it, my friends on the Republican side are not through when it comes to SNAP. They are going to come back after this program again and again and again. We need to push back. We need to say enough. Some have rationalized these cuts; some have tried to explain them away as being nothing but closing a loophole. They are wrong. People are going to be hurt. People all over this country--1.7 million people--are going to be impacted by this. There should be nobody in this country--the richest country in the history of the world--who should ever go hungry. That should be a nonpartisan issue. But to my fellow Democrats, in particular, this is an issue that we have championed time and time again over the many years of the existence of this country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report. Vote your conscience. I yield back the balance of my time.