Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think the Rules Committee had a difficult task given the fact that the leadership of this House has kind of only allocated 2 days for debate on the defense authorization bill. They had to deal with 300 amendments. They made 172 in order. I know that everybody worked hard to try to be fair. I appreciate, again, the courtesy extended to me on my amendment with regard to Afghanistan, and I appreciate my colleagues on the Republican side for their support. I think the controversy still is around the issue of sexual assault in the military. A number of amendments, particularly those offered by Ms. Speier and Ms. Gabbard, were not made in order. That, unfortunately, makes it very difficult for many on our side to support this rule. But I want to thank, again, the staff of the Rules Committee and the Members for work on this. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. 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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. 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, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, Ms. Velazquez.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this should be a simple rule. Every year, this House considers the annual National Defense Authorization Act. It's a bill that reauthorizes our Nation's defense programs and a place where we should have the opportunity to debate some of the most important issues facing this country and the world. The process is typically broken up into two parts: a rule providing for general debate on the National Defense Authorization Act and a rule providing for consideration of amendments to that bill. It's generally not a controversial process; although, the decisions made by the Rules Committee in allowing and preventing amendments from being considered can be controversial. And that's where this rule goes wrong. This is not the normal rule providing for general debate for the defense authorization bill. No, Madam Speaker, this rule is much more than that. Over the past 3 years, we've seen the Republican leadership in the House fixated on several things: They want to take health care away from millions of Americans by repealing ObamaCare; They want to destroy the social safety net through mindless budget cuts; and They want to weaken our financial system by repealing the Dodd-Frank Act that came out of the greatest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. This rule, the rule that should be a simple general debate rule for the Defense Authorization Act, also makes in order H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act. Not only does this rule cram in this controversial bill, it does not allow one single amendment. That's right. This is a closed rule. That's not an open and transparent process, certainly not the one that Speaker Boehner promised. H.R. 1256 would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission to jointly issue rules on the regulations of swaps transactions between the United States and foreign entities. H.R. 1256 automatically exempts transactions in countries with the nine largest swaps markets from U.S. regulations unless the CFTC and the SEC jointly determine that the regulations aren't broadly equivalent. Because many large U.S. financial institutions have subsidiaries outside of the United States, there are serious concerns that banks will seek to conduct swap transactions in countries with looser regulations to avoid U.S. oversight. And, Madam Speaker, it is important to note that many countries are far behind the United States in promulgating their rules on swaps. Why are we looking to allow foreign regulations to govern transactions involving U.S. companies that could ultimately impact our economy? During the markup in the Financial Services Committee, Ranking Member Maxine Waters offered an amendment to strike the presumption that foreign regulatory requirements satisfy U.S. swaps requirements, allowing the CFTC and the SEC to determine whether foreign regulatory requirements are comparable to U.S. requirements. Unfortunately, under this closed rule, the full House will not have the opportunity to consider a similar amendment to strengthen this legislation. Madam Speaker, this is yet another attempt to slow down the Dodd- Frank rulemaking process, undermine the CFTC's work in regulating derivatives trading, and weaken the financial market regulations needed to protect our economy. Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This rule also allows, believe it or not, the Agriculture Committee to file a supplemental report to H.R. 1947, the farm bill reauthorization. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that cuts $20.5 billion from SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. While this report is just technical, and fulfills the committee's responsibilities following the markup of H.R. 1947, this rule is not the place for this report. And, more importantly, I want to make it crystal clear that I do not support these egregious cuts. It's a rotten thing to do to poor people during this tough economic time. Finally, Madam Speaker, let me discuss the least controversial part of this rule, the defense authorization bill. This rule allows the House to begin general debate on H.R. 1960, the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. There is much to admire and support in this bill, and I commend the chairman and ranking member for working together to ensure the programs that provide benefits and support to our veterans and military retirees are adequately funded and that there will be no increases in TRICARE fees. Regrettably, there's also a great deal in this bill that should make every Member of this Chamber pause and think about our national security priorities: Should we be spending additional billions on Cold War nuclear weapons rather than on our troops, their families, and our veterans? Should we really be cutting funds and putting obstacles in the way of implementing the New START Treaty with Russia, limiting both our nations' ability to further reduce and verify our nuclear arsenals? Should we be committing hundreds of millions this year and billions of dollars in the future to an east coast missile defense site that the Pentagon says it doesn't want and doesn't need? Should we continue to set up roadblocks and obstruct the President's efforts to resolve the issue of how to effectively and safely close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Naval Station, appropriately release and return to their families those prisoners who have been cleared of all charges, and bring to justice once and for all those few remaining prisoners who were indeed engaged in heinous acts of terrorism? And once again, Madam Speaker, the committee provides $85.8 billion for the war in Afghanistan through the Overseas Contingency Operations account. That's $5 billion more than what the President and the Pentagon asked for. Now let me just say a couple of words about the OCO account. It is an off-budget account. It is another $85 billion on the Nation's credit card--deficit spending, pure and simple. It is the lingo of ``emergency spending,'' as if it were an unexpected surprise that we will still be in Afghanistan throughout all of FY 2014. I have always been concerned that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ever more amorphous and hard-to-define global war on terror, have not been included in the Pentagon's base budget but always outside that budget, with an ``emergency'' designation so that we don't have to figure out how to pay for it now. We'll just pay for it later and later and later. I'm increasingly concerned that, even after we transition all combat military and security operations over to the Afghan Government by the end of 2014, the OCO will still go on. It is time to phase out the OCO, put this spending back into the base spending bill, and if we want to make war, then we ought to figure out a way to pay for it or make the appropriate cuts in other Pentagon programs to make room for the funding of these operations. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the strong concerns this Congress has, on both sides of the aisle, about the epidemic of sexual assault in all branches of our military. This bill includes several measures that will strengthen the investigation and prosecution of these heinous crimes inside our military. It also provides new protections for victims of military sexual assault. It reflects the bipartisan work of Representative Turner, my Massachusetts colleague, Representative Tsongas, as well as Representatives Walorski, Noem, Castro, and Loretta Sanchez. However, Mr. Speaker, there is still much more that should and can be done to ensure these brutal rapes and assaults are fully investigated and prosecuted, the victims treated with respect, and to advance education in our military academies and among our ranks and our officer corps. Several amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and I hope that they will be made in order so that we can more fully debate this critical issue and how to end rape and sexual assault within our Armed Forces. Let me just add, Mr. Speaker, that while the NDAA looks to strengthen protections and prosecutions inside our military, we here in Congress are also to blame for having failed in our oversight responsibilities. Congress has not given the attention to military sexual assault that it deserves. So I think that we do need to clean up our own House and ensure that Congress does a far better job of oversight to ensure that the Pentagon and all our military members are held accountable for preventing, reducing, and prosecuting cases of sexual assault and abuse in our Armed Forces and providing victims with the services and support that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I'm always ambivalent about the annual defense authorization bill. I support the programs for our veterans and our retirees, and I support providing for the genuine needs of our servicemen and -women, whether they are based here at home or abroad. But I cannot support the amount of waste, the spending on unnecessary and often ridiculous programs, on more nukes, on outdated weapons, and on wars that never end. As we begin general debate on the defense bill later today, I ask my colleagues to keep these questions in mind. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule is unnecessarily complicated and misguided. There is no reason to include yet another bill gutting Dodd- Frank in this rule, and there's no reason to cram into this rule a report from the Agriculture Committee about a bill that will make hunger worse in America. For these reasons, I oppose this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for these three measures, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. McGOVERN. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida how many additional speakers he may have.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 additional minute to the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I get it. The Republican majority wants to repeal Dodd- Frank, and they're using every possible vehicle they can to undermine Dodd-Frank, which puts consumers at risk by their constant attack on protections that, I think, most people in this country think are reasonable. As you heard from Ms. Waters, the ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services, and from Mr. Ellison, there is controversy around this bill. The thought that you would bring a bill like this to the floor that would weaken Dodd-Frank under a closed rule is really unforgivable, quite frankly. We ought to debate this. This is important stuff. There ought to be debates, and there ought to be amendments. On the defense authorization bill, I just want to say this for the record: while I have no opposition to your bringing the DOD bill up for general debate, I do want to express my concern that when the Rules Committee considers the amendments that they be fair-minded about it and that all major issues, including the issues raised by a number of my colleagues on sexual assault, are addressed. I also want to say that the war in Afghanistan ought to be debated on this floor. A central part of our defense budget right now is going to this war, and last year, we were shut out. I'm hoping that this year we will at least have the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor, debate what our policy should be, and will let Members on both sides vote up or down. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' because this does allow H.R. 1256 to come to the floor under a closed rule. That is wrong. This should be a more open and transparent process, especially when it comes to an issue that is so important. With that, 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'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from California for organizing this and for her leadership on this and so many other issues aimed at trying to eliminate poverty in this country. I also want to thank all my colleagues who have already spoken on this issue. I want to come to the floor just to remind people that hunger is a real problem in the United States of America. We have close to 50 million of our fellow citizens who are hungry, and 17 million are kids. We are the richest, most prosperous Nation in the world, and we have close to 50 million people in this country who are hungry. I'm ashamed of that fact. We all should be ashamed of that fact. What is particularly maddening about this issue is that it is solvable. This is a solvable problem. Hunger is a political condition. We have the food. We have the resources. We have the infrastructure. We have everything but the political will to end it. Hunger is a problem that costs us dearly. People say to me, Oh, we can't spend any more money; we have a tough budget situation. I remind them that we can't afford not to. The cost of hunger in this country is astronomical. We pay an incredible amount in terms of avoidable health care costs. People who don't eat on a regular basis, their immune systems are compromised and they end up spending more time in a hospital. Senior citizens who can't afford their prescription drugs and their food take their prescription drugs on an empty stomach and end up in hospitals. There's a cost to that. There is a human cost and there's a financial cost to it. Children who are hungry who go to school don't learn. Workers who are hungry and go to work lack in productivity. We pay for this. This is solvable. It is solvable. Now, I have come to this floor every week for the last 13 weeks with this sign, ``End Hunger Now,'' and I have given a speech every week about what we need to do to end hunger, a different perspective on hunger. I have tried to raise awareness on this issue because there is not a single community in the United States of America, not a single congressional district that is hunger free. One of the tools that we have to combat hunger is the SNAP program. It is not the answer to everything. It is not a perfect program, but it is one of the tools that we utilize to help alleviate hunger in this country. And we are now considering a farm bill next week, which is stunning to me, because rather than being a bill that helps expand opportunities for our farmers and helps alleviate hunger, it will be a farm bill that makes hunger worse. The House of Representatives is going to consider a bill that came out of the House Agriculture Committee that cuts SNAP by $20.5 billion. Two million people will lose their benefits. Hundreds of thousands of kids who qualify right now for free breakfast and lunch at school because their parents are on SNAP will lose that benefit. I've had people say to me, Well, you know, those people ought to go out and look for a job. The fact of the matter is that millions and millions and millions of people who are on SNAP right now work. They work full-time, but they earn so little they still qualify for this benefit. We ought to have a debate in this Congress about ensuring that work pays a livable wage, that when people go to work and they work full- time, they ought not have to live in poverty. But that, unfortunately, is not the reality as we speak. The reality is that there are millions of people who are working and earn so little that they need this benefit to feed their kids and feed their families. As we emerge from this difficult economic crisis, we need to make sure that this safety net is in place. We need to ensure that people have enough to eat. That shouldn't be a controversial issue. To my Republican friends, I would say that this used to be a bipartisan issue. The great antihunger programs that our country has emerged as a result of bipartisan cooperation. In the 1970s, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas and Senator George McGovern of South Dakota worked together to help strengthen these programs to the point that in the 1970s we almost eliminated hunger in America. We made progress. We came close. Then we undid all of this. We turned our backs on those who were struggling, and now we have close to 50 million people who are hungry in this country. That, to me, is a national scandal. And rather than putting forward a farm bill that makes hunger worse, we ought to be talking about a farm bill that helps solve this problem. I've urged the White House to call a conference or a summit on food and nutrition to bring us all together, all the various agencies that have some role in combatting hunger: the charities, the food banks, the churches, the synagogues, the mosques, the doctors, the teachers, the nutritionists, the people who are involved in this issue one way or another. Let's bring us all together and actually come up with a plan to end this scourge. We can do this. You're not going to solve a problem without a plan, and we do not have a plan. But as we wait to develop that plan, let's not take away what is there right now to help keep people from being hungry to literally starving. When you cut a program like this by $20 billion--by the way, a program with one of the lowest error rates of any Federal program that we have. I wish I could find a missile program that the Pentagon is championing that has a lower error rate than the SNAP program. It would be phenomenal, quite frankly. It would save billions of dollars if the Pentagon ran their missile programs as efficiently as this program is run. Yet it has been demonized and it has been diminished. People have demagogued this program. All it does is provide people the ability to buy food; that's all it does. The fact that we would be taking away this safety net at this difficult time is something I don't think we should do. To my Democratic colleagues who are saying that we ought to support a farm bill even though it has $20 billion of cuts in it, we'll send it to conference and hopefully it will all get better, don't do that. Our priority, if it stands for anything--we have stood by and for those who are poor, those who are struggling, those who are vulnerable--let's not throw that away. Let's not trash our principles. This is not the bill that should be moving forward, not a bill that makes hunger worse. I want to also call attention to the fact that I joined with Congresswoman Lee and others in taking the food stamp challenge today, and I just will remind you that this SNAP challenge that we took today means that we live on an average SNAP benefit, which is $1.50 a meal and it is $4.50 a day. I mean, how much does a Starbucks coffee cost? This is what people live on. Critics will say this is meant as a supplement, not to be the entire food budget. Well, I'm going to tell you something: things are tough for a lot of people. This is their entire food budget. In fact, what they do is they utilize this modest benefit, and then they go to food banks and they go to their churches and they go to their charities and look for additional food because this doesn't provide enough. And so those of us in Congress who are trying to call attention to the fact that this is an important program--and by the way, it's not an overly generous program. We are doing the SNAP challenge. Some say this is a gimmick, it's a stunt. Well, you know what? We're trying to call attention to a real problem in this country. And if you think it's a gimmick or a stunt, you take the challenge. You live on this for a week. You see how difficult it is. It's hard to be poor. It takes a lot of time to try to make ends meet, to try to put a grocery list together that will get you through the week. And we're doing it just for ourselves. Imagine doing it when you have kids. I'm a parent of a 15- year-old boy and an 11-year-old girl. I couldn't imagine the anguish of wondering whether or not I could put food on the table to make sure they have enough to eat. This is the United States of America. We should be trying to lift people up, not put people down. Let me just say finally, none of us here believe that this should be a permanent condition. In fact, what we need to do is have a conversation about how to extend these ladders of opportunity for people so they can climb out of poverty, so they won't need this, so they can be on their own, so they can have a job. That's why so many of us have been complaining about the fact that we have a lot of debates here on the floor, a lot of bills, but we don't seem to have many bills that deal with job creation. That's the answer. That's the answer. You want to get people off of SNAP, give them a job that pays a livable wage. I'll just say in conclusion that I appreciate the opportunity to be able to highlight this issue. I'll tell you, I have spent an awful lot of time as cochair of the House Hunger Caucus meeting with people who are struggling in this country and meeting with families who have kids who are hungry. You meet a child who is hungry, it breaks your heart. You can't get it out of your mind. And that there are hungry children in this country--in this country--is something that should not be. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's come together and reject these cuts in the farm bill. Reject these cuts in SNAP, and let's try to figure out a way to restore those moneys so that people will not go without, and then let's have a farm bill that we can be proud of. If we cannot reverse the $20.5 billion in cuts in SNAP, then there's no way we should support that farm bill. No way. Republicans and Democrats should join together and say no, we're not going to support a farm bill that makes hunger worse. I appreciate this opportunity, and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from California and others in trying to find ways to make sure that people in this country have enough to eat, and also make sure that we develop a plan to help people transition off of this assistance so they can be independent and productive like all of the people we know who are struggling want to be.