Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friend that this gunwalking program started under President Bush. And that's just the way it is. I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida (Mr. Nugent) mentioned the issue of gun ownership as related to the witnesses that the Democrats wanted to have appear before the committee. How inviting the head of the ATF, which is responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, or inviting the former Attorney General, who was briefed on gunwalking and knew about it, how that has anything to do with gun ownership--what that has to do with, Mr. Speaker, is getting to the truth. The minority has submitted a request for witnesses in writing and even requested for a--which I guess they have the right to do--a day of minority witnesses, which they were told they would not be granted that day in a timely fashion. This is about politics. This, by all measures, is about politics. Again, the fact that we are doing this today, I think, diminishes the House of Representatives. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlelady that if she is interested in why the United States pursued this gunwalking program, she should talk to the Attorney General under the Bush administration, Attorney General Mukasey, when this thing started 5 years ago. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats have asked that he be called before the committee, the request has been denied. She wants to know why this is political? The request for every single witness that the Democrats asked to be brought before the committee was denied, the request for every single witness. That is unprecedented in this House in any committee, the fact that the Democrats have been locked out of having any of their witnesses come forward. This is not about gunwalking. This is not about finding the terrible truth about what happened to Agent Terry. This is about politics, plain and simple; and it diminishes this House. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we need to deal with facts in this debate because this is an important matter. The gentleman just talked about these hearings, these meetings with the head of the ATF. The reality was that a year ago Republican staff met with the head of the ATF on July 3 without notifying Democratic staff. Democratic staff were invited to come on July 4. There were no public hearings, and no Members were there. Again, I'm not sure what the problem is with having the head of the ATF come before the committee so the American people can hear what the truth is and what the facts are. I don't know why that's such a big deal. But to suggest that this was a bipartisan effort is just outright false. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, if this is about openness, then why does the committee have secret meetings where they lock Democrats out? If this is about openness, then why won't they let any Democratic witnesses appear before the committee? And since there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not Democrats actually formally requested witnesses, I will insert into the Record a letter to the Honorable Darrell Issa on October 28, on November 4, and on February 2, requesting witnesses, including the former Attorney General Mukasey and Mr. Melson, the head of the ATF. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 28, 2011. Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: As I have stated repeatedly, I believe Operation Fast and Furious was a terrible mistake with tragic consequences. As I have also stated, I support a fair and responsible investigation that follows the facts where they lead, rather than drawing conclusions before evidence is gathered or ignoring information that does not fit into a preconceived narrative. On several occasions over the past month, you have called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about when he first became aware of the controversial tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious. The Attorney General has now agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 2011, when you will have another opportunity to question him directly. With respect to our own Committee's investigation, I do not believe it will be viewed as legitimate or credible--and I do not believe the public record will be complete--without public testimony from Kenneth Melson, who served as the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). A hearing with Mr. Melson would help the Committee and the American people better understand what mistakes were made in Operation Fast and Furious, how these tactics originated, who did and did not authorize them. and what steps are being taken to ensure that they are not used again. Our staffs have already conducted transcribed interviews with Mr. Melson and the former Deputy Director of ATF, William Hoover. During those interviews, these officials expressed serious concerns about the controversial tactics employed by the Phoenix Field Division of ATF as part of this operation. They also raised concerns about the manner in which the Department of Justice responded to congressional inquiries. Both officials also stated that they had not been aware of the controversial tactics being used in Operation Fast and Furious, had not authorized those tactics, and had not informed anyone at the Department of Justice headquarters about them. They stated that Operation Fast and Furious originated within the Phoenix Field Division, and that ATF headquarters failed to properly supervise it. Since the Attorney General has now agreed to appear before Congress in December, I believe Members also deserve an opportunity to question Mr. Melson directly, especially since he headed the agency responsible for Operation Fast and Furious. My staff has been in touch with Mr. Melson's attorney, who reports that Mr. Melson would be pleased to cooperate with the Committee. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Florida how many more speakers he has, because we have no more speakers on this side but myself.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there isn't a single person in this House who doesn't honor the service of Agent Terry. There isn't a single person in this House who does not want justice for Agent Terry's family--and the truth. There isn't a single person in this House, I believe, who doesn't want to get to the bottom of how gunwalking started and how these operations were so terribly botched. But every single attempt for an evenhanded investigation has been thwarted by the Republican majority. There has not been an evenhanded investigation. Every single witness that the Democrats requested to be called before the committee was refused. Every single witness. It's unprecedented. Let me say that Eric Holder is a good and decent and honorable man. He's doing an excellent job as Attorney General. He does not deserve this. And this institution does not deserve this. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Do you really want to go down this road? This is a race to the bottom. This is a witch hunt. This is politics, pure and simple. It diminishes this House of Representatives. We are better than this. Does everything have to be a confrontation? Does everything have to be in your face? Now, you want to maintain your majority. I get it. You want to win elections. That's understandable. But at what cost? Do we really need to drag the House of Representatives down this road? This is a stain on this House of Representatives. We should not be here today. We should be talking about jobs and putting people back to work and about making sure student loans don't double. But instead, we are doing this. This is so political and so blatantly partisan that I think the American people are sickened by this. And as a number of people have said, You want to know why the approval rating is so low? Watch the videotape of this debate here today. We should be doing the peoples' business. This is not the peoples' business. This is not about getting to the truth in the case of Agent Terry. This is a political maneuver to go after this administration. And this has, unfortunately, become a trend and a pattern in this Congress. We need to find a way to solve our problems without always having these big confrontations. So I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, don't go down this road. We urged the Speaker of the House yesterday to pull this from the floor. This is wrong. Please defeat this rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I'm prepared to close. How much time do I have remaining?

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, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just would like to point out to my colleagues that I don't want them to be under the misimpression that somehow this Republican leadership is somehow conducting an open and transparent process. At last count, they have given us 41 completely closed rules, and that's not even getting into the number of structured rules we've had. So I would be a little bit more humble before I would brag about the open process in this House. I rise in opposition to this rule, which combines two unrelated appropriations bills, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and the Agriculture appropriations bills. And this rule also concedes that the House Republicans will not finish all their appropriation bills on time. Under the House rules, the House cannot adjourn for more than 3 days in a row in July unless all the appropriation bills are finished. Section 4 in this rule is an admission that the Republican leadership hasn't met this threshold. Mr. Speaker, I also oppose this rule because Republican budget caps have made it impossible to bring appropriations bills to the floor that meet the needs of our country. Rather than a balanced, fair approach to control our Federal deficit, Republicans have launched an all-out assault against middle-income families and those who are struggling in poverty. Rather than asking Donald Trump to pay one penny more in taxes, the Republicans are pursuing an agenda that would decimate food stamps, that turns Medicare into a voucher program, that goes after student loans. I could go on and on and on. Everything that they bring to this floor lowers the quality of life and the standard of living for the people in this country. This Congress should be about lifting people up, not putting people down. And yet, the bills that get brought to this floor, time and time again, are all about putting the American people down. Not only is the underlying Transportation appropriations bill underfunded, but we're considering it while the ninth--the ninth-- extension of the surface transportation bill, the bill that funds our roads and bridges, is on the verge of expiring, and the summer construction season quickly moves towards a close. We need a transportation bill, and we would have one, Mr. Speaker, if the Republican leadership would simply accept the bipartisan Senate bill. Instead, the Republican leadership has decided to play politics by including unrelated provisions like the construction of the Keystone pipeline in a bill meant to build and repair America's roads and bridges, in a bill that would have put thousands and thousands and thousands of Americans to work on these critical projects. I had the honor of hosting Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican Member of this body, in my congressional district yesterday. Secretary LaHood made it clear that Congress needs to get its act together and pass a transportation bill. Rather than more recesses, I would say to my friends, we ought to stay here and not leave until we get this bill passed. Instead, this transportation appropriations bill is, essentially, a shell full of placeholder language waiting for the authorization bill to be finished. This is not a way to legislate. My friends on the other side of the aisle like to say, where are the jobs? Well, I'll tell you where the jobs are. They're in this transportation bill that they are holding up, that they are holding hostage. You want to put Americans back to work? Pass this bill. I'm also deeply disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that this is the second year in a row that the appropriations bill fails to fund the Sustainable Communities initiative, which brings together the Department of Transportation, HUD, and EPA to develop effective models of integrated planning and promote economic development in metropolitan areas across the country. We should be pursuing the smart, holistic approaches to urban planning and improvement encouraged by the Sustainable Communities initiative, and this bill doesn't do that. I also have concerns with the project-based Section 8 funding level included in the THUD legislation, and with proposals to short-fund project-based contracts. Short-funding does not reduce Federal expenditures, but instead shifts the cost to the next fiscal year. In fact, according to the National Housing Trust, short-funding can increase financing costs because of the uncertainty it creates among lenders and investors. Short-funding is a direct result of the need to conform to the Ryan budget, and I hope that the Senate's funding level is adopted during this conference, if they ever do have a conference. The sad reality, Mr. Speaker, is that of these two appropriations bills, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations is the better one. And this Agriculture appropriations bill is, to put it nicely, not where it needs to be. It is woefully inadequate in several places, and it continues a pattern set by this Republican leadership of trying to undermine the Wall Street reforms made under Dodd-Frank and to dismantle the antihunger safety net. This bill decimates funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation, one of the key regulators of the financial services industry. In fact, the bill cuts funding for the CFTC by 41 percent, a cut that will drastically reduce CFTC's ability to oversee an industry that continues to take risky gambles, as evidenced by J.P. Morgan's recent loss of $2 billion. The Republican leadership, once again, would rather allow Wall Street to run amok instead of providing proper oversight so that Americans on Main Street don't get taken to the cleaners. Also not surprising is this Republican leadership's continued assault on the hungry in America. Over the past 18 months, the Republican leadership has pushed two plans to block grant SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, dramatically cut WIC funding in last year's Agriculture appropriations bill, and brought a reconciliation bill to the floor that would cut $36 million from SNAP, the most effective and efficient Federal antihunger program we have in this country. Of course, we are still anticipating a farm bill from the Agriculture Committee that will cut at least $14 billion from this program. Also, while this bill funds WIC at $6.9 billion, it is still $119 million short of President Obama's request. In essence, this bill is gambling that food prices and participation will stabilize and not continue to rise. Yet just as concerning is the lack of set-asides for breast-feeding counselors, electronic benefit cards and infrastructure. These provisions were included in the President's request and also in the Senate bill. They should not be excluded from the House version. The other problem with the WIC language is the provision dealing with white potatoes. For the first time, Congress is mandating that white potatoes be included in the WIC food package. This is unprecedented and is deeply troubling. Congress has never, until now, interfered with the science of the WIC food package. This food package was specifically designed by the Institute of Medicine to provide the necessary nutrients through specific foods that are often not consumed, for a variety of reasons, by low-income pregnant women and their newborns, infants and young children. Like the effort to treat pizza as a vegetable, this is clearly done on behalf of industry. It does not belong in this bill. This bill also cuts the Commodities Supplemental Food Program below the President's request. This program provides food to seniors across the country, but the funding level in this bill is so inadequate that it will actually result in 55,000 fewer seniors being served. That's 55,000 fewer low-income seniors on fixed incomes who will have food taken away from them simply because this committee decided that tightening our Nation's fiscal belt should mean less food for elderly in America instead of fewer profits for the wealthy. The Agriculture appropriations bill doesn't spare international food aid from drastic cuts either. This bill cuts title II PL480 by 22 percent, or $316 million, under FY12 levels and $250 million below the President's FY13 request. These dramatic cuts would result in decreases in emergency services to between 6 million and 8 million vulnerable people, some of whom are already on the brink of starvation. They also weaken the funding for programs that fight long-term hunger and that build the capacity of people to withstand new emergencies. For example, it was the Food for Peace development programs in Ethiopia that helped keep communities from falling into famine and to withstand the shock of last year's drought, saving the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only are these cuts unconscionable, but they are unwise because they will ultimately lead to future costs should there be widespread hunger, famine or civil unrest that requires American assistance. Mr. Speaker, we need to do better. We must do better. We need a surface transportation bill that actually puts Americans back to work. I again ask my Republican friends to stop holding the Senate bill hostage. Bring it to the floor. Let us have an up-or-down vote on it. Let us pass it and get people back to work. We need to ensure that Wall Street doesn't, once again, run unchecked; and we need to guarantee that we don't let Americans go hungry during these difficult economic times. The Republican agenda is quite contrary to where I think the majority of Americans are, and we're seeing that agenda--that radical right-wing agenda--at work in these appropriations bills. I will just close with this, Mr. Speaker: My colleagues on the other side like to talk about numbers all the time while I like to talk about people. I got elected to Congress to help people. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the agenda by this Republican majority is all about putting people down. We should be about lifting people up in this country. We can meet our budgetary challenges without lowering the standard of living for the people of this country. With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlelady how many more speakers she has on her side?

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, I just want to yield myself such time as I may consume just to make a point here. I think it's important for us not to try to fool anybody by saying that we are adequately living up to the challenge of combating hunger and food insecurity in this country, because I will say to the gentlelady that there are 49 million Americans who would disagree with you. There are 49 million Americans who are hungry in our country, the richest country on the planet. Seventeen million of them are children. Among the many things that are cut in this Agriculture appropriations bill is the Commodity Supplemental Food program. The cut in that alone would throw 55,000 seniors off of food assistance. We can talk about that we're trying to do the best we can, but let's not say that somehow we're doing something we're not. We are not meeting the challenge of ending hunger and food insecurity in America. Not by a long shot. That's one of the frustrating things about this appropriations process--that the very programs to help people get out of poverty, to get on their feet again, are being slashed. You are balancing the budget on the backs of hungry people while you ask Donald Trump not to pay one penny more in taxes. I think that's unfair, and that's why, I think, this whole process is unfair. At this point, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows Members to go home to their districts, even if we don't address the doubling of student loan interest rates that are about to hit people across the country and even if we don't hammer out a deal to fund our transportation programs and create jobs, notwithstanding the fact that our infrastructure is crumbling. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to say that the House cannot adjourn at the end of this week until we finish our business. And to discuss this amendment, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just say I hope that the gentlelady wasn't implying that somehow the Federal Government doesn't have a role in investing in our national highway infrastructure. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, I should remind the gentlelady, understood the importance of having a national highway program. As has been pointed out by a number of our speakers on the Democratic side, our infrastructure is aging and is falling apart, and we're not going to be able to compete in this global economy unless we make the proper investments. And by making the proper investments, we are not only helping our economy; we are putting people back to work. We are putting people back to work. And yet the Republican leadership of this House is holding hostage a transportation bill that passed the Senate that would put countless people back to work, which passed overwhelmingly in the Senate by 74 votes--overwhelmingly in the Senate. We can't get that brought up on the House floor for a vote. The Republicans, I would say, Mr. Speaker, I think are intentionally running out the clock. I think it's a cynical attempt to hold everything up, to not invest in our economy, to slow down economic growth. Hopefully, I think, in their minds, they hope that it will win them the election. I think it's a cynical way to do politics. We ought to be on this floor helping the American people. And, yes, the 4th of July is a great time for us to celebrate our country, but a lot of Americans are not going to celebrate because they're out of work. And we have the ability to put them back to work. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are holding hostage the very bill that could put countless Americans back to work. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, our job should be to help improve the quality of life for the citizens that we represent. We ought to be investing in our economy at this very difficult time. That's why we are urging the House Republicans to join with the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats and the House Democrats in bringing a highway bill to the floor so we can provide some certainty to our States, so there can be more investments in infrastructure, so there can be more jobs created. That would give the American people a little something to celebrate. We are urging my colleagues on the Republican side here in the House to join with us in making sure that interest rates on student loans don't double for a great number of young people in this country who are trying to get an education. My colleague from North Carolina would have us believe that it is no big deal. Well, it is a big deal. It's a big deal to those students and to their families. It is a big deal to those of us on this side of the aisle. And maybe that's one of the differences between the two parties. We believe college education ought to be affordable, and no one should not go to college because they can't afford the education. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of an amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the amendment basically says we're not going home, we're not leaving this place until we do our work because part of our job, I would say to my colleague from North Carolina, is not just going home and meeting with our constituents and marching in parades. Part of our job is to pass legislation that is important to the people we represent. This highway bill is important to putting people back to work. My friends on the other side of the aisle have dragged their feet and dragged their feet and dragged their feet. I think it is unconscionable. We are running out of time. We need to start doing the people's business here. And if that means that we have to stay through the weekend, we should stay through the weekend. If we have to stay through next week, we should stay through next week. But we ought to do something meaningful. Our job should not be about lowering the quality of life for people, and that is my problem with the appropriations process that my colleagues have pursued in this House. It is all about putting all of the burden of balancing our budget on middle-income families and on those who least can afford it. Donald Trump is not asked to pay one penny more. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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