Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendment to H.R. Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Providing for Proceedings During the Period From December Through January and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. It is the end of the year, and once more we have come to the brink of a government shutdown. It is sad to say, but this has become routine.

We need to return to regular order, where we pass appropriations bills one at a time and not end up with a 2,000-plus-page bill at the last minute that nobody has thoroughly read.

In all candor, the excuse that it is all the Senate's fault is a bit disingenuous. Of the 12 appropriations bills the government must pass each year, we only considered 6 in the House. We stopped considering appropriations bills because some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were more interested in protecting the Confederate flag than in getting the people's business done.

We have a deal before us that, if passed, would prevent us from heading toward a government shutdown and damaging our economy. Americans cannot afford another manufactured crisis, something that my friends on the other side of the aisle have become good at. The so- called deal that we will debate today and tomorrow reflects the imperfect process that produced it.

I am grateful to my colleagues who worked to get a product to us that, hopefully, can avoid a catastrophe. I am especially grateful to the staff who worked around the clock these last weeks to get us to this point. Truthfully, we should be apologizing to the staff for putting them through this ordeal. This is not the way to run Congress.

There are two parts to the underlying legislation: Amendment 1 to H.R. 2029, the omnibus Appropriations Act, and Amendment 2, known as the tax extenders bill.

The omnibus Appropriations Act is, by any measure, a mixed bag, but, importantly, it does begin to undo so-called sequestration, which has done great damage to our economy and great harm to our people.

In my view, sequestration represents an all-time high in recklessness and stupidity. We need to reverse it. This bill begins to do that.

In the omnibus there will be necessary increases in funding for NIH, NSF, Head Start, Pell grants, job training, State and local law enforcement, programs to prevent violence against women, energy efficiency programs, FEMA, our national parks, VA medical service accounts, the McGovern-Dole international school feeding program, a reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and a host of other programs. I am grateful for these increases.

This bill includes a 75-year extension to the Zadroga Act, which supports health care for the brave 9/11 first responders who risked their lives at Ground Zero to save others and became ill as a result. These are true American heroes, and I am pleased that Congress has finally done the right thing by ensuring that they will be able to get the care that they deserve.

One of the things, however, that concerns me about the omnibus appropriations bill is that it contains a controversial cybersecurity measure that many of us feel falls short of safeguarding Americans' private information. Quite frankly, a provision like this does not belong in an omnibus appropriations bill.

Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to strike this cybersecurity provision. Every single Republican--every single one--voted against my provision.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a ``Dear Colleague'' that was sent to all of us from Representatives Lofgren, Amash, Conyers, Farenthold, and Polis in opposition to the cybersecurity measure being part of this omnibus appropriations bill. December 16, 2015. From: The Honorable Zoe Lofgren. Omnibus Includes Privacy Violating Provisions: Join Reps. Lofgren, Amash, Conyers, Farenthold, and Polis in Opposition

Dear Colleague: We are writing to express our concerns with the inclusion of the Cybersecurity Act in the omnibus. What was intended to be a cybersecurity bill to facilitate the sharing of information between the private sector and government was instead drafted in such a way that it has effectively become a surveillance bill, and allows information shared by companies to be used by the government to prosecute unrelated crimes.

The bill intended to allow the private sector to share ``cyber threat indicators'' with government agencies. However, depending on the type of ``indicator,'' it is highly likely that private information otherwise protected by the Fourth Amendment will also be disclosed to government surveillance agencies.

Unfortunately, as drafted, the bill falls short of providing safeguards to protect Americans' private information.

In particular:

1. This bill allows the use of shared information for more than just ``cybersecurity purposes.'' It allows the government to investigate and prosecute specific threats to serious bodily injury or serious economic injury, computer fraud, and trade secrets violations, among other criminal violations.

WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: Specific threats to serious bodily injury or economic harm are extremely broad categories of crimes. So are identity theft, computer fraud, and trade secrets violations. By allowing the use of this information for non-cybersecurity purposes, the bill encourages intelligence agencies to collect and retain as much information as they can for as long as possible, in the unlikely event that one day it might be useful. An alternative bill, H.R. 1731, which received the largest House support, prohibited these uses and limited the use of cyber indicators to only cyber security purposes for this reason.

2. The bill fails to include an express prohibition on using this information for ``surveillance'' purposes.

WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: Express prohibition of ``surveillance'' is vital because past experience demonstrates that intelligence agencies will broadly interpret the included non-cyber, criminal allowances to perform surveillance. For example, few thought the National Security Agency (NSA) would interpret ``relevant'' to allow collection of every phone record in America. Surveillance is merely an investigation method, so this bill contains no protections against the NSA (or any other agency) from conducting broad surveillance using this information in the name of stopping any enumerated offenses.

3. The private sector and government are only required to remove personal information they ``know at the time of sharing'' to be included in the information they share with DHS.

WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: The information sharing legislation that passed the House with the strongest support, H.R. 1731, required both government and private sector to take ``reasonable efforts'' to scrub all personal information ``reasonably believed'' to be unrelated to a cybersecurity threat prior to sharing the information. Changing this to a ``knowing'' standard, as the Cybersecurity Act does, sets the bar too high. Developing automated systems to ``know'' that something is personal information is likely impossible. As such, the ``knowing'' standard encourages willful blindness. Why would the government or private sector expend time and effort to develop effective processes to determine when it ``knows'' something is personal information rather than just develop a cursory review process likely to permit the flow of private personal information.

Furthermore, by limiting scrubbing only to ``the time of sharing'' there is no requirement that the government remove personal information it later discovers.

Finally, the bill leaves details on how to develop privacy protection procedures around the collection, storage, and retention of shared information to DHS and also to the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence. The AG and DNI also determined these same standards for the bulk- collection of telephone metadata. These standards allowed for the largest abuse of American privacy in recent history and necessitated Congress passing the USA FREEDOM Act.

4. No express limitations on what or how DHS can share information with the DOD or NSA.

WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: Earlier this year Congress passed major privacy reforms because past experience has shown that if the NSA acquires information, they will use it in ways unintended by legislators. Every cybersecurity bill passed by the House this year has prohibited automatic information sharing (and in some cases all sharing) with the NSA. Without this prohibition, designating DHS as the ``sole information sharing portal'' is essentially meaningless, since DOD and NSA automatically receive cyber threat indicators along with the rest of civilian agencies. As this bill is drafted, functionally--there is no difference between directly giving this information to DHS and directly giving it to the NSA. There should be strong rules protecting personal information from being received, processed, and stored by intelligence agencies, which this bill lacks. Sincerely, Rep. Zoe Lofgren. Rep. Justin Amash. Rep. John Conyers. Rep. Blake Farenthold. Rep. Jared Polis.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, one additional concern, for me and for many others, is an awful provision--and I stress the word ``awful''--in this bill, which constitutes a big giveaway to Big Oil and could lead to an increase in gas prices. Big Oil gives big money to campaigns, and, sadly, Big Oil is getting a very big return on its investment with this bill. This provision could intensify climate change, have devastating environmental impacts, and does nothing to save consumers money on energy costs.

I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to strike this outrageous provision.

My colleagues will have to decide whether the good outweighs the bad before casting their vote on the omnibus bill. Compromise is never easy, but in a divided government it is essential if we are to move forward.

One of my biggest critiques of this Republican-controlled Congress has been the total disregard for Americans who struggle--those stuck in poverty. Time and time again in this Chamber, poor people have been demonized and disparaged while those who are well off and well connected get one tax break after another after another.

I am pleased that in the tax extenders package there are provisions to protect millions of struggling Americans from a tax increase and boost family incomes by permanently extending essential improvements to the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit for low-income working families, as well as the American opportunity tax credit to help low- and middle-income families pay for college.

All of these improvements to these tax credits were originally passed as part of the 2009 Recovery Act, and each has played a critical role in fueling America's economic recovery after the financial crisis. Making these improvements permanent would be among the biggest steps Congress can take to reduce poverty, and without action these credits would expire at the end of 2017.

Every year, these improvements are expected to lift about 16 million people, including about 8 million children, out of poverty, or closer to rising above the poverty line. Simply put, making these improvements to the EITC and the CTC permanent will keep more children out of poverty than any other Federal program.

The real world impact cannot be overstated. For example, a single mother with two children who works full time at the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and makes $14,500 a year would lose her entire $1,725 child tax credit without congressional action. For a family on a fixed income, this would be a terrible setback. Additionally, making the American opportunity tax credit permanent would ensure this program continues to help millions of low- and middle-income families pay for college every year.

In addition to the millions of families these provisions would help, this legislation before us takes important steps to bolster investments in education, job training, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure, and research, while also strengthening national security.

I am especially pleased that this deal includes a provision that would make permanent tax parity for commuters who take mass transit-- something that has long been a major priority of mine. For far too long, the Tax Code has allowed employers to offer their workers more in pretax parking benefits than in mass transit benefits. Parity between parking and mass transit benefits was first established in the Recovery Act and has been extended on a short-term basis since then.

The bill before us would establish permanent parity for mass transit commuters. It is an attractive fringe benefit that employers can offer their workers. It offers significant savings to employees who rely on mass transit. It is especially important to my constituents in central and western Massachusetts who take the train every day into downtown Boston.

Mr. Speaker, by averting a government shutdown and passing this deal, we will be able to bring certainty to small businesses, as well as companies investing in the United States, while extending important incentives that support hiring and investing in low-income communities.

Following the historic international climate agreement reached in Paris this past weekend, I am also pleased that this deal would extend tax incentives for investments in wind and solar energy, helping to drive significant reductions in carbon pollution and other dangerous air pollutants and provide certainty for investments in clean energy.

Investments like these would not be possible without the recent budget deal, which reversed about 90 percent of the cuts that sequestration would have made to nondefense discretionary programs in fiscal year 2016 with parity between defense and nondefense spending.

Mr. Speaker, while there are many positive provisions in this deal, one major concern is that the House Republican tax extender bill would provide hundreds of billions of dollars in special interest tax breaks that are permanent and unpaid for. Such massive giveaways to special interests like Big Oil are a step in the wrong direction.

As our economy continues to recover, we have a responsibility to the American people to pass legislation that helps to grow the paychecks of hardworking families and make the investments that will build the bright future that our children deserve.

I am especially troubled by the fact that the tax extenders bill continues the misguided double standard of financing tax cuts with budget deficits while insisting on offsets for any increases in domestic spending. Quite frankly, this is dishonest coming from my Republican colleagues who so often claim to be focused on reducing the deficit.

So many American families are working hard to get back on their feet and give their children opportunities that they deserve. Continuing this double standard of holding back on investments that we could be making now to help even more of our fellow citizens is inexcusable.

Extending hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the most powerful interests when our country needs much stronger investment in jobs and economic growth for all is a troubling and sober reminder that we must do more to put hardworking families first. Quite frankly, I think it highlights the difference between the two parties. Democrats have long championed the importance of investing in our infrastructure, investing in our people, and investing in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, the omnibus spending bill and the tax extenders package before us today is not perfect. Members on both sides of the aisle are going to have to decide for themselves whether the good outweighs the bad. Clearly, there are some good things and there are some bad things. Hopefully, in the future, we will return to regular order and do our business in a more thoughtful and effective way.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Oklahoma that I appreciate his commitment to regular order and reminding us that Speaker Ryan has committed to regular order as well. I am a little skeptical, so I am not going to hold my breath because I probably won't make it until next year if I do that. I will just remind him that the previous Speaker, Speaker Boehner, promised the same thing, and we never saw it. In fact, we have the most closed Congress in the history of United States Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would strike the provision in the omnibus that lifts the ban on exporting crude oil.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. To discuss the proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.

As I said at the very beginning, what we are presented with today, I think, can be fairly characterized as a mixed bag. There are some very good things that we can talk about in both these packages that we are going to debate and vote on today and tomorrow, and there are some very bad things. And I think Members are going to have to decide for themselves whether the good outweighs the bad or the bad outweighs the good.

But I think the one thing we should agree on is that we need to do better in terms of process. We ought to consider all of these appropriations bills individually. And even if the other body chooses not to take those bills up, we ought to at least do our work here. We only did half the job this year, and I regret that very, very much.

I will say on the good side of what is being presented today is the chipping away at sequestration, which was a horrible idea. It has done great damage to this country's economy, which has hurt a lot of struggling people in this country. This package before us today begins the process of chipping away at that.

I also believe that it is good that we are doing what we should have done a long time ago, and that is provide certainty for the 9/11 responders. I want to thank the New York delegation, in particular, for their steadfast insistence that we act on this. That is in this package as well.

In terms of the tax extenders, there is great concern on our side about the fact that a lot of this is all unpaid for. And yes, we do care about deficits. I wish my colleagues on the other side cared more about deficits.

Everybody is saying that they are committed to reducing or eliminating our deficit. I will remind you we had a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, in office when we actually eliminated the deficit. And when the Republican, George W. Bush, got elected and we had unpaid-for tax cuts--most for wealthy people--and unpaid-for wars, we saw the elimination of the deficit balloon into these huge deficits. And we are still trying to dig ourselves out of that mess to this very day.

I would say that in the tax extender bill I am grateful we have made permanent the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. These are both important antipoverty initiatives. It will help a lot of people whom this body has consistently and deliberately ignored for too long.

I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who said that the child tax credit should have been indexed for inflation. We could have done that. I think that would have been even a better gesture toward trying to help people get out of poverty. We didn't do that. That is a fight that we need to deal with in the future.

Finally, I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can have an up-or-down vote to eliminate what I think is an outrageous giveaway to Big Oil. It doesn't belong in this bill. We should have that debate, and Members ought to be able to vote up or down on it. The only way we are going to be able to do that, quite frankly, is by eliminating the previous question so we can bring this amendment to the floor.

Having said that, this is the final action of the Rules Committee--I hope it is the final time the Rules Committee will be presenting on the floor--and, again, I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this. I want to especially thank the staff. I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and I look forward to a more productive 2016.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

A recorded vote was ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source