Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 5303, Water Resources Development Act of 2016; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6094, Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits...

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, after a year of Democratic calls to address the terrible water crisis in Flint, Michigan, House Republicans finally moved forward an amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), to provide assistance to the families of Flint.
It was a year ago this month that we learned of the man-made drinking water crisis in Flint, which exposed thousands of our fellow Americans to contaminated water. These are real people, Mr. Speaker. Families with children--9,000 children under the age of 6--that have been drinking and bathing in poisonous water for over 2\½\ years. And even today, these families still do not have access to clean water from their taps.

The fact that it has taken a year for Congress to stand up and do the right thing, to finally allow us to have a vote for the families of Flint, is astonishing. America is supposed to be a place where we look out for one another and lift our neighbors up when they are in need.

Those are the values that define our country. As the people's representatives here in Congress, we need to honor those values.

Whenever an American community is hit by a disaster, we come together.

This should include not just hurricanes and earthquakes, but also man- made disasters, like the one that Flint continues to face today.

I thank the leadership, especially our leadership, our Leader Pelosi, and the persistence of my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). I am pleased that we are finally set to consider a measure to authorize the $170 million for the repair and replacement of infrastructure in Flint. I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will enthusiastically support Mr. Kildee.

But this is just a first step, Mr. Speaker. While the amendment we are set to consider today, if adopted, authorizes these funds, it is important that we come together to ensure that the much-needed funding actually reaches Flint as soon as possible.

The Senate's Water Resources Development Act, which passed that Chamber earlier this month by an overwhelming vote of 95-3, includes $220 million in relief for Flint. As we advance our water bill this week and set up a conference on the two measures, it is imperative that we keep funding for Flint a top priority.
So while I am pleased that we were able to reach a bipartisan agreement on a vote for Flint, I am disappointed, however, that the House Republican leadership is still advancing a terrible, misguided bill this week to, once again, undermine regulations put forward by the administration to help working families.
With all of the work left to be done on the most pressing issues facing our communities, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle are so intent on denying long overdue compensation to millions of their constituents in payment for their hard work and long hours.

This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 6094, legislation designed to delay the Department of Labor's new overtime rule, which increases the overtime salary threshold from $23,660 a year to $47,476 a year. With the Department of Labor's update to the Fair Labor Standards Act, an additional 4.2 million salaried workers are eligible for overtime pay, and 262,000 working people in my home State of Massachusetts will benefit.
American workers have waited long enough to get their fair day's pay for a long day's work that they deserve. This Republican bill will take $600 million out of the pockets of 4.2 million American workers who would have gained overtime protections on December 1. This is $600 million that they will never see if we delay these important updates for another 6 months. That means, for example, the workers will have less money to spend on holiday presents for their families and less time to help their kids with their schoolwork and extracurricular activities.

The simple truth is that this Republican bill is a cynical ploy to, once again, try to stop the rule from ever, ever going into effect. My Republican friends like to lecture families in poverty about what they are doing wrong. We hear it all the time on this floor. They tell them that they need to work harder to get ahead. These families are already working hard, very often working overtime, but they are not receiving the pay that they deserve for putting in the extra time.

Republicans like to say that they think hard work should be rewarded.

This is it. This overtime protection is a way for us to reward the hard work of millions of Americans who are doing all of the right things.

This is a way for us to ensure that every American who puts in a hard day's work is able to earn the fair pay that he deserves. Only in this place would that be considered a radical idea.

How can Members of Congress lecture millions of hardworking American families who are struggling to escape poverty when they won't even support a measure that rewards them for the hard work that they are putting in every day to help their own families get ahead? Speaker Ryan has a lot to say about fixing poverty--rolling out a whole agenda to convince us that, somehow, he is serious about making progress in helping families. So why on Earth would Speaker Ryan and the House Republicans stand in the way of hardworking families receiving the fair pay that they deserve? That doesn't sound like a party that truly cares about helping every family succeed.

America's working families are the ones who lay the foundation that makes our economy strong. It is simply shameful that denying hardworking families the overtime protections they deserve is something that Republicans think should be a top priority of this Congress--so pressing, in fact, that the House Republicans considered this bill in the Rules Committee as an ``emergency measure.''

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing and defeat this bill. It is an antiworker, antifamily bill, and it would only make it harder for America's hardworking families to get ahead. Our economy only works when hard work is rewarded, and it is time for Congress to stand up for those values and to support working families.

It is time for us to do our jobs, Mr. Speaker. We need to be providing funds to fight the terrible Zika virus and the opioid crisis.

We should be addressing the gun violence that is plaguing our communities. We ought to be finalizing a continuing resolution to ensure that our government remains open come Saturday, and I hope that the Senate will vote on that soon so that we can consider it.

We need to get much-needed assistance to the families of Flint.

Again, I think it is a stain on this Congress' reputation that this leadership has dragged its feet for so long on this issue of providing funds to the residents of Flint. This is the United States of America.

People ought to know, when they get water out of their faucets, that they are not poisoning themselves or their kids. These are emergencies, Mr. Speaker, and not what this bill is all about that my friends are bringing to the floor.

What they are trying to do is to actually score some points with some in the business community who don't want to reward the work of the people who work in their companies, and I think that that is unfortunate. We ought to stand up for working families. They are the ones who need help. What this bill would do is make that less likely.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to point out for my colleagues that, while many of my colleagues who support this legislation argue that the new overtime rule would overburden nonprofits or educational institutions, I think we need to point out a few facts here--most importantly, that that is just not the case. The overtime rule provides exemptions for nonprofit charitable organizations without sizable commercial activities. The overtime rule also provides educational institutions exemptions for teachers, coaches, graduate and undergraduate students, and administrative personnel.

I just want to repeat one thing that I said in my opening. I am really amazed when my Republican colleagues routinely come to the floor and lecture poor people and people who are struggling in poverty. They regularly come to the floor and demonize people in this country who are on benefits, like SNAP--putting food on the table. You always hear, ``You ought to work.'' ``You ought to work harder.'' Of the people on SNAP, for example, who are able to work, the majority of them work, but work doesn't pay enough to get them out of poverty. All that is being suggested by this rule from the Department of Labor is that people ought to get paid what they deserve. They ought to be able to earn enough to be able to have a decent life and to get out of poverty.
I know what my friends are trying to do. They are saying it is only a 6-month delay. They are hoping that their candidate for President--God forbid--would win the Presidency and would, basically, null and void any modernization of the overtime rules. We ought to be concerned more about people in this country who are working hard and who are not able to make ends meet. I think my colleagues ought to know there are exemptions in this rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just make a comment for the benefit of my colleagues before I yield to the next speaker, and that is about this rule.

This is a closed rule. Again, this is another pattern that my Republican friends seem to have developed since they have taken over the House; and that is, basically shutting down debate and shutting down the opportunity for Members to have an opportunity to express themselves.

This bill was noticed in the Rules Committee, I think on Monday, and we did the rule yesterday. Members didn't even know this was coming up.

So to bring a bill like this to the floor under a closed process I think is unfortunate. It denies Members on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to offer different points of view and to have a vigorous debate.

Many of us believe that this Congress ought to do more to help strengthen opportunities and benefits for those in the middle class. We believe that more people ought to have the opportunity to get into the middle class. That is why we are fighting for a livable wage, yet we can't even bring that to the floor. The only things that seem to get to the floor are tax breaks for big businesses or repeals of the Affordable Care Act or bills like this that would basically take the pay that has been earned by workers away from them.

Again, I think this kind of illustrates where the priorities of this Republican Congress really are. I mean, they are not with working people. They are with those who are privileged and those at the very top. And my hope is that maybe after this election, we can get some changes made where we can get back to doing the people's business, not just the rich people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Graham).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question; and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would allow those with outstanding student debt to refinance their existing high interest rate loans to lower interest rates. Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives us an opportunity to provide immediate relief to those struggling with student loan debt.
You know, when interest rates go down, people can refinance their home mortgages. Why can't we extend that same ability to people with high student loan rates?

Everybody says that we want to make sure that everybody who wants a college education ought to be able to get one, yet we make it very difficult for people to be able to afford one. The debt that is accumulated--and especially the interest on that debt that is accumulated--is very, very difficult for people to absorb when they get out of school.

So that is why Democrats have been asking time and time again for us to address issues like that, college affordability. How do we ease the burden on our young people who are trying to get a college education? So rather than bringing up legislation that basically will not increase the overtime salary threshold, thereby denying people who are working the ability to have a little bit of extra cash in their pockets when they work overtime--that is what this is all about, and we are actually punishing working people--maybe we ought to do something to actually help working families.

If you vote ``no'' on the previous question, we will be able to have a debate and a vote on this. I hope that not just Democrats, but Republicans as well will see that it is important for us to address this issue of college affordability. I, again, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source