Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendment to H.R. Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Authorization Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Water Resources Development Act of and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019

Floor Speech

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

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, this rule is a study in contradictions from my Republican colleagues. They have brought up H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act. This is an incredibly important bill to improve our Nation's ports, locks, dams, and more all across the country. It is a bipartisan bill, and it was the product of a process that shows how Congress is supposed to work.

Hearings were held, and thoughtful testimony was given, including from the head of the Army Corps of Engineers. There was a markup. Input and ideas were heard from Members on both sides. Remarkably, a majority of amendments offered were adopted en bloc by a voice vote without much controversy.

That is important to note, Mr. Speaker, because Republicans these days aren't known for their lack of controversy. Just this week the President of the United States is talking about pardoning himself of possible Federal crimes. His lawyer is floating wild theories about how the President could shoot his former FBI Director without facing prosecution while in office.

So this bipartisan bill and the mostly collaborative process that got us here came as welcome relief--until this bill got to the Rules Committee. That is when Republican leaders ran into a back room somewhere and took out a bipartisan amendment from the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman DeFazio. The amendment would reform the harbor maintenance trust fund to make sure money gets where it needs to go: to actually maintaining our harbors.

They did this without any debate and despite the fact that both the chairman and ranking member of the committee supported it. The gentleman from Georgia says he is on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and he voted against his chairman and ranking member. So much for bipartisanship. The majority threw sand in the gears of what was a good process. They just can't help themselves, and this is par for the course here.

Just look at the other water development bill, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act. This could have been another bipartisan measure. It funds most programs at an adequate level. But the majority reverted back to their usual ways: ignoring Democratic ideas and filling this up with one bipartisan proposal after another. It is like a Christmas tree loaded up with bad ideas.

More than $400 million was cut from 2018 enacted levels for some of our biggest priorities, things like energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Even nuclear nonproliferation programs were cut; and for what, Mr. Speaker? So the majority can reward their allies by skewing resources toward the fossil fuel industry.

There are controversial riders that are completely unnecessary and would do more harm than good. They have no business being in an appropriations bill.

One of the riders would hinder the Army Corps' ability to protect clean water. Another would kill the Waters of the United States rule. There is one rider that would threaten the Endangered Species Act. There is even language tucked inside this bill that would allow firearms to be carried on all Army Corps lands; and this from a majority that refuses to even consider ways to combat gun violence on the House floor. We can't even get a vote on anything related to gun violence on this floor. This is outrageous.

The majority is also using this appropriations process to fund President Trump's stupid, ridiculous, offensive border wall. Mr. Speaker, didn't the President tell us that Mexico was going to foot the bill for this ridiculous wall? It is being funded by shortchanging priorities for the middle class. That includes programs to educate our children, help students afford college, and provide job training to our workers, all for this stupid wall--more red meat for the most narrow parts of the Republican base.

I remember my Republican colleague talking for years about the importance of passing a budget resolution. Maybe that was just something they cared about under the Obama administration or something they do only when they are trying to take healthcare away from people or reward the wealthy with more tax cuts, because here they are under a Republican President with a Republican Congress pushing ahead with an appropriations package without passing a budget. That April 15 deadline came and went a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker, what happened to doing one bill at a time? We used to consider appropriations bills separately, but the majority's rule lumps several together to try to speed up the process and I guess limit debate; and for what? Funding the government is one of our most important responsibilities. Two of these bills would probably pass with broad, bipartisan support, but, apparently, bipartisanship is not a priority for some of the Republican Conference. So they had to cram them together with a partisan bill that is filled with harmful ideological riders.

I would like to think that the majority would want strong, bipartisan votes on appropriations bills. We used to have them in the past. We don't have any bipartisanship now as a direct result of the choices made by this Republican leadership.

Mr. Speaker, why is the majority using a process that makes it harder to pass bipartisan bills? It may please their base, but it is an awful way to legislate. This majority has had 8 years to decide how to run this place. Mr. Speaker, clearly, they haven't figured it out. There is no budget and not even an attempt to get one. Where are all the Republican budget hawks? Where is their countdown clock with ``days since the last budget''? This majority can't even keep the lights on. We have seen two government shutdowns this year alone, and it is only June. My colleague from Georgia again said: Look at all we have done, and it is June.

The other thing they did is they broke their own record of now being the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. They have brought more bills to the floor under a restrictive, closed process than any other Congress in history. Yes, they have accomplished a lot, it is only June, and it is going to get worse.

There is virtually no oversight of the executive branch from this majority. None. Just one example, and this is a beauty: we have an EPA administrator who allegedly got a sweetheart deal on an apartment and spent $43 on a phone booth. You can't make this stuff up. He asked a Federal employee who reported to him to hunt for a used mattress from President Trump's hotel.

None of this seems to bother my Republican colleagues. How is that possible?

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the adults in Congress to stand up, bring sanity back to our government, bring professionalism back to our government, and bring some integrity back to this institution. Make your constituents proud. Make your government great again. You can start here today by voting ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman came here to celebrate. I came here to remind everybody, again, that this is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. I think that is an important fact for people to consider and digest, because process is important. Process equals substance. I am sorry, but that is not something to celebrate.

We have no problem with the WRDA bill. We will support that, no problem. The gang violence bill, I think most of us will support that. Where we have a problem is what the majority did with the appropriations bills. The majority took two appropriations bills where there could be virtual unanimity--certainly bipartisan support--and says: If you want those bills, you have got to swallow a poison pill. You have to also vote as part of that package an Energy and Water bill that is filled with antienvironmental riders.

I get it. I know where the allegiance of the majority party is when it comes to the environment. It is in the pockets of the oil companies, the fossil fuel industry, and now the coal companies. I get it.

But for those who are offended by the antienvironmental record of the Republicans who run this House and certainly by the antienvironmental record of this administration, we don't want any part of that. That is not a bipartisan process. That is not a good process.

By the way, these antienvironmental riders have no business being on an appropriations bill. It is stuff that just was added because the majority could. So we can't celebrate that process.

Yes, we will vote for the WRDA bill, applaud Chairman Shuster and applaud Ranking Member DeFazio and all the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We have no problem with that.

But this rule is designed for a purpose, and that is to limit debate and that is to try to put pressure on people to vote for a package that includes some really horrendous riders on it that do great harm to our environment. That is not the way this place is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, the majority controls the process. This is a process the majority chooses to embrace. It is not fair, and, again, it is now the most closed process in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure in our Nation is in dire need of repair and maintenance. Reports are that Chairman Shuster is hoping to release an infrastructure bill later this summer. This is good news, but given the Republican majority's recent history, the American taxpayers first need to know where our priorities with that bill lie.

The American people have good reason to be worried about whom such an important bill would actually benefit. Just a few months ago the GOP passed a tax bill that skewed nearly all of the benefits to the wealthy and rich corporations leaving working class people behind. We can't allow this same approach to trickle into an infrastructure bill that could skew all the benefits to billionaires and Wall Street banks looking to profit from the privatization of our infrastructure.

We need to send a clear signal that our priority in repairing and upgrading our infrastructure is to not privatize these essential resources to enrich a lucky few; but instead will prioritize creating millions of living-wage jobs without selling off our roads and bridges to private investors. Mr. Speaker, here is the Republicans' chance to prove that they stand with hardworking Americans in fixing our Nation's infrastructure and not with billionaires, Wall Street banks, and foreign investors.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lieu's resolution, H. Con. Res. 63, which outlines priorities for efforts to enact a bold jobs and infrastructure package that benefits all Americans, not just billionaires.

Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Since the beginning of this Congress, we have had more infrastructure weeks than I can count, but we have yet to take up a comprehensive infrastructure bill. America desperately needs that.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that for the next 10 years, we need $4.6 trillion of infrastructure funding just to keep pace. Over $2 trillion of that is not funded.

So, for example, 53 percent of our public schools need funding to make repairs. More than 18 million Americans drink from water systems that fail to meet Federal lead tests. Forty percent of rural America and those on tribal lands lack broadband access.

The President has designated week after week as Infrastructure Week, but this House majority has yet to consider a serious infrastructure proposal. When it comes to infrastructure, the President and this GOP majority has been all talk, no action. America deserves better. We have to fix our roads and highways, water infrastructure, schools, transit systems, and VA facilities. We have to have key principles for this infrastructure.

First, we have to create millions of new jobs through investments in 21st century projects. We also need to emphasize public investment over corporate giveaways and the selling of public goods. We need to embrace 21st century clean energy jobs, including expanding solar and wind power, promoting energy efficiency, and modernizing the energy grid.

We also need to ensure that investments are not paid for at the expense of Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. We need to not weaken or repeal existing environmental laws.

H. Con. Res. 63, which embodies all of these principles, is supported by more than one-third of the House, with 157 cosponsors. We need to bring this proposal up rather than considering partisan appropriations bill that cut funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency and repeal protections that keep our waterways clean without offering a meaningful opportunity for debate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia how many more speakers he has on his side?

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that this is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. This WRDA bill is a bill that is the product of a bipartisan process. I applaud the chairman, Mr. Shuster, and the Ranking Democrat, Mr. DeFazio, on working together, and all the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure coming together to try to come to an accommodation that resulted in this bill.

I regret very much that, despite their good work, in some backroom in the Rules Committee somewhere, the majority decided to rip out a bipartisan provision that the chairman and ranking member had agreed on. Then, making that even worse, the chairman and the ranking member had an amendment to try to at least have a debate on the floor and let the Members decide that issue, but the Rules Committee decided not to make that in order as well. Anyway, I don't want to be too picky. Overall, the WRDA bill is good. It will get a bipartisan vote.

Of the three appropriations bills--this new approach where we bunch everything together so we don't have a lot of time to talk about them-- two of the appropriations bills are fine. There would be, I think, a pretty big bipartisan vote. The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill would pass with a strong bipartisan vote. I think that is a good thing. The Military Construction-VA bill would pass with a strong bipartisan vote. That is a good thing. But my friends are allergic to bipartisanship.

So, what they have to say is: You know what? Yeah, that is bipartisan, that is bipartisan, but we are going to bunch it in with a bill that is extremely partisan, that is filled with these horrific anti-environmental riders in it. If you want the good stuff, you have got to take this awful stuff as well.

We are not going to do that. You are not going to have a bipartisan vote. I think if we were running this House, we would prefer to see a bipartisan vote than simply a partisan vote on everything.

If this is the beginning of an appropriations process that you are going to employ throughout the remaining time, I worry about how this will all end up. My guess is, it will be what it usually is: this massive, gigantic mess at the end where deals are struck behind closed doors and things are put together, and we get a vote on one big, massive bill, take it or leave it. And then we will find out what is in it weeks and months later.

I think that we are at a point where we have to really decide how this House should be run. I would just respectfully say to my Republican friends that this is not the way we should do the appropriations process. In general, this is not the way we should run the House. We ought to be debating appropriations bills one at a time. We ought to be encouraging bipartisanship, not trying to make it impossible. We have to be more accommodating.

It shouldn't be a proud day for the majority to be able to break their own record of being the most closed Congress in the history of the United States. That is not the way this place is supposed to run. I think it has become too convenient for my Republican friends to run it in a way where they just put bills on the floor and say: Take it or leave it, my way or the highway.

I guarantee you, if you are more accommodating, if you are more open, you will have more bipartisan votes. You will have less rancor in this Chamber. Maybe people will actually like Congress better if they see us working together.

So I regret very much that I think my words are falling on deaf ears, but it really is disappointing and I think it is a disservice to the institution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up Mr. Lieu's bill. If that doesn't pass, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This is not the kind of process we want to see move forward on appropriations. I think this is the only opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to be able to express that, by voting ``no'' on the rule.

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