Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2740, which will ensure that seniors have access to medically-tailored meals, a proven intervention that improves health and drives down costs. Two of the most difficult issues to combat in healthcare are, one, managing chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes; and, two, addressing social determinates of health like hunger and poverty. The statistics are shocking. Eighty percent of older Americans have at least one chronic disease, 77 percent have at least two chronic diseases, and 5 million seniors in our country face hunger. That is where medically-tailored meals come in. These meals are customized to address a person's specific healthcare needs. Think of a heart-healthy meal for a heart disease patient or a low-sugar one for a diabetic. These meals not only help reduce the reliance on costly pharmaceuticals, they can help lower overall healthcare costs, improve health, and alleviate hunger. Take a study done by the Massachusetts Commonwealth Care Alliance, which showed that people receiving medically-tailored home-delivered meals had fewer ER visits and fewer hospital readmissions. That saves the consumer on copays and out-of-pocket costs. It saves the hospital and insurance provider, like Medicare, even more on needless emergency room visits and costly hospital stays. My amendment does a very simple thing: it will ensure that the Administration for Community Living, which oversees senior nutrition programing, funds programs for medically-tailored meal delivery. Mr. Chairman, medically-tailored meals improve health outcomes, they lower costs, and they are just smart policy. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes''. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who has been a leader on this and so many other issues regarding food and nutrition.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from Maine stated, I cochair the Food is Medicine working group, along with Ms. Pingree, who is on it, and my colleague from Kansas, Roger Marshall, and I want to thank them for their work on these issues. I also want to thank Katie Porter, who is also a cosponsor of this amendment. The bottom line is this is common sense. Mr. Chair, I want to also acknowledge the great work being done on this issue at the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School and the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts. Mr. Chair, I want to acknowledge groups like Community Servings, which is in my district, which administers medically-tailored meals, as well as Food & Friends here in Washington, D.C., and the Food is Medicine Coalition. The bottom line is this not only is good for patients and can help improve healthcare outcomes for individuals and in some cases literally save lives, but it also will save a boatload of money. As I mentioned earlier, when you are readmitted to a hospital prematurely, that hospital gets punished, the insurance company has to kick in again, you have to pay more out-of-pocket expenses. Mr. Chair, we can do this better. We need to think differently about how we approach healthcare. This is one way to do it. Mr. Chair, again, I urge everybody to support this amendment. I hope it receives broad bipartisan support. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 431, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 430) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 430.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a dark time. This Congress is being tested--in this case, not by a foreign adversary but by our own President, a President who is undertaking a relentless campaign of obstruction and stonewalling. We have never seen anything like this. Never before, Mr. Speaker, has a President from either party so flagrantly ignored Congress' constitutional oversight authority and our Nation's separation of powers. You don't have to take my word for it. President Trump has declared, ``We are fighting all the subpoenas,'' and, ``I don't want people testifying.'' These words make Richard Nixon look like an Eagle Scout. His Attorney General, William Barr, is apparently more than willing to follow the President's command. He has refused to release the full, unredacted Mueller report and any underlying evidence until a compromise was finally reached yesterday. That is after the Judiciary Committee had already voted to hold him in contempt of Congress. Apparently, the Attorney General went from being America's lawyer to being the defense counsel for the President of the United States. I hope the Justice Department acts in good faith on this new agreement. These are documents that Congress needs to see in response to Special Counsel Mueller's findings. But if they do not, and if the Attorney General holds back key information, then all options need to be on the table, including enforcing these subpoenas. That is in addition to the fact that some documents and testimony we deserve to obtain could very well fall outside the bounds of this agreement. The Mueller report is just the tip of the iceberg. The President is using every trick in the book, including false claims of executive privilege, absolute immunity, and lack of legitimate legislative purpose, all to obstruct legitimate inquiries into matters that impact Americans' daily lives. This includes the President's attack on affordable healthcare coverage for millions of Americans, including those with preexisting conditions; his family separation policy that has torn apart vulnerable immigrant families; his misappropriation of military funds for his offensive border wall; and his decision to roll back landmark civil rights protections. This is exactly the sort of concentrated power in the hands of the few that the Founders intentionally prevented through the creation of the three separate but coequal branches of government, each branch with unique powers and responsibilities and each branch expected to act as a check on the power of the others. But the President is trying to take this balance of power and centralize it in one place, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He is acting as though the law applies to every American but himself. The President's strategy here is clear. Tweet by tweet, quote by quote, he has laid it bare for all of us to see. The question is whether this Congress will have the courage to take a stand against it and whether we will confront it for what it is, an attack on the very notion of Congress as a coequal branch of government. I can't speak for my friends on the other side of the aisle, but this Democratic majority will not allow this President to turn a blind eye to the rule of law. That is why I introduced this measure, H. Res. 430. It is a civil enforcement resolution that will strengthen our hand in court as Congress tries to get the documents this administration is currently trying to hide, so we can uncover the truth and follow the facts, wherever they may lead. The first part of this resolution follows past precedent used by Democratic and Republican majorities, this time to allow the Judiciary Committee to go to court to enforce subpoenas issued to the Attorney General and former White House General Counsel Don McGahn. The second part reaffirms key language in House rules, making clear that every committee chair retains the ability to go to Federal court to seek civil enforcement of their subpoenas when authorized by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. That includes those already issued, as well as any future subpoenas. I know some of my colleagues on the other side will be quick to claim this resolution is unprecedented. To them, I would ask this: What is the precedent for an administration refusing to comply with any congressional oversight--no documents, no information, nothing? There isn't one. We have never seen anything like this before, so we need an appropriate response like this because of this administration's constant obstruction. I am proud that my fellow committee chairs quickly joined in cosponsoring this resolution, including Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Cummings, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Engel, Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Neal, Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, and Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Waters. I urge all of my colleagues to join us. This deserves support from both sides of the aisle. I know the silence from some of my Republican friends to what this President is doing has been deafening, but this moment demands you finally speak up and say enough is enough. This resolution is not about politics or partisanship. It is about defending the rule of law and the very notion of separation of powers. The challenge here is so great that if we don't stand up to President Trump today, then we risk losing the power to stand up to any President in the future. I strongly urge my colleagues: Let's make clear that the law still matters, even in Donald Trump's America. We can do that by voting ``yes'' on this resolution and making clear that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. Let's do right by the American people. Let's restore the dignity of this institution. Let's pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just assure the gentleman from Georgia that there is nothing novel about this legislation. It is not novel because everything in this bill goes to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, and that has been the case in the past. What is novel, however, is a President of the United States who says ``ignore subpoenas'' and ``we will not cooperate'' and tells people not to testify. That is not only novel, it is shocking. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friends on the other side: You are going to have a choice today to either vote for this resolution and stand up for this institution and support the rule of law, or you are going to vote in a way that is going to be complicit with this President's obstruction and disrespect for this institution and disrespect for the rule of law. I urge you to vote with us.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me correct the Record in response to the gentleman of Ohio. The Russians didn't attempt to interfere in our election; they did interfere in our election. And, if my friends read the Mueller report, they would realize they interfered in the election to help Donald Trump get elected. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The distinguished minority leader began by saying that the Mueller report makes it clear that there was no collusion and no obstruction. Maybe that is what you would conclude if you just read Barr's summary which tried to cover up what the Mueller report said, but I would urge the distinguished minority leader to read the report. I am happy to lend him my bifocals if he has trouble reading it. But the report doesn't say that. It doesn't say no collusion. And on the issue of obstruction of justice, it says: If we were convinced that he, the President, did not commit a crime, we would have said so. That is what the report says. And I would remind my colleagues that obstruction of justice is a crime. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side have responded to this legislation with the same old same old. They are circling the wagons around this President and his team. They are deliberately turning a blind eye to the corruption, to the deception, to the illegality that has surrounded this White House. But let me remind them all of why we are here today. We are here because the American people elected each of us to write laws and to ensure those who execute them are accountable. We all took an oath when we were sworn in to uphold and defend the Constitution. That is our job. None of us were sent here to play defense for the President of the United States. There are some things that are more important than politics, and I hope that even in this day and age, there are still some things that are more sacred than partisanship, like the rule of law and the separation of powers. I mean, each of us took the same oath. We now have a choice whether or not to uphold it. The choice should be a simple one: to stand up to President Trump and to defend the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I remember when many of my Republican friends ran for office claiming to be constitutional conservatives. Well, this is their chance to back up their campaign slogan with their vote. We have a President that publicly states: ``We're fighting all the subpoenas.'' And I don't want people to testify. Those are his words. Those are the words of the President, not some mob boss. As we heard from the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee, Chairman Cummings, the White House hasn't turned over a single document, a single piece of paper that his committee has requested to do their oversight work, not one piece of paper. At the core of this resolution is Congress getting the appropriate documents, so we can do the appropriate oversight. That is part of the job. How can anybody be against that? To be against that is to be part of the coverup, is to be complicit with the obstruction that this White House demonstrates each and every day. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that history will judge how we react to this moment. So I urge all of my colleagues, do not let this moment pass us by. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and let's hold the President accountable. Nobody is above the law in the United States of America, not even the President of the United States.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I thank Mr. McCaul for his support of this legislation as well. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 393, remembering the victims of the violent suppression of democracy protests in Tiananmen Square and elsewhere in China on June 3 and 4, 1989. The resolution calls on the Chinese Government to respect the universally recognized human rights of all people living in China and around the world. It is my hope that the U.S. House of Representatives will overwhelmingly support this resolution and send a strong message that the American people stand on the side of those seeking to exercise their fundamental human rights in China. It was 30 years ago, this week, that an estimated 1 million students, workers, and citizens joined the peaceful protests in Tiananmen Square and in over 400 cities throughout China. We remember with sadness and outrage the crackdown that followed as the People's Liberation Army was unleashed on its own people. One of the most inspiring images in history is the lone man standing in the street before the line of tanks on Tiananmen Square. His act of resistance symbolizes the spirit of Tiananmen that lives on in the hearts and minds of those continuing the struggle in China and abroad. In China, the Tiananmen Mothers is a group of relatives and friends of those killed in June 1989. At great risk to themselves, they continue to ask for the right to mourn publicly and call for a full, public, and independent accounting of the victims. The Chinese Government fears their memory, their devotion, and their moral standing. In the years since Tiananmen, the human rights situation in China has worsened. Some have described a slow-motion Tiananmen happening in Xinjiang with the ongoing mass internment and surveillance of ethnic Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims. A better path forward was offered by Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Tiananmen student leader Liu Xiaobo when he coauthored the political reform manifesto Charter 08 that was signed by more than 10,000 people, despite efforts to censor it. Liu Xiaobo spent a total of almost 16 years in prison, and he died in state custody in 2017. Today in China, the Tiananmen Square massacre is erased from history books, and any mention of it is censored. In the last few weeks, the Chinese Government has tightened controls to prevent any mention of Tiananmen and heightened surveillance on the survivors, human rights advocates, and their families. They have detained journalists, scholars, filmmakers, social workers, and labor rights activists. But we all know the spirit of Tiananmen is still alive and well. We know in part because China's leaders demonstrate their fear of it every day with their security cameras, censorship, detention centers, and obsession with preventing the people of China from learning the truth. Imagine the time, energy, and cost of monitoring and tracking the actions of 1.4 billion people. They are scared because the truth of Tiananmen threatens the Chinese Communist Party's legitimacy to govern China. In his famous last statement in court, Liu Xiaobo said: I look forward to the day when my country is a land with freedom of expression, where the speech of every citizen will be treated equally well; where different values, ideas, beliefs, and political views . . . can both compete with each other and peacefully coexist; where both majority and minority views will be equally guaranteed, and where political views that differ from those currently in power will be fully respected and protected; where all political views will spread out under the Sun for people to choose from, where every citizen can state political views without fear, and where no one can under any circumstances suffer political persecution for voicing divergent political views. I hope that I will be the last victim in China's long record of treating words as crimes. No force can block the thirst for freedom that lies within human nature, and some day China, too, will be a nation of laws where human rights are paramount. I look forward to that day, Madam Speaker, and let us pass this resolution with a strong vote. Let us make it clear that we in the United States Congress stand out loud and foursquare for human rights and that we stand with the people of China.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the time. So maybe it is just me. You know, I am still suffering from trauma, having served in the minority under my Republican friends for 8 years where, routinely, we were given a process where we were almost always shut out. In the last Congress, we had a record-breaking 103 closed rules on major bills--completely closed. You can't amend it. And they talk about all the amendments they made in order, but they don't talk about the thousands they did not make in order. Now, look, I don't want them to feel the same way that I did in the minority. I want them to not have to go through the trauma that so many of us went through where we were routinely shut out. And that is why, when we came up with the Rules package, we did things like required that bills had to have hearings in committees of jurisdiction before they came to the Rules Committee, that they had to have markups in the committee of jurisdiction before they came to the Rules Committee. I mean, they routinely brought legislation to the floor where committees of jurisdiction never had a hearing, never had a markup. They mysteriously appeared. They would come to the Rules Committee; they would get a closed rule; and then we were forced to vote up or down on it. So I don't really appreciate being lectured on process. Yes, we need to do better, and, yes, I understand that my Republican friends want more amendments in order, but let's not forget why we are here today. We are here to pass a historic civil rights bill. We are here to pass the Equality Act. When I look at the amendments that were brought to the Rules Committee, amendment after amendment would target trans Americans and carve out ways for discrimination to continue. This is on a bill that is meant to eliminate discrimination. They were trying to enshrine discrimination. They were trying to weaken the Civil Rights Act. And, quite frankly, I think most of us felt: You know what? We are not going to allow that to happen. That is not an appropriate use of the rules of the House, to try to take away the rights of people in this country, to try to allow discrimination to continue. We believe too strongly in the ideals of the Civil Rights Act to risk letting it be transformed into another weapon for division and discrimination. I mean, we listened to groups like the National Urban League, the National Action Network, the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and others that asked us to give this bill a straight up-or-down vote. And let's be clear, Madam Speaker, a good process is about more than just amendments, as I mentioned. This bill had a hearing, and it had a markup. On the healthcare bill that we are going to deal with, it is about lowering the cost of prescription drugs. My friends on the other side of the aisle spent what seemed like an eternity trying to rip away healthcare protections for people, I mean, bringing up one bill after another after another to the floor that never went through regular order, that would literally take away protections from people with preexisting conditions.