Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 274. It provides for the consideration under closed rules for S.J. Res. 7, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and for the consideration of H. Res. 271, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of Committee on Energy and Commerce. It also provides suspension authority for Thursday, April 4. Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to recognize that today marks the 230th anniversary of the Rules Committee being formally constituted for the first time. Now, the Ways and Means Committee--which my Massachusetts friend and colleague, Richie Neal, chairs--likes to point out that they are the oldest standing committee in the House. While that is true, I would like to remind my friends that the Rules Committee is the oldest committee in the House, being first created on this day in 1789 as a select committee. So it is especially appropriate that we are on the floor today to do some important work before us. For the record, Madam Speaker, the Ways and Means Committee can celebrate their 230th anniversary on July 24. Now that I have cleared that up, the first measure included in this rule is S.J. Res. 7, and we are taking action on this because Yemen is in crisis. In a country of roughly 28 million people, an estimated 22 million of them are in need of humanitarian assistance. That is 75 percent of the population facing famine, disease, and displacement. Half the country is at risk of starvation. The famine and disease facing children is particularly sobering. Save the Children estimates that as many as 85,000 children under the age of 5 have died because of hunger and disease since 2015. All told, this is one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, the site of the fastest growing cholera epidemic ever recorded and the biggest food emergency on the planet. Yet, it wasn't caused by some natural disaster. It is entirely man- made, the result of a Saudi-led military conflict. Seemingly every day, bombs fall on weddings, hospitals, buses, and homes, as civilian neighborhoods are regularly targeted. This is not some abstract war happening half a world away. In fact, the United States is intimately involved in this conflict. We have supported the Saudi reign of terror by providing logistics, intelligence, ground support, and midair fueling of bombers. Virtually all the bombs that fall on Yemen say ``Made in the United States of America.'' Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, the United States is involved in a war in Yemen today. But if our constituents look through the Congressional Record, they wouldn't find a vote authorizing it. That is because this body abdicated its responsibility to declare war when it began 4 years ago. Now, we took one of our most sacred responsibilities and handed it to the executive branch. It is not the first time we have done it, but it is becoming a habit around here. We first let the Bush administration decide the contours of our involvement abroad, and that continues through the Trump administration today. If that wasn't outrageous enough, past Republican Congresses used every legislative trick in the book to block Members from even debating our role there. On two separate occasions, they went so far as to strip War Powers Resolutions related to Yemen of their privilege. It was unprecedented. But when it comes to Saudi Arabia, this administration and my Republican friends were all too content to look the other way when they murdered a Washington Post journalist. They lured him into a consulate in Turkey, they murdered him, and then they used a bone saw to dismember him. We know, based on our intelligence reports, that the highest level of the Saudi Government was involved in that terrible human rights atrocity, and the Trump administration did nothing. They rationalized it. They justified it. They basically turned a blind eye. When it comes to human rights, this administration has abdicated its moral authority. That should be of concern to everybody in this Chamber, whether you are Democrat or Republican, because if the United States stands for anything, we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. If the President of the United States and his administration don't want to do it, then we should. No Congress should be complicit in abdicating our Article I constitutional responsibility. Thankfully, this Democratic Congress is doing the opposite. We are reasserting our power, and we are taking a stand when it comes to human rights. Thanks especially to the dedication of Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Engel, Congressman Ro Khanna, Congresswoman Jayapal, Congressman Pocan, and the entire Congressional Progressive Caucus, we are considering a bipartisan measure that makes clear it is time for the United States' involvement in Yemen to end. No more excuses. This is virtually identical to the resolution we passed in February. The difference this time is that this is the first opportunity that this House has had to send something on the war in Yemen right to the President's desk. So I urge all of my colleagues: seize this opportunity. We have a constitutional responsibility and we have a moral obligation to get this done. Don't let any legislative maneuvers deter us from ending our Nation's complicity in this humanitarian catastrophe. Let's pass this resolution free of changes that would prevent it from going right to the President. Let me make that more clear: if we change a single word, we will derail this resolution. Now, the second measure included in this rule is H. Res. 271, in response to a war of a different kind: the Republican war on healthcare. The Trump Justice Department recently moved in Federal Court not only to strike down preexisting condition coverage under the Affordable Care Act, but to overturn this law completely. If the President succeeds in Texas v. U.S., the protections for preexisting conditions will be gone. The Medicaid expansion will be nullified. Insurance premiums will skyrocket. I could go on and on and on and on. Striking down the Affordable Care Act would be a tragedy felt by every single American. We would return to the days when our health insurance marketplace was like the Wild West, when insurers were free to decline or limit coverage because someone had acne, or received an organ transplant, or even because they were a victim of domestic violence. That is how messed up our system was, and that is the system that this President and many of my colleagues want to return to. Now, for the life of me, I cannot understand what President Trump and his allies in Congress have against Americans getting healthcare. For nearly a decade now, they have worked endlessly to sabotage the Affordable Care Act through Congress, the courts, and administrative actions. Apparently, they are not happy that 20 million people have gained healthcare coverage because of this law, or that 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions can get care. We should be celebrating these advancements. But, instead, some on the other side won't be satisfied until the Affordable Care Act is repealed completely. Now, this Democratic majority has taken a different course. On the very first day of this Congress, we brought the full weight of the House of Representatives to bear in this lawsuit. As a result, the House Counsel has already intervened in this case to protect the healthcare Americans depend on. Now, this resolution is our chance to speak with one voice against the administration's attempts to abolish the ACA. I have seen my friends on the other side issue sternly worded press releases and strongly worded letters to the administration. But now it is time to back up words with votes, and then I hope they will work with us moving forward as this majority takes action to reverse the administration's healthcare sabotage and strengthen healthcare for every single American. Madam Speaker, I believe that healthcare ought to be a fundamental right for every single person in this country. It is unconscionable to me that rather than working with us to strengthen the Affordable Care Act and rather than working with us to expand healthcare protections, my Republican friends have chosen instead to wipe it out. I don't know how anybody could think like that. I don't know what motivates the President of the United States and some on the other side of the aisle to move in that direction. Now we are told by the President that even though he doesn't have a plan to replace this, if he succeeds in nulling and voiding the Affordable Care Act, he said: Well, we will provide you one in the year 2021. So, Madam Speaker, the man who has spent all of his time trying to rip protections away from people with preexisting conditions, the person who wants to not allow you to keep your kids on their insurance until they are 26, the leader of our country who doesn't believe in capping insurance when it comes to people with lifetime illnesses, the person who doesn't want to lower the cost of prescription drugs--I could go on and on and on and on--says: I want to repeal it, I want it gone, I want the courts to null and void it; and then just trust me, and then we will come up with some magical plan, some secret plan, after the election. I don't think the American people are going to fall for that kind of nonsense, and they shouldn't because healthcare is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is a moral issue. It is not even an issue, it is a value that all of us should share. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support us in sending a message loud and clear to the administration that we have had enough of their attempts to sabotage the healthcare bill, we have had enough of their trying to take health insurance away from the American people, and that we are going to stand here and make it very clear that we do believe that everybody is entitled to good healthcare in this country. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have to give the Republicans credit for one thing. They are consistent on the issue of healthcare, in trying to avoid talking about the issue at hand. We are not talking about universal healthcare, although I support universal healthcare. We are not talking about Medicare for All, although I personally support Medicare for All. We are not talking about the Canadian system or the German system or any other system. We are talking about preventing this President and his Republican allies from null and voiding the Affordable Care Act, thereby taking away healthcare protections for every single American. We are talking about preventing the President from throwing tens of millions of people off health insurance. We are talking about protecting the over 100 million people in this country who have preexisting conditions. That is what we are talking about. I loved it when the gentleman from Texas said that the first vote that the Republicans asked for in this Congress was a procedural motion to protect people with preexisting conditions. Does the gentleman not know that people with preexisting conditions already have protections under the Affordable Care Act? I mean, it sounds to me--and it seemed to me at the time--that that Republican procedural vote was about covering your rear and not about serious legislating, about trying to get the American people to believe that we really do care about healthcare and we really do care about protecting people with preexisting conditions, even though we all know here that that is just not the case. When I hear the gentleman say that the Republicans care deeply about people's healthcare and want to make sure that everybody gets coverage, it is just not true. The reason I say that so emphatically is because I have been around here for the last few years, and I have watched the dozens of votes that the Republicans have brought up, one after another after another after another after another, to repeal healthcare protections for people in this country without proposing an alternative. Now, the President is saying: Trust us. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Politico article that just appeared that is entitled ``Trump punts health care until after 2020.'' [From POLITICO, April 1, 2019] Trump Punts Health Care Until After 2020 (By Quint Forgey and John Bresnahan) just last week the president had seemed to go all in on a new effort to wipe out obamacare President Donald Trump signaled Monday that congressional Republicans would wait until after the 2020 elections to vote on a GOP replacement for Obamacare--putting off a presumably savage legislative battle on a hot-button campaign issue until after his re-election bid. ``Everybody agrees that ObamaCare doesn't work. Premiums & deductibles are far too high--Really bad HealthCare! Even the Dems want to replace it, but with Medicare for all, which would cause 180 million Americans to lose their beloved private health insurance,'' the president tweeted. ``The Republicans . . . are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles than ObamaCare,'' Trump continued. ``In other words it will be far less expensive & much more usable than ObamaCare. Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate & win . . . back the House.'' Trump claimed that the as-yet-unseen Republican proposal ``will be truly great HealthCare that will work for America,'' writing online that ``Republicans will always support Pre-Existing Conditions.'' The unexpected string of tweets added drama to a week that has seen Obamacare return to the fore as a policy issue. The president's pledge comes days after his Justice Department endorsed a federal court ruling to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, moving to invalidate the landmark health care law despite objections within Trump's orbit from Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Attorney General William Barr. The ruling by District Judge Reed O'Connor had suggested that the Obamacare statute, which has passed muster with the Supreme Court, was actually wholly unconstitutional. The president appeared on Capitol Hill the next day, saying that the Republican Party ``will soon be known as the party of health care.'' Trump's call to again put Obamacare repeal on the table for Hill Republicans was seen as a potential disaster-in-the making by GOP leaders, who knew their incumbents and candidates were badly hurt by it last November. And it was an invitation to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to pound home the issue once more, as she plans to do with a House vote this week condemning the administration's decision not to defend Obamacare in court. Trump's efforts to eradicate Obamacare have also endangered some of the administration's health initiatives, such as lowering prices for prescription drugs and combating opioid abuse and HIV. In public and private, Republican leaders made clear that they didn't want anything to do with the president's most recent maneuver. They begged Trump to back down and made their displeasure known to other administration officials, as well. GOP lawmakers even took the position that if Trump wanted to lay out his own health care proposal, then they would be willing to look at it. But Senate Republicans--facing a tough electoral fight to maintain their majority in 2020--have refused to sign on to a new administration drive before seeing the specifics, giving them room to disavow any Trump proposal if it hinders their own political outlook. ``I look forward to seeing what the president is proposing and what he can work out with the speaker,'' Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a brief interview Thursday, adding: ``I am focusing on stopping the Democrats' `Medicare for None' scheme.'' McConnell is up for re-election this cycle, as are vulnerable GOP incumbents including Cory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Maine, who said she doesn't want the Justice Department to push to strike down Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act has been a thorn in the side of Republicans since it was enacted in 2010. After the GOP took back the House in the midterm elections that year, GOP lawmakers repeatedly passed legislation designed to repeal Obamacare. Once Trump was elected president on a promise of different and better health care options, Republicans seemed on the path to finally scrapping the law, only to see a 2017 ``skinny repeal'' effort fail unexpectedly in the Senate. That attempt collapsed when Arizona Sen. John McCain--upset with the irregular way the legislation was being handled-- stunned his colleagues by voting against it.

Mr. McGOVERN. The President says: Repeal everything, and then we will share our secret plan after the election. Give me a break. The bottom line is that the American people want us to be on their side, not on the side of big health insurance corporations, not on the side of big drug companies. They want us to be on their side. It wasn't too long ago when people would be provided insurance that didn't cover anything. It was junk insurance. There are people on the Republican side and people in this White House who are eager to get back to those bad old days. Stop trying to take away people's healthcare. Stop trying to get in bed with corporate interests that basically are fighting every attempt to make sure that people have access to good, quality care in this country. By the way, if they repealed the Affordable Care Act, that repeals essential benefits protections, which guarantee that every insurance company has to provide you coverage when you get sick. That wasn't always the case. This is a ridiculous fight that we are having here. I cannot believe, after the midterm elections, after it was made crystal clear by the American people to the Republicans that they wanted no part of their effort to take away healthcare in this country, that here we are doing it all again. Now, maybe they didn't intend it this way. The President wasn't on message and came out for repealing the Affordable Care Act outright, and now they have to kind of scramble to try to, again, cover their rears. That is what is happening here. It is really disillusioning, I think, for people who are observing these proceedings that we are back again fighting over whether or not people are entitled to good healthcare, whether people are entitled to protections under our healthcare laws. I think this is a ridiculous fight for the Republicans to be waging. But if they want to fight it, they own it. I think they will see, in 2020, that the American people are having none of it. Madam Speaker, on the war in Yemen, we cannot wait. The starving children in Yemen cannot wait on this President or on my Republican colleagues to do the right thing. Just to highlight how bad the war is, here are a few statistics. I noticed the gentleman from Texas barely talked about how horrific the situation is in Yemen, but let me give you a few statistics. Madam Speaker, 130 children under 5 die each day from hunger and disease as a result of this war. The number of cholera cases in Yemen is 1 million. You heard that right. This is the largest cholera outbreak in recent history. Finally, 3-year-olds in Yemen have lived through 18,000 air raids already. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the bombs that are dropping on civilian populations say ``Made in the United States of America.'' All of us should be outraged by that, and not only by the Saudi Government's behavior in Yemen, but the Saudi Government's behavior in general. Yet, what is the response by this administration and their Republican allies? Send Saudi Arabia more weapons. Sell them more weapons. Turn a blind eye to what is going on in Yemen. Let's make believe that the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi never happened. Again, we need to stand firmly on the side of human rights. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say you have got to love the Republicans. I mean, they have been in charge of this House for 8 years previously. They were in charge of the entire government the previous 2 years. They had the House, the Senate, and the White House. They didn't even need a supermajority in the United States Senate to be able to get whatever they wanted through, and they couldn't do it. So the bottom line is this: You had your chance. The American people rejected your attempt to take away healthcare from millions of people. The American people believe people with preexisting conditions ought not to be discriminated against by insurance companies, and so they are having none of what you are selling here. So you can make excuses all you want, but, unfortunately for the country, you were in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House for the previous 2 years. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), who has been a leader on the issue of Yemen, and I commend him for his efforts.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas, the former chair of the Ways and Means Committee. But I just want to remind my colleagues again that my Republican friends have been in charge of this institution for 8 years. They were in charge for 2 years of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and they showed us what they were about. The gentleman says that they are not going to let the courts take away protections for people with preexisting conditions. Well, my Republican friends tried to do that on dozens of occasions. They brought legislation to the floor that would have ripped protections away from people with preexisting conditions. That is their record. It is there for anybody to see. Now they are saying: ``Oh, we are now for protecting people with preexisting conditions''? Their whole existence in the majority has been about taking protections away from people. Give me a break. I mean, people know what is going on here. I appreciate the resolution that the gentleman wants to offer to say we all should work together. Look, I am happy to work with my Republican friends to find ways to improve protections for people. But I want to remind them, when they were in the majority, they didn't want anything to do with us because we wanted to protect people's healthcare. We wanted to protect people with preexisting conditions. We wanted to make sure that parents could keep their kids on their insurance until they were 26. We wanted to lower the cost of prescription drugs. We wanted to put a cap on people with chronic illnesses so that they wouldn't go bankrupt. We wanted to make sure that insurance companies had to offer you real protections. We had essential benefit protections there. So we are happy to build on that. What we are not happy to do is to work with them to take these things away, and that is what their leadership has been all about for 8 years in the House. And then when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, that is what they tried to do. Thankfully, some thoughtful Republicans in the Senate didn't go along with it, so they didn't get their way. And now they are trying to use the courts to try to undermine what this body has done. Madam Speaker, let me inquire of the gentleman from Texas how many more speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Okay. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. We were expecting one more speaker, but she didn't show up. If the gentleman is ready to close, I am ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I just find it a little bit interesting that for the last couple of days, my Republican friends have been assailing us for introducing a sense of Congress resolution, and here we have a sense of Congress resolution from them. I guess you can't make this stuff up. But in any event, look, I will say to my colleagues, you don't need to defeat the previous question to make clear that you believe that people with preexisting conditions should be protected, because this sense of Congress wouldn't do that. We have a law that does that now, a law that, unfortunately, my Republican friends have been trying to repeal for years. So if Members want to protect people with preexisting conditions, then they ought to support us on our sense of Congress resolution. So, Madam Speaker, when it comes down to it, both of these resolutions that we are offering today are about what this Congress is willing to tolerate, whether we are willing to tolerate our Nation's involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, despite never having authorized it in the first place. Do we really want our Nation to be partners with a regime that murders journalists like Jamal Khashoggi? President Trump has said of Saudi Arabia: ``They have been a great ally.'' Well, I disagree. And I hope that this Congress will now speak with one voice that we will not look the other way when it comes to the murder of a U.S. reporter, that we will not look the other way when it comes to the murder of innocent people in Yemen, bombing school buses, bombing weddings, bombing funerals. Enough. We have to say enough. We are no longer okay with the U.S. and Yemen going on unchecked for another year. This is about whether this Congress is going to tolerate the administration trying to rip away millions of people's healthcare as well. I know I am not--and many of my colleagues aren't either--willing to tolerate that. This morning, I joined with many Members of Congress in the House and Senate, including Leader Pelosi and Senator Schumer. We marched from the House and the Senate to the Supreme Court to call on this administration to stop its assault on Americans' healthcare. Abolishing the Affordable Care Act may be just a talking point to the President, but this law is literally a matter of life and death for people. Millions and millions of Americans could lose their insurance coverage. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs could skyrocket, and lifesaving healthcare could once again be out of reach. The President and his allies claim to support protections for preexisting conditions, they claim that the Republican Party is the party of healthcare, but their actions say otherwise. When this House voted on the first day of this Congress to allow us to intervene in Texas v. U.S., more than 190 Republicans sided with the President on his brutal assault on Americans' healthcare. The majority is not going to stand for it. Enough is enough. Enough with the unauthorized wars abroad, enough with the assault on people's healthcare. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, this rule, and the underlying resolutions.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it is fitting that we are honoring Congresswoman Slaughter during Women's History Month because her legacy is planted firmly in the history books. She wasn't the daughter of wealth or privilege, but she traveled from the coalfields of Kentucky to become the first woman ever to chair the House Rules Committee. Louise's 30 years of service here embodied what it means to be a public servant: writing the STOCK Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, shepherding through the Affordable Care Act. I could go on and on. There was no special interest too influential for her to take on, no politician too powerful. Many of us saw her determination firsthand, whether we were with her on an issue or especially if we were on the opposite side. We are all better for it. This Chamber and this country are better for it. I am proud to have worked alongside her. I am glad that she will be joining so many pioneering women in the National Women's Hall of Fame this year. Madam Speaker, and on behalf of all the Members of this Chamber and on behalf of her staff, especially in the Rules Committee, let me just say we loved her, and we miss her a lot.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in September 2017, Puerto Rico was hit by two major hurricanes, Irma and Maria, both of which caused catastrophic damage, displaced thousands of families, and killed almost 3,000 American citizens. Adding insult to injury, the Trump administration organized an embarrassingly slow and ineffective response during Puerto Rico's time of need. Last July, FEMA released a report acknowledging many of their shortcomings in responding to Hurricane Maria. And I am sure we all remember images of the President tastelessly throwing paper towels at families during his relief visit, as if he were shooting free throws at a basketball game. It has been a year and a half since Hurricane Maria, and Puerto Rico has made incredible strides to rebuild, but many, many families are still struggling. These are American citizens who pay taxes and who work hard, just like mainland Americans, but for some reason, the Trump administration is having a hard time empathizing. When I think of all the ways the Trump administration has attacked low-income and working families, I can't say I am surprised. Last week, The Washington Post reported that Puerto Rico was forced to start cutting its Nutrition Assistance Program, NAP, benefits. Puerto Rico's food assistance program is funded by a capped block grant separate from SNAP. While other Federal nutrition programs like WIC and school meals operate in Puerto Rico the same as in other States and territories, Puerto Rico remains disadvantaged because their Nutrition Assistance Program funds are static. In order to receive nutrition assistance in Puerto Rico, you have to have a lower income--to receive less assistance--than someone who lives on the mainland. It also limits the program's flexibility to respond to changes in demand. When the hurricane struck, additional funds had to be given to NAP to accommodate more participants. These forced cuts will reduce Puerto Rico's food assistance benefits by 25 percent for 1.3 million people. That is 43 percent of Puerto Rico's population. While it is true that this cut will restore the overall benefit amount to where it was before the hurricane, we must remember that these participants often need more assistance, given the circumstances. It is not easy to rebuild your entire life on an empty stomach. Mr. Speaker, on more than one occasion, House Democrats have asked for an additional $600 million to help Puerto Rico through this rough patch, only to be shut down by the President and his misplaced, ill- informed prejudices toward Puerto Rico. Even Leader McConnell seems to be helping the President do his dirty work by refusing to take up the supplemental appropriations bill that we sent to the Senate during the shutdown in January, probably because it would force them to address relief funds for Puerto Rico. Pulling out the rug from beneath Puerto Rico does not solve the problem; it creates a bigger one. This won't disappear. That is why I urge my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to appropriate an additional $600 million for Puerto Rico's Nutrition Assistance Program. I also urge my colleagues in the House to support these funds and speak out on this issue. The least we can do is empathize with our fellow Americans who are recovering from a natural disaster. It doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't take months. It takes years to recover from the devastation that Hurricane Maria caused, and Puerto Rico has continued to fight and advocate for disaster funds, unlike States on the mainland. Time is running out, and we can't allow these cuts to continue. This is a moral question for all of us here in this Chamber. This is about how are we going to treat our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico. It is all on us to act. It is all on us to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to advocate for the Federal nutrition programs that help our most vulnerable constituents and to highlight why these programs continue to need our unwavering protection and attention. March 4 marked the beginning of National School Breakfast Week, which is designed to show parents, students, and school officials the benefits of fueling up for the day with a healthy school breakfast. I am sure it comes as no surprise to many of you that learning improves when students are not hungry. It is awfully hard to concentrate when you don't have any fuel in your body. Last week, I met with several anti-hunger organizations from my district, and they shared with me stories from the people they serve on how nutrition programs, food pantries, and school breakfast and lunch programs impact their lives. Many of them wrote their thoughts on paper plates, and I would like to read a few of them to you. Jay Keller from Jeremiah's Inn in Worcester said: ``These food centers make a huge difference when it comes to preparing meals. Without them, I would not be able to make ends meet. Please keep them going. Many people may go hungry if they do not continue.'' A parent from Catholic Charities in Worcester said: ``SNAP and school lunches help my daughter and I eat. It helps us get by, and I work part-time. Very grateful for these programs.'' Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, school breakfasts and lunches are the only opportunities a child has to receive a full meal. For example, a student from Memorial Elementary School in Winchendon said: ``School lunch is important because it keeps me full until I go home.'' Another student from Pernet Family Health Services in Worcester wrote: ``If I don't eat, my head hurts.'' While many nutrition program participants are children and persons with disabilities, their reach extends to veterans. A veteran from St. Anthony's Parish in Worcester wrote: ``My food bank provides myself and fellow veterans with love and nutrients. Without you guys, it would be a long month. Thanks to our nuns who help us always.'' When a family is worried about whether they can afford basic necessities, nutrition programs and the food security they provide goes a long way. In 2018, a monthly average of 40.3 million people participated in the SNAP program. Despite the fact that this number has been steadily decreasing, the Trump administration has unveiled several baseless attacks on these nutrition programs. On December 20, 2018, the Trump administration proposed a rule that will threaten the eligibility of SNAP participants who are considered able-bodied adults without dependents. In an effort to, ironically, ``restore self-sufficiency through the dignity of work,'' their rule stigmatizes SNAP participants and limits a State's ability to waive 20- hour work requirements. The able-bodied adult without dependents population is a complex group. Many of them are veterans returning from overseas and having a difficult time reintegrating into our community. Many of them are young adults who have aged out of the foster care system. Some are ex-felons who are products of mass incarceration. Some are workers who are not given 20 hours of work per week. Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of SNAP participants do work, but often in jobs that are either unstable or don't pay enough to put food on the table. It is not that the able-bodied adult without dependents population is jobless by choice. Many are jobless because they lack privilege and are trying to get on their feet. This proposed rule also specifically goes against the will of Congress by imposing restrictions that were specifically rejected for inclusion in the farm bill signed into law just last year. As if that weren't enough, the Trump administration also announced its intention to propose changes to categorical eligibility. Categorical eligibility, or Cat-el, is criteria used to determine whether a family is automatically eligible for SNAP because they already qualify for certain other low-income programs. Cat-el is fine as it is because it eliminates redundancy and minimizes hurdles that low-income families must overcome just to keep up with their basic needs. While the administration changes are forthcoming, I don't have much optimism about how they will turn out. The current administration is trying to solve problems that don't exist, and they are creating problems that have clear solutions. That is why we must continue to raise these issues to the forefront of our agenda. There is no excuse. We have the resources. It is on all of us to prioritize basic hunger needs. Supporting school breakfast and lunch programs, and maintaining reasonable eligibility for nutrition assistance programs, are the least we can do to end hunger now. We live in the richest country in the history of the world, and we have millions and millions of people who are hungry. We should all be ashamed of that. Hunger and food insecurity are political conditions. We can solve these problems if we have the political will. I urge my colleagues to gather that political will.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, I stood on this floor and urged action to fix our broken campaign finance system. I spoke then about how newspapers were filled with daily stories detailing how unregulated campaign contributions were corrupting our political system and threatening the very essence of our democracy. That was my first year serving in this institution. I am sorry to say that this problem hasn't only persisted, it has gotten worse than many of us could have ever imagined. Who could have thought that the Supreme Court would issue a disaster ruling like Citizens United? that some would try to have us believe that corporations are people? that we would have a President in the White House who has taken the Republican culture of corruption to a whole new level? Now, I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. The news that once made the front page of the newspaper is now in front of us on our smartphones nonstop. We see over and over again how big money has infected our political process and prevented action on things that the American people care most about, how new roadblocks are being put in place to prevent some eligible Americans from casting their ballots, and how some have used their office to side with special interests over the public interest. This legislation is about finally fixing our broken democracy, including modernizing and securing our election system. We care so much about this that the For the People Act is literally our top priority. That is why it is H.R. 1. Now, my Republican friends are talking about process like it is something to be ashamed of. Are they kidding? I mean, these are crocodile tears. When they were in charge at the last Congress, their priority, their H.R. 1, was a tax cut for the superrich. Ours is literally a bill for the people. And their H.R. 1, by the way, as you can see from this chart, had zero hearings. None. Our H.R. 1 had five. Our H.R. 1 had 15 hours of hearings. Do you know how many hours of hearings their H.R. 1 had? Zero, a big fat zero. No hearings at all. We had expert witnesses come to testify and give their input, pro and con. They had none when they did H.R. 1. Our bill, as we have a structured rule, we have made over 70 amendments in order. When they had their H.R. 1 bill to help the superrich, do you know how many amendments they made in order? Zero. None. A big fat closed rule. The cost of our legislation to kind of cleanup our democracy is zero. Do you know how much theirs was? At least $1.5 trillion. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is how the legislative process is supposed to work. And imagine what we could achieve once we get special interests out of the way, whether it is lowering the cost of prescription drugs or strengthening our healthcare system or passing sensible gun safety legislation or protecting the Dreamers. This is about ensuring that our elections actually reflect the Constitution my friends on the other side of the aisle so often talk about. The Preamble does not begin with ``We, the corporations'' or ``We, the special interests.'' It says, ``We, the People.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with the majority in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation so we can finally put our government back in the hands of the people.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am confused when I listen to the gentleman from Illinois when he complains about process. He complains that we have over 70 amendments in order, as if that were a bad thing. We think that is a good thing. And when they did their H.R. 1, which was a big, fat giveaway to big corporate special interests in this country, they had no amendments. They had no hearings in any committees. The House Administration Committee happens to be the main committee of jurisdiction, and they did a hearing and a markup. So did the other committees. They all did hearings. I don't understand what the problem is. The problem is, you don't like this bill because it undercuts your stranglehold on the political system where all of the big money, corporate special interests can basically get their way with the Republican majority. Enough. People, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, have had enough of this corrupt political system that my Republican friends have embraced. We are sick of it. They are sick of it. We are going to change it and it begins here today with passing H.R. 1. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle: stand with us, clean up our political system and support H.R. 1.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership on this important issue. Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are opposing this legislation that people are watching this debate, and I know many are scratching their heads wondering what is going on, because what we are trying to do here is close loopholes that allow violent criminals to get access to guns, not create more loopholes. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I spoke at a town hall sponsored by students at Bancroft High School in Worcester, Massachusetts. Those young people demanded action on gun violence, not unlike other young people all across my district and all across this country. They are terrified, and they are tired of seeing one massacre after another after another after another. They are sickened by the unacceptable high rate of gun violence in this country. We have an obligation to be on their side, not on the side of the gun lobby. In fact, most gun owners agree with what we are doing here today. Ninety-seven percent of gun-owning households support universal background checks. You don't see support like that on very many things, but on this issue, the public is speaking loud and clear. The question is whether Congress is going to listen. My office has been flooded with calls on this year after year after year, and I have heard from loved ones of victims killed and from those injured. I know many of my colleagues can say the same thing. It is heartbreaking. Each of us is in a unique position. We can do more than just listen. We can act. We can actually vote to help save lives. Sadly, past majorities have turned a deaf ear. In fact, it has been nearly a decade since the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a major bill to combat gun violence. When they were in charge, my Republican friends on the other side instead held a hearing on a bill that would have actually brought more guns from out of State into local communities. Their indifference on this issue of gun violence, their silence, has been stunning. But this majority is not satisfied with inaction. We will not be cowed by the gun lobby. We are moving legislation, in the case of H.R. 8, that has been in the works for more than 20 years. The time for inaction is over. Listen to the young people in your districts. They are not content with a future where gun violence is the norm. They want and they deserve better. Last night in the Rules Committee, my Republican friends tried to pass exception after exception after exception.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, they tried to pass exception after exception to this universal background check bill, essentially trying to gut the bill. Well, this is a modest reform in the right direction. We are trying to save lives. We are tired of massacres. We are tired of comforting parents whose loved ones were killed in gun violence. We are tired of inaction. We are tired of the gun lobby dictating what Congress does and doesn't pass. This majority is going to be run by the people of this country, and the majority of the people of this country overwhelmingly support these bills. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this rule and vote for the underlying legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today marks the 8th anniversary of the beginning of the Pearl Uprising in Bahrain. On this day eight years ago, thousands of Bahrainis gathered in peaceful protests to demand greater political freedom, and political and constitutional reform. Their demands were not new--the roots went back to the 1970s. They were not radical: Bahrainis wanted greater popular participation in governance, equal access to socio-economic opportunities and development, action against corruption and an end to the practice of political naturalization. And they were not sectarian--even though Bahrain is a majority Shi'a country ruled by a minority Sunni monarchy. But by the end of March 2011, what started as a moment of hope had been met with massive repression by the Bahraini government and security forces sent by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. As protests grew and spread, at least 35 people died, some 3,000 people were injured, thousands were detained or lost their jobs, and many were brutally tortured, including medical doctors. King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain did take some steps to address the people's demands. His appointment of the 5-member Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry BICI) to examine the government's response to the protests was an important gesture. And the 26 recommendations contained in the BICI report, which the monarch promised to implement, did inspire some new hope that change was possible. Many of us in Congress urged the government to fully implement the BICI recommendations and to cease the repression of human rights defenders and peaceful opposition leaders. But in the years since, hope has been completely dashed. Some initial important reforms have been rolled back, opposition political societies are banned, peaceful human rights defenders and popular opposition leaders are spending their lives in jail, sectarian divisions have hardened, hundreds have been stripped of their citizenship, no independent press remains, the most recent elections were a sham--and to top it all off, the Bahraini government has supported the Saudis in the brutal war in Yemen and the senseless embargo of Qatar. Madam Speaker, some observers turn a blind eye to Bahrain's increasingly authoritarian rule because they accept Bahrain's argument that Iran is to blame for encouraging the Shi'a population to rebel. These days, any mention of Iran is often enough to silence legitimate criticism. But what I see is a Bahraini government whose own policies deepen sectarian divisions and create the conditions for unrest. In spite of their majority status, Bahraini Shiites are less likely to hold jobs in the all-important public sector. They are almost entirely disqualified from serving in the police or military. They live in highly segregated neighborhoods with inferior public services compared to Sunni areas. They are systematically underrepresented in the lower house of parliament. No one should be surprised that this stark political and economic inequality causes grievance. Add to that Bahrain's crushing of political expression and channels of participation, and you have a recipe for fostering extremism. No government that does this can be considered a true United States ally in the war against terrorism. You cannot claim to be fighting extremism when your own policies foster it. On this anniversary, I renew my call to the government of Bahrain to free Nabeel Rajab, Sheikh Ali Salman, Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, Abduljalil Al-Singace, Ahmed Humaidan, Naji Fateel and all other prisoners of conscience jailed for exercising their most fundamental human rights. And I call on the government to end the prohibition on political societies, decriminalize all speech, allow national and international press to operate without state intervention, stop rendering its citizens stateless, strip the National Security Agency of its power to arrest, bring its anti-terrorism legislation into line with international human rights standards, integrate its security forces and end discrimination against the Shi'a population everywhere it exists. Only if these steps are taken will the rights of all the Bahraini people, the country's long-term stability and America's national interests be assured.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 122 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, who is the ranking member of the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 122, providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 37, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It also provides same-day authority for fiscal year 2019 appropriations measures, suspension authority, and authority for the Appropriations chair to insert explanatory language into the Congressional Record, all through February 17. Madam Speaker, the Constitution specifically empowers Congress with the responsibility to declare war; and for more than 4 years, there has been a Saudi-led, U.S.-supported conflict happening in Yemen that is a war by any logical definition. Nearly all of the bombs that have fallen say the same thing: ``Made in the United States of America.'' They fall on weddings. They fall on hospitals and on homes. They fall on funerals, refugee camps, and school buses. It is an aerial bombing campaign that hammers children, families, and civilian neighborhoods every single day. The U.S. military has supported this reign of terror with logistics, intelligence, ground support, midair refueling of bombers, and the sale of bombs and munitions dropped on Yemen. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project estimates that more than 60,000 civilians and combatants have been killed in Yemen over the last 2 years. This total is increasing by more than 2,000 people every single month. Madam Speaker, 85,000 children under the age of 5 have died from hunger and disease; 18 million people there are food insecure; and 75 percent of Yemen's population is in need of humanitarian assistance. The United Nations has said Yemen is suffering from the fastest growing cholera epidemic ever recorded, as well as the world's biggest food emergency. These are not abstract numbers. These are human lives--tens of thousands of children lost. Given all of this, Americans would be forgiven for believing that Congress actually declared our involvement in this war, but we have not. We abdicated our responsibility to the executive branch instead, across multiple Presidents, Democratic and Republican alike. Some may dance around this fact by calling what is happening there a conflict, but let's call it what it is. It is a war. And our involvement in this war is unconstitutional. Despite being one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, others, like the President, don't mention Yemen at all. In his State of the Union Address last week, President Trump, right here in this Chamber, discussed his ineffective wall with Mexico, encouraged Congress to stop upholding our oversight responsibilities over his administration, and highlighted how Americans will once again be sent into space. It was the longest State of the Union Address in nearly 20 years, but the President didn't utter the word ``Yemen''--not once. He couldn't even spare 2 minutes to update this Congress and the American people on our involvement there. Are you kidding me? The President may not want to talk about it, but a free press has been delivering the grisly details day after day, in spite of the roadblocks the Saudis have thrown up to limit media access to Yemen. Perhaps none spoke more vocally than the late Saudi dissident and Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi. He called for an end to this conflict in a column titled: ``Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Must Restore Dignity to His Country--By Ending Yemen's Cruel War.'' That was published in The Washington Post just weeks before his death. Let's be honest. What happened to Jamal Khashoggi was a murder. All evidence makes it clear that it was likely at the behest of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. A recent New York Times article even revealed that American intelligence agencies intercepted a conversation where bin Salman threatened to use a bullet on Mr. Khashoggi if he didn't end his criticism of Saudi Arabia and this conflict. Madam Speaker, is this really the kind of regime Congress wants as our Nation's partner? There was even a report that Saudis and the UAE are transferring American-made weapons to al-Qaida fighters and other rebels. This would expose sensitive national security technology that could endanger the lives of our military. President Trump has said of Saudi Arabia: They have been a great ally. Really? Really? This is a country that is responsible for killing and dismembering a Washington Post reporter. Madam Speaker, if this is what the President considers a friend, then I would hate to see what he considers a foe. Even Republicans are angry with this administration's apparent affinity towards Saudi Arabia. Politico reported: ``Senate Republicans are fuming at President Donald Trump for telling lawmakers that he would disregard a law requiring a report to Congress determining who is responsible for the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.'' No Member of Congress should be okay with a President showing such disregard for the laws that we pass, and we certainly shouldn't look the other way when it comes to the murder of a resident of the United States. I say to all my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you want to send a message that United States foreign policy respects human rights, join with us on this resolution. Prior Republican Congresses have used every legislative trick in the book to prevent this debate. They even took the unprecedented step of stripping war powers resolutions related to our involvement in Yemen of their privileged status--not once but twice. These tactics may have delayed us, but they did not deter us. Speaker Boehner may have been content ceding our constitutional duties to the executive branch. Speaker Ryan may also have been happy to do so. Thankfully, Speaker Pelosi is not. She is empowering this Congress to do its job. I am glad that, under her leadership, this Congress has strengthened its political will and is reasserting our Article I constitutional responsibilities. This is the system our Founders intended, and it is what our constituents expect of all of us. This Congress is not turning a blind eye to U.S. involvement in Yemen. This Congress is not looking away from the civil war the world sees unfolding on its television screens. I want to thank the Congressional Progressive Caucus and, especially, Congressman Khanna for leading this matter. Congressman Khanna has been the conscience of Congress when it comes to our involvement in Yemen. He has pushed us again and again and again to do something as these atrocities mount. We not only have a constitutional responsibility to pass the underlying resolution, we have a moral responsibility. No Congress should be complicit in the bombing of children or the bombing of water treatment plants during a cholera outbreak or the decimation of hospitals during a humanitarian catastrophe or the creation of a blockade that leads thousands of people to die by starvation. Considering this measure in the opening weeks of this Congress represents a clear break from the old ways of doing business, where matters of war and peace were routinely swept under the rug. I am proud that this is a structured rule that makes in order a bipartisan amendment and a minority amendment. The bipartisan amendment is mine, and, among other things, it says that nothing in this resolution may be considered as authorizing the use of military force and nothing may alter the 2001 AUMF because, as important as this measure is, it is also targeted specifically to our involvement only in and affecting the war in Yemen. It is something Republicans and Democrats agree on. Members ranging from conservative Republican Tom Massie to progressive Congresswoman Barbara Lee have signed on as cosponsors. It should not be controversial. Madam Speaker, there is bipartisan agreement that the U.S. involvement in Yemen needs to end, so I urge all my colleagues to seize this opportunity that we have fought for for so long. Vote ``yes'' on this rule and the underlying joint resolution. Let's finally end our Nation's complicity in the greatest humanitarian crisis taking place on our planet today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just so there is no misunderstanding, in this resolution, it is written, Section 3: ``Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to influence or disrupt any military operations and cooperation with Israel.'' I mean, it is written here for everybody to see. Secondly, my good friend talked about the consequences of moving this legislation forward. Let me tell you what the consequences of not moving this resolution forward are. It means that we are totally content to sit back and say nothing and not admit that our government has its fingerprints all over one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. It means that we will be complicit in the continuing destruction and murder in Yemen. If this country stands for anything, if the United States of America stands for anything, we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. For too long, especially under this administration, human rights have become an afterthought. What makes us great is the fact that we do have a high standard when it comes to human rights, that we are there to speak up for those who are being persecuted and those who are being murdered. This is a statement, this is a signal, to the administration and to the Saudi Government that when it comes to human rights, there are people in this Congress--hopefully, a bipartisan group of people in this Congress--who are not going to be silent, who are going to demand that things change. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for his kind words. I have a great deal of respect for him, as I do for the ranking member, Mr. Cole. I am hoping that this week maybe we will have a bipartisan moment where we all stand together and keep the government open and prevent another shutdown. But on this bill in particular, the bill that we are taking up here today is virtually identical to the bill that passed the United States Senate last year with a bipartisan vote. That bill that passed the Senate last year was prevented by the then-Republican majority from even being considered on this House floor on at least two occasions. So I can appreciate the fact the gentleman may not agree with the statement we are trying to make today or the bill that we are putting forward here today, but the process, I think, has been pretty good. It just had a hearing in the committee of jurisdiction. It had a markup. We had a long hearing in the Rules Committee. All the germane amendments were made in order, a bipartisan amendment and a Republican amendment, and we are going to debate it here today under regular order. So the process has been very, very, very good. I think, for many of us, we are bringing this forward in large part because we believe that this institution has been silent for too long. I am not here to defend the Houthi rebels or, certainly, to cover up for any Iranian meddling here, but I will say this: We know that 85,000 children under the age of 5 have died of hunger and disease since 2015. Eighty percent of all children in Yemen require humanitarian assistance, according to UNICEF, the U.N.'s children's agency. We need to do everything in our power to encourage a political solution to this terrible humanitarian crisis. I mean, this is unbelievable. Every person who cares about human rights should be outraged by what is going on. We are having this debate here today to say that enough is enough and to let the Saudi Government hear loud and clear that we will no longer be complicit in this. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, on process, just so everybody understands, we are bringing a bill to the floor today under a structured rule that has a bipartisan amendment and a Republican amendment. What my Republican friends are suggesting is that they want to bring up a bill, and all amendments are blocked, with the exception of one if offered by a Republican, sight unseen. Boy, old habits die hard. This is the way they were in the majority. And thank God they are no longer in the majority, but, wow, what a lousy process this is. Then secondly, I want to say that we are having a debate about Yemen, about one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, where the Saudi Government is bombing weddings and funerals and school buses, where thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of people are on the verge of starvation, where children are dying every day. The previous question has nothing to do with Yemen. I mean, it is as if this entire horrific catastrophe that is now unfolding in Yemen doesn't even exist. I mean, how sad. This is an important issue, and we have a responsibility to debate and to vote on this issue, because we have been involved in supplying so much assistance to the Saudi Government, and not even a mention, not even a mention of this. Maybe this doesn't matter to my Republican friends. Maybe they are perfectly fine turning a blind eye to this horrific horror show that is happening in Yemen. But I am going to tell you, I think most people in this country, when they are made aware of what is going on and they are made aware of our involvement, are horrified. This is not what the United States Government is about. So, in any event, it is a little bit disappointing. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), the author of H.J. Res. 37, and I want to thank him for his leadership on this.

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