Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment along with Congressman Emmer of Minnesota, and I want to thank him for his continued support on this issue. Our amendment would provide $250,000 to initiate the creation and distribution of the Atomic Veterans Service Medal. Last fall, an amendment to create this medal was dropped from the NDAA conference report. I find that shocking, as this amendment, which I offered along with Mr. Emmer, was approved by the House unanimously by a vote of 424-0. Last month the House once again voted to include the Atomic Veterans Service Medal in the fiscal year 2019 NDAA. I respectfully ask my colleagues that we now provide the necessary funding to honor these veterans and initiate the process to provide them with this service medal. Between 1945 and 1962, about 225,000 members of our Armed Forces participated in hundreds of nuclear weapons tests. Now known as atomic veterans, these GIs were placed in extremely dangerous areas and were consistently exposed to potentially dangerous levels of radiation. They were sworn to secrecy, unable to even talk to their doctors about their past exposure to radiation. Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush recognized the atomic veterans' valiant service and acted to provide specialized care and compensation for their harrowing duty. In 2007, our allies, Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, authorized their versions of this medal to honor their atomic veterans who served with the United States. Regrettably, the Pentagon remains silent on honoring our atomic veterans, arguing that doing so would diminish the service of other military personnel who were tasked with dangerous missions. Well, I find that a pitiful excuse. Tragically, more than 75 percent of atomic veterans have already passed away, never having received this recognition. They served honorably and kept a code of silence that most certainly led to many of them passing away prematurely. Past administrations and Congresses have dealt with the thornier issues of legality and compensation. What remains is recognizing these veterans' duty, honor, and faithful service to our Nation. And time is running out. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the McGovern-Emmer bipartisan amendment on atomic veterans, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today is simply insane. For 8 years, Republican leaders have blocked every attempt to debate bipartisan immigration bills. They blocked Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform. They blocked the bipartisan Dream Act, which has 203 cosponsors. Speaker Ryan has refused to consider the Dream Act, all while shedding crocodile tears over the 700,000 Dreamers for whom America is the only home they know. Instead, he has held the Dreamers hostage, used them as bargaining chips, used them as leverage to waste tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on a senseless wall and to militarize our southern border. Now, as our Nation is haunted by imagines of children being ripped from their parents' arms and by the sounds of their cries, Speaker Ryan decides this is the time to bring two of the most hateful, bigoted, anti-immigrant pieces of legislation I have ever seen to the House floor for debate under a closed process--no amendments, no committee hearings. This is a scandal, Mr. Speaker. Republicans should hide their faces in shame. It didn't have to be this way. If the bipartisan queen-of-the-hill discharge petition was allowed to move forward, we could be having a real debate on immigration. We could take up these two hyperpartisan anti-immigrant bills, and we could also consider two bipartisan bills to protect the Dreamers, namely, the Dream Act and the USA Act. The petition was nearing 218 signatures, but Republicans couldn't stand considering anything they disagree with. They couldn't even stand debating them. This rule will kill the discharge petition because Republicans fear a fair fight. This is an insult to this institution and to the many Members on both sides of the aisle who have waited so long to vote on these bills. The Rules Committee even came back at 10 p.m. for an emergency meeting to fix a so-called drafting error in this bill. Do you know what the drafting error was? $100 billion. That is right. Republicans almost accidentally gave President Trump $125 billion for his border wall instead of the $25 billion. That is quite an error, although I am sure President Trump would have loved it. Oh, my God. This is what happens when you jam bills through with no hearings, no markups, no CBO score, which would have caught this enormous mistake. Mr. Speaker, the President's executive order will only lead to keeping these children behind bars, some with and some without their parents, in unlimited, indefinite detention. And these Republican bills turn this cruel policy into the law of the land. This is not a solution, Mr. Speaker; this is cruel and inhuman punishment. The President of the United States must stop his vicious approach on immigration. It is immoral. And he must stop his hate peddling and he must stop his lies. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule that kills the discharge petition; reject this rule that kills any hope for action on bipartisan immigration bills. I say to my colleagues: Have zero tolerance for this rule and have zero tolerance for these bills.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, today, we are on the floor discussing the opioid crisis. This is an epidemic that is plaguing every community in the country, and it is killing 115 people every single day. It is heartbreaking, and, quite frankly, I am ashamed it is taking Congress so long to act. I would again point out that anything we do in the next few days and anything we have done gets erased if the Republicans succeed in cutting Medicaid and if the President succeeds in basically eliminating protections for people with preexisting conditions. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important that people know there is a lot of stuff going on this week, and we are also awaiting word from the House Republicans when the Rules Committee will have an emergency meeting, I guess today, on two immigration bills that were posted after 9 p.m. last night. These bills were drafted without any Democratic input, and from what we can tell, they are dangerous and they are certainly not a comprehensive solution to immigration reform. They harm children, and they leave many Dreamers behind. This is not what our constituents want us to do. They want the President to do what he could easily do and stop separating children from their parents. The President says that he wants Democrats to come to the table, but we never get invited to anything. I tried to go and see the President yesterday when the Republicans were meeting with him, but I was not allowed to go into the room. I tried to shout at the President as he was walking by, but he was quickly escorted by. I wanted to show him the pictures on the border of these young children who are being taken away from their parents. The President continues to spread mistruths about immigration and practically every other issue that is before this Congress and before this Nation, and it seems just to be getting worse. There are such things as facts. There are such things as truth. Yesterday, The Washington Post published an article, entitled: ``President Trump Seems to be Saying More and More Things That Aren't True.'' Well, I would like to take a few minutes to read this article, because these aren't my words, Mr. Speaker. They are the words of The Washington Post, specifically, Ashley Parker, who wrote the piece. If the President is watching, I think it is helpful for me to read because I know he doesn't read, so maybe he can hear this. ``He's done it on Twitter. He's done it in the White House driveway. And he's done it in a speech to a business group. ``President Trump, a man already known for trafficking in mistruths and even outright lies--has been outdoing himself with falsehoods in recent days, repeating and amplifying bogus claims on several of the most pressing controversies facing his Presidency. ``Since Saturday, Trump has tweeted false or misleading information at least seven times on the topic of immigration and at least six times on a Justice Department inspector general report into the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. That is more than a dozen obfuscations on just two central topics--a figure that does not include falsehoods on other issues, whether in tweets or public remarks. ``The false claims come as the President--emboldened by fewer disciplinarians inside the West Wing--indulges in frequent Twitter screeds. A Washington Post analysis found that in June, Trump has been tweeting at the fastest rate of his Presidency so far, an average of 11.3 messages per day. ``Inside the White House, aides and advisers say they believe the media is unwilling to give Trump a fair shot and is knee-jerk ready to accuse him of lying, even in cases where the facts support his point. ``The President often seeks to paint a self-serving and self- affirming alternate reality for himself and his supporters. Disparaging the `fake news' media, Trump offers his own filter through which to view the world--offering a competing reality on issues including relationships forged (or broken) at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, the success of the Singapore summit with the North Koreans, and his administration's `zero tolerance' policy on illegal immigration. `` `It's extraordinary how he is completely indifferent to the truth. There's just no relationship between his statements--anything he utters--and the actual truth of the matter,' said Thomas Murray, president emeritus of the Hastings Center, the founding institution in the field of bioethics. `As far as I can tell, the best way to understand anything he says is what will best serve his interests in the moment. It's irrespective to any version of the truth.' ``According to an analysis by The Post's Fact Checker through the end of May, Trump has made 3,251 false or misleading claims in 497 days, an average of 6.5 such claims per day of his Presidency.'' ``And within the past week, Trump seems to have ramped up both the volume and the intensity of his false statements on two of the most prominent topics currently facing his administration: the hardline immigration policy that has led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents--which Trump erroneously blames on others-- and the 500-page inspector general report that he claims, incorrectly, exonerates him in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. ``Bella DePaulo, a psychology researcher at the University of California Santa Barbara, said Trump's use of repetition is a particularly effective technique for convincing his supporters of the veracity of his false claims, in part because most people have a `truth bias' or an initial inclination to accept what others say as true. `` `When liars repeat the same lie over and over again, they can get even more of an advantage, at least among those who want to believe them or are not all that motivated either way,' DePaulo said in an email. `So when people hear the same lies over and over again-- especially when they want to believe those lies--a kind of new reality can be created. What they've heard starts to seem like it is just obvious, and not something that needs to be questioned.' ``On immigration, Trump and many top administration officials have said that existing U.S. laws and court rulings have given them no choice but to separate families trying to cross illegally into the United States. But it is the administration's decision, announced in April, to prosecute all southern border crossings that has led to the separation of families. ``That hasn't stopped the President from blaming Democrats for his administration's decisions. `Democrats are the problem,' Trump wrote in one tweet. In another, he was even more blunt: `The Democrats are forcing the breakup of families at the border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda. . . .' '' Mr. Speaker, let me divert a little bit here. The truth is that the President caused this crisis, and it is not just me saying it and The Washington Post saying it. Listen to what some of the Republicans have said, Lindsey Graham said: ``President Trump could stop this policy with a phone call. I'll go tell him: If you don't like families being separated, you can tell DHS, `Stop doing it.' '' Senator John McCain: ``The administration's current family separation policy is an affront to the decency of the American people, and contrary to principles and values upon which our Nation was founded. The administration has the power to rescind this policy. It should do so now.'' Senator Susan Collins, former First Lady Laura Bush--and I can go on and on and on--a whole bunch of Republicans now are all agreeing with us that the President is not telling us the truth. So let me go back to the article: ``While Congress could pass a legislative fix, Republicans control both the House and the Senate-- making it disingenuous at best to finger the opposing party, as the President has repeatedly done. ``Speaking to the National Federation of Independent Business on Tuesday, Trump again falsely painted the humanitarian crisis as a binary choice. `We can either release all illegal immigrant families and minors who show up at the border from Central America, or we can arrest the adults for the Federal crime of illegal entry,' he said. `Those are the only two options.' ``On Twitter, the President twice in the past 4 days has singled out Germany as facing an increase in crime. `Crime in Germany is up 10 percent-plus (officials do not want to report these crimes) since migrants were accepted,' Trump wrote. `Others countries are even worse. Be smart, America.' '' That is his tweet. ``In fact, the opposite is true. Reported crime in Germany was actually down by 10 percent last year and, according to German Interior Minister . . . the country's reported crime rate last year was actually at its lowest point in three decades. ``The President has also falsely claimed that the inspector general report `exonerated' him from Mueller's probe, when the report did not delve into the Russia investigation. When he made this argument Friday during an impromptu press gaggle in the White House driveway, a reporter pressed him on the falsehood. `` `Sir, that has nothing to do with collusion,' the reporter said. `Why are you lying about it, sir?' '' The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is, we have a President who has a problem with the truth, and Congress needs to stand up and do the right thing. We need to speak the truth; we need to embrace the truth; and we need to solve some of the issues that are before the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, none of what we are doing here today is going to matter if the Republicans and the Trump administration are successful in cutting Medicaid and in basically removing the guarantee that people who have preexisting conditions cannot be denied insurance. I mean, if the Trump administration is successful, individuals with preexisting conditions all across the country, including individuals suffering from opioid use disorders, both in the individual and in the employer market, could face a denial of coverage or skyrocketing premiums beyond anything anybody could afford. I don't get it. I don't understand the hypocrisy here. I know that the efforts here today are well intentioned and people are trying to do the right thing, but then you ruin it all when you gut the funding sources that help people deal with the treatment they need. This has to stop. I know some of my friends have ideological blinders on when it comes to anything that was passed during the Obama administration, but we have got to put the American people first, and this is a crisis that affects every single community in this country. If this administration is successful in what they are trying to do to undercut the ACA, then countless people will not have access to healthcare and will not have access to the treatment they need. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the midst of a devastating opioid crisis that is spiraling out of control. Every day, more than 115 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also found that opioids are responsible for 6 out of 10 overdose deaths in the United States. The American people are in desperate need of strong action by Congress to stem the tide of the opioid scourge. We need serious public investment to quell this exploding crisis, not just legislation on the peripherals. We must direct resources to the States and local communities on the front lines of this devastating public health crisis where assistance is needed the most. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to bring up Representative Loebsack's legislation, H.R. 4501, the Combating the Opioid Epidemic Act. This bill would provide badly needed funding for State grants for the prevention, detection, surveillance, and treatment of opioid abuse. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are rushing to congratulate themselves for finally addressing opioid addiction. But, Mr. Speaker, what took them so long? This is an epidemic that fueled more drug overdoses in America in 2016 than died in the Vietnam war. In fact, opioids now kill more people every year than breast cancer. 115 Americans are dying from them every single day. These statistics aren't new. They have been staring the Republicans in the face for months. The public has been pushing this Congress to act. Democrats have been pushing measure after measure after measure to address opioid addiction, but the majority has used their restrictive amendment process to block them from even getting a vote on the House floor. More than a dozen amendments dealing with opioids have been blocked by the majority from even getting a debate. One of these amendments had bipartisan support, but it was blocked all the same. This from a Republican majority that has already turned this Congress into the most closed Congress in history. Let me say that again. These guys, my Republican colleagues, have presided over the most closed Congress in history. There have already been 86 completely closed rules during the 115th Congress, and it is only June. That number is expected to grow later this week as the majority considers their partisan immigration bills under a closed process. Mr. Speaker, as well-intentioned as these bills may be, we aren't considering them in a vacuum. And here is the deal: We are taking them up at a time when Republicans are continuing their crusade against the Affordable Care Act, a law that has helped millions of Americans suffering from substance use disorders. The Trump administration is refusing to defend the ACA. And get this: its Justice Department recently asked in a legal filing for the courts to invalidate this law's protections for preexisting conditions. Mr. Speaker, does the majority realize that substance use disorders are a preexisting condition? If Republicans are successful, they will make the opioid crisis even worse. And it doesn't stop there. Some conservative groups are pushing the majority to try repealing the ACA completely again before the summer is out. This, after Republicans came within a few votes of taking healthcare from 23 million Americans last year, including those suffering from opioid addiction. These rightwing groups released their latest repeal plan yesterday, so the words from my Republican friends today ring particularly hollow. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the best answer to an epidemic is to get as many people as possible into treatment and to provide them and their families the support that they need. And one of the most effective ways to accomplish this is to expand Medicaid and expand treatment options for substance abuse through the ACA. Last October, the Republicans made clear what they think of the hundreds of thousands of Americans suffering from opioid addiction and alcohol and drug abuse. They passed a budget that makes $1.3 trillion in cuts to healthcare, including a 30 percent cut to Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, Republicans can't bemoan the opioid epidemic on one hand and vote time and time again to cut the very healthcare systems required to treat addiction. Nor can you set up a biased, tiered system that grants access to treatment for opioid addiction at the expense of providing treatment for addiction and abuse of other substances, like key provisions in H.R. 5797. Not only is that inhumane and immoral, but it is also ineffective. It undermines the entire health system of treating substance abuse. Mr. Speaker, many Democrats have joined the majority in supporting one of these bills, H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. It is a good bill. It would help Medicare and Medicaid better respond to substance use disorders. We are working with the majority here. So, Mr. Speaker, why won't they work with us to defend the ACA, preserve protections for preexisting conditions, and expand Medicaid. Now, I know asking Congressional Republicans to show some empathy right now is a tall order. This is the group that has furthered President Trump's spin on family separations at the border, a policy he can change unilaterally, right now if he wanted to. I mean, children are being ripped out of their parents' arms in tears and kept in cages, warehouses, and tent cities. It is appalling and it is un-American. You don't have to take my word for it. Republicans, like First Lady Laura Bush and Senator John McCain, have spoken out against it. And a U.S. attorney in Texas made clear it was President Trump's policy choice alone. And get this: This is a U.S. attorney who the President himself appointed. But change is possible. Congressional Republicans can see the error of their ways. They can reject these calls for repeal. They can stop sitting idly by as President Trump attacks the Affordable Care Act. And they can start standing up for the 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions. That includes those suffering from addiction. They could stop giving the President cover when he falsely claims that Democrats caused the chaos at the border that he clearly caused. Stop playing with people's lives. We are talking about their healthcare. We are talking about getting treatment for addiction. For God's sake, we are talking about taking children out of the arms of their mothers. This isn't a handful of cases, it is thousands of cases. It is outrageous. It is time for the adults in Congress, men and women of conscience, to stand up for what is right, not only on the opioid crisis, but on so many other important issues facing this country. I hope the majority comes to its senses before it is too late. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just let me remind my colleagues again, because I think it is worth emphasizing, that no matter what we do in the next couple of days with these bills that are going to be before the House, they are rendered meaningless if the Republicans continue in their effort to cut Medicaid and to take away protections for people with preexisting conditions. Substance use disorder is a preexisting condition and Republicans, working with the White House, are trying to eliminate that protection for people. I don't get it. It doesn't make sense. But we ought to make sure that we keep this debate in context and people know what is going on out there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Bonamici for yielding time. First, let me say how proud I am to have introduced the House companion to an important bipartisan, bicameral bill. Madam Speaker, one of the most heartbreaking aspects of the opiate epidemic is that a tremendous strain is placed not only on those who are struggling with addiction or dealing with substance use disorders, but also on their families, their friends, and their support networks. Oftentimes when parents are struggling with addiction and unable to raise a child, that responsibility falls to a grandparent. Right now, as has been said, over 2.5 million children are being raised by their grandparents, and we only expect that number to grow. These grandparent-led households often face unique challenges. They may not have time to plan financially for raising another child. They may not have the resources to ensure their home or their car is ready to raise a child. There may be barriers for them to access the child's medical or school information. It may be difficult for them to navigate the complex school requirements in many communities to ensure that their grandchild does not fall behind during a move. They may need to spend down their savings or refinance a home in order to provide for their grandchildren, putting their own financial future in jeopardy. This bill, the Supporting Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Act, will help us bring to the forefront the resources that grandparents need to raise their grandchildren. It will create an important new Federal advisory council focused on developing and disseminating information designed to help grandparents. The advisory council would examine information about how to address mental health issues, how to navigate school systems, and how to build social and support networks that create the best possible environment for children. Madam Speaker, we are so grateful that these grandparents have stepped in to care for grandchildren, and we need to do everything we can to support and sustain them. Madam Speaker, I thank especially Senator Susan Collins of Maine for her leadership on this issue, along with Senator Casey from Pennsylvania, and I am grateful to my colleague, Congressman Peter King of New York, for his work and help getting this legislation passed. As we deal with the opiate crisis, we have to deal with many different issues. There is not just one issue. There are multiple issues, and this is one of them. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the bipartisan support for my bill, and I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to a recent study published by Kranti Mulik and Lindsey Haynes-Maslow in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. Their research confirms what we already know about SNAP and what the Agriculture Committee has discovered during our thorough review of the program; and that is, that current benefits averaging only a $1.40 per person per meal are not enough to cover the cost of a healthy diet. Drs. Mulik and Haynes-Maslow set out to explore how much it costs families to follow the MyPlate dietary guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and then estimated the additional resources families on SNAP would need to follow these recommendations for a healthy diet. They discovered that a family of four with two adults and two children between the ages of 8 and 17 needed between $1,109 and $1,249 a month to follow USDA's recommendations for a healthy diet, including the time to prepare nutritious meals. The research found this type of family, a family of four with two older kids, would need an additional $627 per month to eat a nutritious diet. Overall, the research determined that current SNAP benefits only cover about 43 to 60 percent of the food budget needed to follow MyPlate recommendations. These findings underscore the need for Congress to protect SNAP and further expand access to nutritious food by increasing benefits. This is especially important as we continue to learn more about the negative health impacts exacerbated by hunger and a lack of access to nutritious food. Unfortunately, some in this House have turned efforts to help our constituents put food on their table when times are tough into an ideological crusade and, quite frankly, it is unconscionable. Food ought to be a fundamental right for every single person. Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee and in the Republican leadership of this House advanced a farm bill last month that would have done irreparable harm to our anti-hunger safety net. It relied on negative stereotypes and incorrect assumptions about the hardworking American families who rely on modest SNAP benefits. It would have slashed SNAP by $23 billion, which would cause millions of Americans to see their benefits reduced or eliminated entirely. And not only did this terrible bill single out those vulnerable adults who are having a difficult time finding stable employment, it also targeted working families, older adults, and children. In the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, no person should go to bed hungry or wondering where his or her next meal is coming from. This Congress ought to be focused on helping our constituents with a hand up when times are tough, instead of demonizing the poor and ignoring their struggles. Now, I am encouraged that the Senate Agriculture Committee is marking up a bipartisan farm bill today that protects SNAP from harmful cuts and makes investments in the program to help increase access to healthy foods. My Republican friends in the House should follow their example. As we continue through this year's farm bill process, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject cuts to SNAP benefits and oppose efforts to reduce access to this critical food assistance program. As research has long confirmed, SNAP helps to reduce food insecurity, promote access to nutritious foods, and improve health. We know that SNAP benefits must be increased to cover the costs associated with a nutritious diet. I encourage my colleagues to consider this important new information and to join me in working to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, does this Republican majority have amnesia? Did they forget how we got here? Congressional Republicans blew a nearly $2 trillion hole in the deficit by giving tax cuts to the wealthy and large corporations. That is trillion with a T. Now they are acting like they are great deficit hawks for bringing forward a bill that rescinds $15 billion in Federal spending. That is billion with a B. It is a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars they spent on tax cuts. You don't have to be some great scholar to see this disparity. It is right here on this chart. This really big red bar, Mr. Speaker, that plunges down to nearly $2 trillion represents the impact of the Republican tax bill on the deficit. It is actually $1.9 trillion. It is not good. That really, really, really tiny small bar on the right represents the so-called ``savings'' that this bill will provide. For those in the gallery, you are going to need binoculars to see that line. To my Republican colleagues, I am happy to lend you my bifocals so you can see how inconsequential this rescission package is in terms of dealing with our deficit. Now, don't get me wrong, $15 million is a lot of money, but in the context of what this Republican House has done to our deficit--blowing a hole in it to give tax cuts to the megarich--in that context, it isn't even a down payment on fixing the deficit. This bill isn't the result of some great process. Mr. Speaker, there was no process. There was no hearing on the bill. The Appropriations Committee didn't go over these proposed cuts one by one, weighing whether they made sense or not. This is the result of the whims of President Trump. He seems to change his mind about as often as he logs on to Twitter. How else can the majority explain slashing funds to fight Ebola the same day there is an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? You cannot make this stuff up. It took language in a manager's amendment to reverse this, just like the majority was forced to reverse cuts to funds designed to help New York and New Jersey recover from Superstorm Sandy. Perhaps if you had a hearing and you listened to Members of Congress, you listened to the committees of jurisdiction, you might avoid these embarrassments. This bill is also being considered under yet another record-breaking closed rule. That means no Member can offer an amendment on the floor to approve it. Last month, Republicans officially turned this Congress into the most closed Congress in history. It was only May. We still have 6 months to go before the end of this Congress. Apparently, there is no end in sight for the majority's restrictive process. It would make Vladimir Putin jealous. This is not a process to be proud of. This is a process the Republicans should be ashamed of. The cuts in this bill aren't harmless. They will hurt real people. Almost half the cuts in this package are to the Children's Health Insurance Program. This bill also hurts farmers by cutting funding they need to carry out important conservation programs. This bill cuts funding for the Economic Development Administration, an agency focused on economic growth and private sector job creation, at a time when they have a project backlog nationwide. In my own congressional district, I have visited at least 10 high-quality projects seeking investments from EDA. These projects, and countless others all across the country, are now in jeopardy if this rescissions package becomes law. These are not unnecessary programs, as the bill's title suggests. This funding was appropriated under the FY 2017 omnibus negotiated over just a year ago. Both parties agreed to it. The President signed it into law. Now, President Trump has suddenly changed his mind. Maybe it was something he saw on Fox News, since he takes most of his marching orders from them. After spending nearly $2 trillion on tax cuts for the superrich and blowing up the deficit, the majority's bill is like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. Republicans are trying to trick the American people into thinking that somehow they care about fiscal responsibility. Well, they are not fooling anyone.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on May 15, I joined several of my colleagues from the House and Senate, officials from USDA, Ambassadors to the United States, and 150 volunteers at a meal packaging event hosted by the nonprofit organization Rise Against Hunger and The Kraft Heinz Company. Together, we packaged 20,000 meals that will be sent to Mozambique and distributed to families through a school feeding program in that country. I admire the incredible efforts of Rise Against Hunger, under the leadership of Rod Brooks, in hosting meal packaging events like this one I attended on Capitol Hill a few weeks ago. Last year alone, Rise Against Hunger served 1.4 million people in 74 countries across the globe as they worked toward the important goal of ending global hunger by 2030. I also applaud the work of Kraft Heinz in advancing its laudable goal of delivering 1 billion meals to those struggling with hunger by 2021. Kraft Heinz CEO Bernardo Hees, Board Vice Chairman John Cahill, and Board Member George Zoghbi traveled to D.C. to lead the event, and I am grateful for their commitment to ending hunger once and for all.