Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and respect that I rise to honor Master Chief Petty Officer Britt Slabinski, a native of Northampton, Massachusetts. Yesterday, Mr. Slabinski was awarded the Medal of Honor, our nation's highest award for members of the Armed Forces of the United States. Authorized by and awarded in the name of Congress, the Medal of Honor acknowledges those service members who display unparalleled bravery and a willingness to risk their own lives which clearly and conspicuously distinguishes them above their comrades. Mr. Slabinski is only the 12th living servicemember to be awarded the Medal of Honor for bravery displayed in Afghanistan. In the early morning hours of March 4th, 2002, during the mountaintop battle of Takur Ghar, Mr. Slabinski led a reconnaissance team in support of a major coalition offensive against Al-Qaida forces in the valley below. According to the United States Navy, after enemy fire brought down one of his team's helicopters, ``without hesitation, then- Senior Chief Slabinski made the selfless and heroic decision to lead the remainder of his element on an immediate and daring rescue back to the mountaintop.'' The Navy notes that Mr. Slabinski, ``with bullets piercing his clothing, repeatedly charged into deadly fire to personally engage the enemy bunker'' before the situation became untenable. With daylight approaching, he maneuvered his team to a more defensible position, requested reinforcements, and directed the medical care of his severely wounded teammates,'' including ``carrying a teammate through waist-deep snow during an arduous trek across precipitous terrain.'' Mr. Speaker, the Medal of Honor reflects the acclaim and appreciation of our entire nation. It reminds each of us of our sacred obligation to look after those who serve our country and defend our freedom. Britt Slabinski put his life on the line not only for the sake of his fellow soldiers, but for all of us. On behalf of his hometown of Northampton, and the entire United States Congress, I offer him my most sincere and heartful thanks and gratitude for his service to our nation.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I am offering along with my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer). I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. Our amendment would very simply create a service medal to be awarded to atomic veterans or their surviving family members in honor of their service and sacrifice to our Nation. 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 constantly exposed to potentially dangerous levels of radiation in performance of their duties. They were sworn to secrecy, unable to even talk to their doctors about their past exposure to radiation. Thankfully, 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, enacted their versions of this amendment by authorizing a medal to honor their atomic veterans who served with the United States. Regrettably, the Pentagon remains silent on honoring the service of our atomic veterans, arguing that to do so would diminish the service of other military personnel who are tasked with dangerous missions. Mr. Chairman, this is 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 these veterans passing away prematurely. Past administrations and Congresses have dealt with thornier issues of legality and compensation. What remains is recognizing these veterans' duty, honor, and faithful service to our Nation. I want to thank my colleagues in the House for unanimously voting favorably last year by a vote of 424-0. I was shocked when the Service Medal was not included in the conference report. So I am urging my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment again. Let us send a message to the Senate that this is important and that we are not going to give up. Together we can show them that we are serious about honoring this brave and distinguished group of patriotic Americans. We owe it to our atomic veterans to recognize them for their selfless service to our Nation. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying, our veterans who are now known as atomic veterans served this country with great distinction. When they left the service they raised our families, they worked in our factories, and they contributed to our communities. They are getting older. Let us not wait until there are no surviving atomic veterans before we do the right thing. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring our atomic veterans. This is the right thing to do. It is shameful that we have not been able to do this sooner. I am confident that maybe this is the moment where we will do the right thing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman that we already have low-yield nuclear weapons. I don't know why we need more. We heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), talk about the amendment he would like to see made in order to help reinforce our schools. I think most people watching also appreciate the fact that our national defense includes things like the quality of life for people here in this country, including the quality of our schools, whether people have jobs, whether people have good healthcare. We are shortchanging all these domestic investments, and I think the concern we have is when you start investing in more nuclear weapons, not only is it not a good use of our taxpayer dollars, but it also increases insecurity for the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, this is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. Let me repeat that. This is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. The majority is very proud of this rule. They have made a bunch of amendments in order on a handful of bills to run up their numbers, but let's remember one thing: On most bills, the majority of the legislation that comes to this floor, they do not allow a single amendment. Not one. On most bills that come to the floor, no Member of this House, Democratic or Republican, can offer an amendment. This rule before us today is not closed, but let me highlight a few germane amendments from the 281 amendments that this rule blocks. Several bipartisan amendments were blocked, such as an amendment by Representatives Denham, Foster, Curbelo, and Panetta which allows Dreamers who grew up in the United States to gain legal status, provided that they serve out the terms of their enlistment honorably. So we are talking about rewarding people who served in our military. That was the amendment. That was brought before the Rules Committee. That was blocked. There was another bipartisan amendment from 25 Members, including myself, that expresses the sense of Congress that the lessons of past genocides should be applied to help prevent future war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. I say to my colleagues: When did a sense of Congress on the atrocities of genocide become such a controversial topic? But that was blocked. This rule blocks an amendment by Representative Keating to test ticks for an increased number of tick-borne diseases. When did fighting tick- borne diseases become too sensitive for the House to debate? This rule, once again, blocks us from having one of the most important debates we could have. It prevents us from debating whether or not to send our sons and daughters into harm's way. The bipartisan amendment by Representatives Lee, Jones, and Ellison would repeal the 2001 AUMF after 240 days of enactment of the act, giving Congress ample time to debate a new AUMF. The Constitution of the United States says the Congress has the power to declare war. This is our job, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama saying: Well, the Foreign Affairs Committee deals with that, not us. We hear that every year. Every year that goes by, we don't see any bill from the Foreign Affairs Committee dealing with these topics. The bottom line, let's be honest, is we don't deal with it because Members in the majority don't want to deal with this difficult issue. I have always said that our failure to act on an AUMF, our failure to debate these issues, represents moral cowardice. What about our workers? Representatives Ellison, Pocan, and Grijalva had an amendment blocked that would have prohibited Federal contracts with companies that have repeated and willful wage theft violations. Why would we knowingly reward companies that hurt our workers? The list goes on: An amendment by Representative Lieu to require a public report on all DOD expenditures to support Presidential visits to entities owned or significantly controlled by the President or a member of his immediate family. The American people deserve to know if the President and his family are directly profiting off of this Presidency. Blocked. Blocked. An amendment by Representative Veasey that would prohibit the deportation of family members of servicemembers on Active Duty. How can we, with a good conscience, deport the family members of brave young men and women putting their lives on the line for all of us and fighting for our safety everyday? Blocked. An amendment by Representative Torres, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, that would have prevented DOD in helping the Department of Homeland Security from deporting spouses, parents, and sons and daughters of certain military personnel, veterans, and enlistees. Mr. Speaker, I could spend the rest of the week describing the thousands of amendments that this Republican leadership has blocked, but I would much prefer to be debating the ideas that Members from both parties have put forward in good faith. This is the most closed Congress in history. Dana Milbank recently described it as the most authoritarian Congress in history. You know, 180 Democratic Members have had an amendment blocked in this Congress alone. That is 180 elected Members. I would like my Republican friends to listen closely to my next point. This Congress, 180 Republican Members have also had their amendments blocked this Congress. You are all voting to block your own ideas. Stop it. Read the rules that you are voting on. The vast majority of Republican Members have had their proposals blocked from even getting a vote. I don't understand why you keep voting to block proposals that you supposedly believe in. Hundreds of Republican amendments have been blocked by the Rules Committee. Most Republicans voted to block them. They are your amendments. I don't understand why it is such a radical idea to debate any of the amendments I just spoke about. We can do so much better. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of amendments that have been made in order. There is a lot of quantity. But a lot of the amendments that really shine in quality and that are important in terms of substance have been blocked. This is nothing new. Again, the majority of bills that come to this floor are under closed rules. You can't amend them. Nobody can. Take it or leave it. The majority of bills that come to this floor are closed. I know it is uncomfortable for my Republican friends to hear that they have presided over this closed process, but my hope is they will be so embarrassed and so ashamed that they will want to change things. They can still redeem themselves. We are only in May. They have a long way to go. Whether it is on the defense bill, on an education bill, or whatever bill it is, there are good ideas that are being brought forward. I will close with this. I met with a group of young students who were engaged in the nationwide protest asking Congress to do something on gun violence. And the most frustrating thing they said to them is the fact that when they were lobbying Members of Congress, it's not even about telling them how to vote on an issue; they are frustrated because you can't get a vote on any of the issues that are related to gun violence. We won't let anything come to the floor. It is wrong. I just say to my friends, in closing, if this place becomes more accommodating, if the Speaker decides to live up to the words that he enunciated when he became Speaker of the House, to have a more open process, to respect all ideas, let me tell you something; you are going to see a decrease in polarization. You are going to see more bills passed a bipartisan way. You are going to see more good bills going forward. Legislation will be better. If you have a lousy process, you end up with a lousy bill. Again, I respect all the time and energy that went into crafting this NDAA. I respect the chairman and the ranking member, Democrats and Republicans alike, but there are a lot of important amendments here that are being blocked that are really important and that most of our constituents would believe deserve a debate and a vote on this floor. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule. And I plead with them, let's bring some accomodation and some respect to differing ideas and just regular order to this House, because this is certainly not what I think any of us could possibly believe is the way our government should be run. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. This letter is co-led by former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz and former Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry. Mr. Speaker, as the letter states, ``there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war and preparing for one is folly.'' George Shultz, Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan, recently noted: ``A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. You use a small one, then you go to a bigger one.'' Secretary of Defense James Mattis also recently declared: ``I don't think there's any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used at any time is a strategic game changer.'' Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill, for all of its many positive developments, is seriously deficient in this particular area. It authorizes funding for new low-yield nuclear weapons. The U.S. already possesses low-yield nuclear weapons. If these weapons are not effective deterrents, we should examine why before building and deploying a new generation of weapons. We should listen to our seasoned elder statesmen and -women and stop walking down a road that begins a nuclear war that can rapidly escalate. Any use of a nuclear weapon is a catastrophe. We should be destroying nuclear weapons, not building new ones. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together and make sure this funding is not included in the final version of the FY19 NDAA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a May 22 letter signed by 32 former Republican and Democratic defense and foreign policy officials rejecting the building and use of low-yield nuclear warheads and opposing their authorization and their funding. May 22, 2018. Hon. Jim McGovern, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative McGovern: We write to respectfully request that Congress reject the Trump administration's request for new, more usable, ``low-yield'' nuclear warheads for Trident missiles. There is no need for such weapons and building them would make the United States less safe. These so-called ``low-yield'' weapons are a gateway to nuclear catastrophe and should not be pursued. To justify this dangerous proposal, the Trump administration is promoting a false narrative that the United States has a ``gap'' in its ability to deter the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. Officials allege that Moscow believes that an American president would not respond to Russian use of ``tactical,'' or lower yield, nuclear weapons if his only options include ``strategic,'' or high-yield, ones. The president, they argue, would be ``self-deterred.'' To plug this supposed ``deterrence gap,'' the Trump administration wants to develop and deploy new low-yield nuclear warheads on Trident II D5 missiles on Ohio-class submarines. The administration is asking Congress for $88 million in FY2019 for this new warhead, in a program that would be completed in that fiscal year under the aegis of the W76 Life Extension Program. Yet this justification for new Trident warheads fails on many levels: 1. There is no ``deterrence gap.'' The United States has a massive nuclear arsenal of some 4,000 warheads, half of which are deployed on land-based missiles, submarines, and bombers. The administration is in the process of rebuilding this arsenal at an estimated cost of $1.7 trillion, with inflation, over the next 30 years. While this immense program is excessive, adds to a new arms race with Russia, and should be scaled back, Russia cannot doubt that the United States is serious about maintaining an unambiguously strong nuclear deterrent. 2. The United States already has many low-yield nuclear weapons. As part of that massive arsenal, the United States already has about 1,000 nuclear weapons with low-yield options, which are being modernized at great expense. If the president ever needed to use a low-yield nuclear weapon, he has many options. 3. Nuclear war cannot be controlled. Perhaps the biggest fallacy in the whole argument is the mistaken and dangerous belief that a ``small'' nuclear war would remain small. There is no basis for the dubious theory that, if Russia used a ``low-yield'' nuclear weapon and the United States responded in kind, the conflict could stay at that level. Indeed, it is unlikely that there is such a thing as a limited nuclear war; preparing for one is folly. As George Shultz, Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan, recently noted, ``A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. You use a small one, then you go to a bigger one. I think nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons and we need to draw the line there.'' Secretary of Defense James Mattis similarly declared, ``I don't think there's any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used at any time is a strategic game changer.'' Ultimately, the greatest concern about the proposed low- yield Trident warhead is that the president might feel less restrained about using it in a crisis. When it comes to using a nuclear weapon, restraint is a good thing. The proposed ``low-yield'' Trident warhead is dangerous, unjustified, and redundant. Congress has the power to stop the administration from starting down this slippery slope to nuclear war. We call on Congress to exercise that authority without delay. Sincerely, The Hon. George P. Shultz, Former U.S. Secretary of State; The Hon. William J. Perry, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense; The Hon. Richard G. Lugar, United States Senator (Ret.), Former Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee; The Hon. Byron Dorgan, United States Senator (Ret.), Former Chairman, Energy & Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, Senate Appropriations Committee; The Hon. Gary Hart, United States Senator (Ret.), Former member, Senate Armed Services Committee; The Hon. Mark Udall, United States Senator (Ret.), Former member, Senate Armed Services Committee. The Hon. Jerry Brown, Former Governor of California; The Hon. Barney Frank, U.S. House of Representatives (Ret.); The Hon. John Tierney, U.S. House of Representatives (Ret.), Former Chairman, House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Government Oversight and Reform Committee; General James Cartwright (USMC, Ret.), Former Vice Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Lt. General Robert G. Gard (USA, Ret.), Former President, National Defense University; The Hon. John Holdren, Former Chief Science Advisor to the President; The Hon. Thomas Countryman, Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation. The Hon. Andrew Weber, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs; The Hon. Thomas Graham Jr., Former Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non- proliferation and Disarmament; The Hon. Susan F. Burk, Former Special Representative of the President, Nuclear Nonproliferation; The Hon. Laura Kennedy, Former US Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament; The Hon. Steven Pifer, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Ukraine; The Hon. Anne M. Harrington, Former Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration. Ben Chang, Former Director for Press & Communications and Deputy Spokesman at the National Security Council; Philip E. Coyle, Former Associate Director for National Security and International Affairs, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Steve Fetter, Former Principal Assistant Director for National Security and International Affairs, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Colin Kahl, Former Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President; Richard Nephew, Former Director for Iran for the National Security Council; Ned Price, Former Special Assistant to President Obama and Spokesperson for the National Security Council. Ben Rhodes, Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, The White House; Frank von Hippel, Former Assistant Director for National Security, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Jon Wolfsthal, Former Special Assistant to the President for National Security and Senior Director for Nonproliferation and Arms Control at the National Security Council; Alexandra Bell, Former Director of Strategic Outreach in the Office of the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Bishop Garrison, Former adviser and Executive Director, Homeland Security Science & Technology Advisory Committee; Morton Halperin, Former Director of the Policy Planning Staff, Department of State; Newell Highsmith, Former Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my Rules Committee colleague that I agree with her that this place is pretty dysfunctional. But I just want to point out, in case she has forgotten, that the White House is controlled by Republicans, the House is controlled by Republicans, and the Senate is controlled by Republicans. So the gentlewoman can blame everybody she wants, but the Republicans are in charge of everything. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to respond to Mr. Byrne.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Alabama, I appreciate the fact that he wants to defend what I think is indefensible, this process that the Republicans have implemented to run this House. I would be embarrassed to, but I know he has a job to do, and that is what he is doing. He talks about all of these amendments that were made in order. What he doesn't tell you about is the over 2,000 amendments that they have blocked this session already, including a lot of Republican amendments that have been blocked, as well. It is always puzzling to me that the Republicans just kind of go along to get along, and they get shut out of the amendment process and they still vote for a rule. Maybe the day that they stop voting for these rules is a day that maybe we will see some changes. I also want to point out, and I don't think he really appreciates this point and this is why this has become the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America, that the majority of bills that have been brought to the floor are unamendable. They are totally closed. I can't even offer an amendment to put a punctuation mark in a bill. I can't change a comma. I can't change the spelling of a word. The majority of bills have been totally closed, shut out to everybody. If that is the process that this majority wants to embrace, fine. I think that is the kind of process that we want to move away from because that is the kind of process that we see in authoritarian regimes, not in deliberative bodies like the United States Congress, not in the United States of America. The gentleman talks about that he trusts the administration on Afghanistan. Well, I don't trust this President on anything, to be honest with you. I don't know if he has ever been to Afghanistan, but I have, and the troops that I talked to in Afghanistan and those who are returning ask me the same thing over and over, and that is: What the hell are we doing? What is our mission? Now, if you think the mission is on target and everything is great, fine. Then vote to increase the number of troops there. But we ought to have a debate here on the floor on whether that is the right thing to do. On AUMFs, I am happy that the gentleman is cosponsoring a number of AUMFs. He says it is not appropriate to talk about it here in a defense authorization bill or a Defense Appropriations bill; that is a Foreign Affairs Committee bill, and we ought to deal with it there. When is the last time we have had a Foreign Affairs Committee bill that has been brought before us that we could amend to do an AUMF on? I don't know. Maybe the gentleman may know when this AUMF is coming out of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I haven't seen it. I have been waiting for years. They are in charge. They run this place. They control everything. So that is just another excuse, and it really is insulting to the men and women who put their lives on the line for this country. I mean, there is always an excuse why we can't debate something. This has to stop, and I hope it stops soon. If not, maybe the elections will result in a change of leadership here. I hope that, if we have the privilege to take over, you see a much more accommodating process and, certainly, a process where important issues like this get to be debated. Mr. Speaker, the protests by thousands of teachers across the Nation have exposed not just low wages, but also severely dilapidated facilities. The 2016 State of Our Schools report determined that there is an annual State and local spending gap of $46 billion on school facilities. These facilities pose significant health and safety threats to more than 50 million students. In the richest country in the world, it is absolutely shameful that we allow our children to attend schools without heat and with dangerous mold, not to mention the thousands of schools lacking access to the connectivity necessary for digital learning. For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Education and the Workforce Committee member Bobby Scott's bill, H.R. 2475, the Rebuild America's Schools Act. This legislation would provide the necessary funding to address critical physical and digital infrastructure needs in our schools, creating over 1.9 million jobs in the process. 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 yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

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

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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate a group of outstanding students from Auburn, Massachusetts. Students from Auburn High School's AP United States Government & Politics class traveled here to Washington, D.C. last month to take part in the ``We The People'' national finals competition. Hosted by the Center for Civic Education, this program teaches kids from across America about the importance of our founding principles. Now more than ever, we must teach our students about the value of public service. Through discussion and simulated Congressional hearings, the students got a firsthand look at the historical and contemporary debates that drive our nation's political discourse. Auburn High School has taken part in ``We The People'' since 2011, and this is already their third time to Washington. This year, the class participated in a daylong state competition before moving on to nationals, and raised over $50,000 to help cover the cost of their trip. The most important title in our democracy is that of citizen. We are obligated by our history to pass along to future generations the hard- fought rights and responsibilities of that citizenship. Through their hard work, these students learned that our democracy is not just an achievement, but an unending call to build a more perfect union for all. They discovered the importance of civility, compromise, and community in our politics. And they left knowing that their voices really do matter here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the hard work and determination of Samantha Barrell, Brendan Benevento, Zachary Billings, Matthew Bregman, Kayrin Brower, Jessica Chenard, Hannah Cherry, Olivia Copson, Lucas Daly, Enaira DaSilva, Marisa Day, Sydney Dinsdale, Amanda Doherty, Kathryn Dudko, Emily Frost, Jacob Landry, Brianna Leon, Savannah Louis Charles, Morgan Maher, Haydn McPherson, Tiffany Moen, Katelyn Norwood, Renee Ordway, Ana Pietrewicz, Kyle Powers, Brian Sarkisian, Jacob Stokes, Bridget White, and William Wright. Each of them represented Massachusetts with distinction and dedication, and I wish them only success in all their future endeavors.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day, a very sad day, for this institution. Today, it becomes official that this will become the most closed Congress ever in the history of the United States. You heard why this matters. You heard from some of my colleagues here today that important issues, issues that the American people care about, like ensuring clean water for children, like high ethics in the executive branch, like cybersecurity, like banning bump stocks, like protecting our veterans, or like protecting Medicare or Social Security--these amendments are routinely denied. We are shut out. Millions of young people all over the country protested for us to do something to combat gun violence, and we have done nothing. We have done nothing in this Chamber other than a moment of silence. The frustration of these young people is compounded by the fact that we can't even bring an amendment to the floor to ban bump stocks or to expand background checks or to ban assault weapons. They don't want to let anything come to the floor. It is outrageous. And for anybody to stand up here and defend this process, to somehow normalize this process, give me a break. This closed process is something you would see in Russia or Turkey or in some other authoritarian government, not in the people's House. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. What is so radical about deliberating every once in a while? We have a report that we are releasing today. It is 230 pages. Go to the Rules Committee Democrats' web page, and you can read all about how there has been a deliberate attempt to shut out the voices of the American people. Enough. This is not the way this place is supposed to be run. If Democrats are given the privilege to control this House again, I will tell you, we need to be more accommodating, we need to be more open, and we need to allow this place to be a deliberative body where important issues get debated.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we need to fix problems in this country. We could pass a bill to protect the Dreamers in a nanosecond if the Republican majority would allow us to bring an amendment to the floor, but they won't. Why? Because they are afraid that we are going to win. They don't want a fair fight. They want a system that is always rigged in their favor. Well, that is not democracy. That is not the way this place is supposed to be run. If we have a more accommodating approach to legislating, then I guarantee you that the polarization will be less. You will have more bills that will pass in a bipartisan way. And, by the way, it is not just Democrats that get shut out; 180 Republicans have been shut out of the amendment process as well.

Mr. McGOVERN. The sad thing is that they just go along to get along, and they are complicit in this most closed process in U.S. history. Enough. Enough. We deserve better, the American people deserve better, my constituents deserve better, and your constituents deserve better. This place needs to be run differently. Mr. Speaker, vote against this rule. And I say to my Republican friends: Have the guts to stand with us and vote ``no'' on this closed process.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend from Texas, we don't want to talk. That is what you guys want to do. We want to legislate. The fact is that the majority of bills that you have brought to this House floor have been closed. You have more closed rules than any other Congress in the history of the United States of America. How anybody can defend that with a straight face is beyond me.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record the article that I referred for you to read called ``Trump to Poor Americans: Get to Work or Lose Your Benefits,'' which talks about a veteran in Maine that basically was shut out of his food benefit because of Maine's policies. [From the Washington Post, May 22, 2017] Trump to Poor Americans: Get To Work or Lose Your Benefits (By Caitlin Dewey and Tracy Jan) For a period last year after he lost his food stamps, Tim Keefe, an out-of-work and homeless Navy veteran, used his military training to catch, skin and eat squirrels, roasting the animals over an open fire outside the tent he pitched in frigid Augusta, Maine. The new additions to Keefe's diet resulted from a decision by state authorities to tighten work requirements for recipients of the social safety net--forcing the 49-year-old, who lost his job at a farm equipment factory because of an injury, off the food stamp rolls. ``I was eating what I could find, and borrowed from friends and strangers,'' Keefe said in testimony to the Maine legislature. ``There were many times . . . when I would go two or even three days without food. If one was inclined to lose a lot of weight, I could recommend this diet wholeheartedly.'' Now the Trump administration in its first major budget proposal has proposed more stringent work requirements-- similar to those in effect in Maine and other states--to limit eligibility for food stamps and a host of other benefits as part of sweeping cuts to anti-poverty programs. The White House budget proposal, due to be unveiled on Tuesday, would reduce spending on anti-poverty programs from food stamps to tax credits and welfare payments by $274 billion over a decade, largely by tightening eligibility for these programs, according to administration officials. With additional reforms on Medicaid and disability insurance, total safety net cuts would top $1 trillion over 10 in years. Making low-income Americans work to qualify for so-called welfare programs is a key theme of the budget. ``If you are on food stamps and you are able bodied, we need you to go to work,'' said budget director Mick Mulvaney during a White House briefing on Monday. He said the strengthened requirements in the budget focuses on putting the 6.8 million unemployed or underemployed Americans back to work. ``There is a dignity to work,'' he said, ``and there's a necessity to work to help the country succeed.'' The White House did not offer details Monday on how the work requirements would be implemented, other than saying it would be ``phased in'' for able-bodied adults without dependent children. The White House estimated the combined reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, would generate nearly $193 billion in savings over a decade. In addition to SNAP reforms, Trump will propose taking the earned income and child tax credits away from undocumented immigrants working in the United States, many of whom pay taxes or have American born-children. That reform alone would save $40 billion over a decade, according to the White House. Anti-poverty advocates say the White House could implement its desired reforms to SNAP in two ways: require recipients to work more than the current minimum of 20 hours a week, or cut the unemployment waivers in areas with high joblessness rates. The influential Heritage Foundation, as well as a number of House conservatives have championed a crackdown on waivers, leading many anti-poverty advocates to conclude that is the most likely way the White House would implement its proposed reforms. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has asked the White House to prioritize work requirements, said the Trump administration needs to ``go after'' the four million able-bodied adults without dependents in the food stamp program. ``You say to them, `We will give you assistance, but come to the office one day a week to do job search or community service,'' ' Rector said. ``When Maine did that, they found almost immediately that their caseload dropped 85 percent.'' Critics say such a change could endanger people like Keefe, a veteran who has been unable to find a job after injuring his wrist on the job at a plow factory in Rockland, Maine. As a result, Keefe now is medically unable to lift more than 25 pounds--which disqualifies him from other work in manufacturing. The Navy veteran was one of several thousand former food stamp recipients who lost benefits when Maine, in 2015, declined to renew its waiver and reinstated statewide work requirements. He has spent much of the last year living in a tent. ``I don't wanna worry no one,'' said Keefe, who recently testified to Maine's Committee on Health and Human Services about the impact the work requirement had on him. But, he added: ``I hope they understand that people fall through the cracks.'' The Trump administration is considering other changes to SNAP. While details remain sparse, Mulvaney said the federal government would be asking states to share in the costs for the food stamps program, through a phased-in ``state match'' so they have a ``little more skin in the game.'' ``We believe in, the social safety net. We absolutely do,'' Mulvaney said. ``What we've done is not to try and remove the safety net for folks who need it, but to try and figure out if there's folks who don't need it that need to be back in the workforce.'' Suspending employment waivers would hit hard in areas with high unemployment such as southern and central California, where the unemployment rate can spike as high as 19 percent, as well as cities such as Detroit and Scranton, Pa., where joblessness remains rampant. The change would also hit hard in large portions of New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Idaho and Michigan. ``It's unconscionable, cruel and ineffective,'' said Josh Protas, the vice president of public policy at MAZON, a national anti-hunger organization. ``I'm honestly not sure what their goal is.'' Critics say the changes in unemployment waivers would be devastating for Native American families living on reservations in North and South Dakota, Arizona and Montana where there is chronic poverty and high unemployment. ``The President's budget proposal will force kids in rural America to go hungry while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on misplaced priorities like a wall that won't keep us safe,'' said Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), in a statement to the Post. ``Parents in Montana and across Indian Country should not have to choose between food for their tables, gas for their cars, and shoes for their kids.'' The number of Americans on SNAP remains high, however. In 2016, 44 million Americans receive the benefits, compared to just 28 million people in 2008. ``They have not come down like we would expect them to do,'' Mulvaney said. ``That raises a very valid question: Are there folks on SNAP who shouldn't be?'' Anti-hunger advocates argue that, generally speaking, there are not. Because SNAP benefits decrease gradually with increased income, there is no incentive for people to avoid work to get benefits--a phenomenon economists call the ``welfare cliff.'' And benefits are too small for people to subsist on them without working: The average food stamp benefit was $465 a month for a family of four in 2015. Most people are on the program for between seven and nine months on average. ``The notion that people would prefer not to work to get that benefit, give me a break,'' said U.S. Representative Jim McGovern, (D-Mass.) a longtime anti-hunger advocate. ``This is a lousy and rotten thing to do to poor people. They look at SNAP as an ATM to pay for their other priorities.'' Additionally, three quarters of households using SNAP contain children, seniors, or people with disabilities, said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow in the Income and Benefits Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Without SNAP, the country would have had 3 to 4.5 million more people in poverty during the recession, she said. More than a quarter of able-bodied adults without dependents on SNAP do not have a high school diploma, Waxman said; another 57 percent don't have college degrees--putting them at a disadvantage when it comes to finding work. A number are also veterans, young adults aging out of the foster care system, and felons recently released from jail. SNAP recipients who cannot find work, for these or other reasons, are supposed to attend job training programs--but they're not widely available because of lack of funding. ``This is the trick. On the one hand, you want people to do something, when in fact a lot of folks may not realistically be able to find a job,'' Waxman said. ``Most states don't want to put the money in. This is a dilemma that we're in.'' The evidence that stricter work requirements actually cause people to get jobs is mixed, at best. In Kansas, which reinstated the requirements in October 2014, 40 percent of unemployed adults were still unemployed a year after being kicked off SNAP. Among former SNAP participants who lost benefits, the average annual income was only $5,562, according to the Foundation for Government Accountability, a right-wing think tank based in Florida. Progress has also been hotly debated in Maine, a state that conservatives regularly hold up as evidence that stricter work-requirements are effective. When the state dropped its waiver in 2015, the number of unemployed adults in the program immediately fell by nearly 80 percent. But a May 2016 report by the state found that nearly 60 percent of those affected individuals did not report any income in the year after they left the program--suggesting they were still unemployed or underemployed a year later. On the national level, Michael Tanner, a senior fellow who focuses on social welfare issues at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said he doesn't think similar mandates will have a huge impact on moving large numbers of recipients into employment or result in significant budget savings. Most SNAP recipients who can work are already working, and many of those who are not meet one of the various exemptions such as being disabled. ``It's making a statement that Republicans think people who are on public assistance should be doing all they can to get off,'' Tanner said, ``and that means working whenever possible.'' McGovern, who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, said he was surprised to learn about the White House proposal given Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue's testimony before the committee last week saying he did not favor any major changes to the food stamps program. ``It's been a very important, effective Program,'' Perdue said, according to a recording of the hearing. ``As far as I'm concerned we have no proposed changes. You don't try to fix things that aren't broken.'' The Trump administration is advocating other ``fixes'' to the safety net, as well. The budget will also propose requiring people to have a Social Security number to collect tax credits. Mulvaney said it is unfair that taxpayers support immigrants working illegally in this country. ``How do I go to somebody who pays their taxes and say, 'Look, I want you to give this earned income tax credit to somebody who is working here illegally? That's not defensible,'' Mulvaney said. Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, said he also hopes Trump will prioritize work requirements for those receiving housing subsidies. Mulvaney did not address that on Monday. Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the majority of Americans receiving housing subsidies are elderly, disabled or already include someone who works. Of the remaining households, nearly half include a preschool child or an older child or adult with a disability who needs the supervision of a caregiver. Establishing work requirements for the remaining six percent of households who are `work able' but not employed would require state and local housing agencies already facing funding shortfalls to establish cumbersome monitoring and enforcement systems for a very narrow segment of rental assistance recipients, she said. ``This is neither cost effective nor a solution to the very real issue of poverty impacting millions of families living in subsidized housing or in need,'' Yentel said in a statement to the Post. Correction: This story incorrectly stated the average annual income for SNAP participants in Kansas who had lost and then found jobs was $5,562. That figure applied to all SNAP participants who had lost the benefit.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday about the big-picture numbers behind this cruel bill, how it would cut the SNAP benefits that families rely on to buy groceries by over $20 billion. That includes slashing benefits for vulnerable adults like veterans, the chronically homeless, and teenagers aging out of foster care by $9.2 billion. There is a provision in this bill that would rip benefits away from nearly 1 million people, mostly from working families with kids, by eliminating an important State flexibility option called categorical eligibility. The bill even included a provision that would have constructed barriers to accessing SNAP for those with disabilities who have out-of- pocket utility costs--that is, until Democrats shamed the majority into abandoning it as part of their manager's amendment unveiled late last night. But get this: this fix didn't come without a cost, Mr. Speaker. Tucked into the manager's package--which was, yet again, written in secret--is a provision that will kick over 600,000 vulnerable adults off of SNAP in the first 2 years after enactment of this bill--2 years before their misguided work bureaucracy goes into effect. Six hundred thousand vulnerable men and women will lose their benefits before they even have the opportunity to take advantage of the majority's new make- work program. Really? What are you thinking? This entire bill is an embarrassment, and this manager's amendment only makes it worse. It should be scrapped and sent back to the Agriculture Committee, where we can have real bipartisan negotiations and craft a bill that actually helps people, because despite some changes around the margins, the Republican farm bill remains an unmitigated disaster. Today I want to zoom in on that big picture and give telling examples of how this disastrous Republican bill would impact real people in their everyday lives, because that is what is at stake with the Republican farm bill. That is what we need to be focussed on, because it goes well beyond the numbers on a page. McClatchy reported a story earlier this month that put it succinctly, entitled: ``50-Something Food Stamp Recipients Could Face Tough Job Search Under Proposed Rules.'' Take, for example, a woman named Sabrina, who was quoted in the story. She works side jobs, like cleaning houses and doing yard work, but has a difficult time finding steady employment at her age of 59. This bill will take away her benefits, because she may not meet its 20- hour-per-week requirement. She is working. She is exactly the kind of person my Republican friends say they want to support. Do they think she purposely found jobs that pay so little and have so few hours? That doesn't fit so nicely into the majority's press releases, but that is the reality. Or take, for example, Thomas, a single dad who lost his wife a few years ago and is raising his preteen daughter on his own. He has worked diligently to find stable employment, but jobs are scarce in his community. Without SNAP and reduced-price school meals, Thomas said he and his daughter ``would not be able to survive.'' These are the kind of people my Republican colleagues are demonizing during this debate, and it is deeply frustrating. Or take Lisa, a working mother of four kids earning about $14 per hour as a nursing assistant. Lisa has to stretch her monthly income to cover rent and utilities after-school care, clothing, and car costs so that she can get to her job. Currently, she receives a modest SNAP benefit to feed her family and her kids receive free school meals, but because her income is just over the 130 percent threshold for a family of five, she would automatically lose her SNAP benefits if this bill becomes law. For Lisa, SNAP makes an incredible difference in her ability to feed her children. Or take Elton, a U.S. Navy veteran who lost his benefits for 2 years because of the strict work requirements and time limits that are already part of the SNAP law. During the 2-year period he was unable to access SNAP benefits, Elton was hungry every day wondering what he could eat in order to get by. It wasn't that Elton chose not to work. He worked physically demanding jobs his entire life, but he lost his job after an injury. He continues to struggle with health conditions and doesn't have reliable access to transportation; issues that are exacerbating his job search. Under this bill, Elton may lose his modest food benefits entirely. These are real people, and if the majority on the Agriculture Committee actually took the time and did a hearing on the heartless nutrition title in this bill, they would have heard these and many other real-life stories. Take a moment to think about what you are doing here. My Republican colleagues are denying food benefits to veterans, single dads struggling to find work, and working moms. Why? Because Paul Ryan asked you to? Because of a myth that people aren't struggling? It is sickening. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just legislation by sound bite; bad legislation. It demonizes the poor and trades in stereotypes, apparently just to help some in the majority with their next hit on FOX News. This bill has real consequences. It will hurt real people, our constituents, yours and mine, in every single congressional district in this country. Now, it is obvious that this isn't a serious attempt at legislating, because the process here was atrocious. The majority ignored the recommendations from Democratic and Republican witnesses during the Agriculture Committee's 23 hearings on SNAP. Controversial provisions were inserted into this bill without explanation on where they came from. I asked. I still can't find out. Democrats were left in the dark as this legislation was drafted, we were left to read about it in news reports; a total affront to the bipartisan tradition that has defined the farm bill for years. Now, the majority may be calling this a farm bill, but it is really a total transformation of our social safety net. It is a farm bill that doesn't even improve the farm economy. Let me state, our farmers work hard, they should be valued, and they certainly deserve a hell of a lot better than what is contained in this bill. If Republicans want to hurt our workers and denigrate the poor, they are going to have to do it alone, because, make no mistake about it, that is what this bill is designed to do and that is what it will do unless the responsible adults in the Republican Party join us in defeating it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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.)