Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, we celebrate the 29th birthday of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama of Tibetan Buddhism. He was chosen for his position on May 15, 1995, by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Two days later, when he was only 6 years old, the Chinese Government detained him and his family. The Panchen Lama has not been heard from since. Twenty-three years later, he is one of the world's longest held prisoners of conscience. People from all over the world--representatives of governments, the United Nations, and civil society organizations--have repeatedly asked to see him, without success. What kind of government steals away a child? The Panchen Lama's disappearance symbolizes the violations of religious freedom that take place in Tibetan areas of China on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, in honor of his birthday, please join me in calling on the Chinese Government to free the true Panchen Lama.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri, for her leadership. I am honored to join her and other distinguished colleagues this evening in recognition of Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month. Preventing genocide and mass atrocities is a moral imperative that deserves to be at the very top of our priority list. Mass atrocities are large-scale, deliberate attacks against civilian populations. They include genocide but also crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. After the Holocaust--the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of 6 million Jews and members of other persecuted groups by the Nazi regime and its collaborators between 1941 and 1945--people all around the world vowed to never again stand by in the face of genocide; but since then, mass atrocities, including genocide, have been committed in Indonesia, Cambodia, Guatemala, East Timor, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan, and South Sudan, among other places. Hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered, tortured, disappeared, or suffered sexual violence; and millions more have been forced to flee with profound humanitarian, political, and national security consequences. I don't believe the world's failure to prevent atrocities is because no one cares. In this era of instant communication powered by social media, most people I meet have seen and passionately condemn the ongoing atrocities in Syria and elsewhere. Nor is it because no one knows what is happening. Many, many people warned us for years about the potential for genocide against the Rohingya in Burma. The problem is that we have not been very good at turning knowledge and moral indignation into action to prevent a bad situation from worsening. We must do better. We must do more. This year, in the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I co-chair along with my colleague Congressman Randy Hultgren, we are looking at the tools we have as U.S. policymakers to prevent mass atrocities and asking how we can strengthen them. We are asking what it would mean to institutionalize an atrocity prevention's lens so we don't wait until it is so late and the problem is so big that all we can do is lament the immorality and the inhumanity and then provide humanitarian aid to the victims and survivors. As we undertake this effort, we know that there is a lot of good work already underway in both Chambers of Congress and on both sides of the aisle to find new ways forward. One example is H.R. 3030, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017, led by Representative Ann Wagner and cosponsored by both myself and Representative Hultgren. We also recognize that government officials cannot do this work alone. We need civil society, in all its diversity, to help us. We need community associations, churches, synagogues, mosques, schools, and businesses to take a stand against hate speech, to teach and live tolerance, to document and denounce human rights violations, to open their hearts to reconciliation based on justice. We need to get to the point where our societies recognize and honor every person's innate human dignity. And I want to take this opportunity to salute one of the many organizations that are doing just this kind of work. STAND is a student-led movement to end mass atrocities and genocide by organizing and educating their peers and communities. I first met student leaders of STAND in 2005 and 2006, when they were part of the national movement that brought the genocide happening in Darfur, Sudan, to public awareness. They were my teachers during that time. Tonight, representatives of STAND are here listening to this debate. They push us to do better, and I thank them for their commitment and their vision. Mr. Speaker, mass atrocities are human rights violations on a grand scale. We must find new strategies to prevent them from happening and more effective strategies to interrupt and stop them at the very earliest stages, should they begin to unfold. Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber, all of us in this country, need to do more, because I believe, if the United States of America stands for anything, we stand for human rights. We need to be better. We need to be more effective in preventing these mass atrocities and these genocides. So I am very proud to stand with my colleagues in these efforts. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for her incredible leadership, and I am honored to participate in this Special Order with her.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House Agriculture Committee will mark up the Republican farm bill. This incredibly partisan proposal was drafted in secret. Almost nothing in the bill reflects the 23 hearings our committee held on SNAP. We heard from 90 experts, and not a single one of them, liberal or conservative, suggested eliminating State flexibility through broad- based categorical eligibility and worsening the benefit cliff. Not a single one of them said to us: Kick 400,000 working families out of the program and 265,000 children off of free school meals. Not a single one of them told us to add hurdles for families with heating and cooling costs, and not a single one suggested we kick vulnerable adults off of benefits when they can't find work. Yet that is exactly what this bill does. The reckless Republican proposals in this bill cut SNAP benefits by over $20 billion, reducing or eliminating benefits for 2 million kids, veterans, working families, and other vulnerable adults. Make no mistake, this bill will make hunger worse in our country. I plead with the Republican leadership of this House: Stop beating up on poor people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, again another Freedom Caucus member, said on the balanced budget amendment: ``The time to get spending under control was 4 weeks ago. Coming back 4 weeks later and saying, `Oh, now we're going to pound our chest like Tarzan and say we're for a balanced budget amendment,' it's not going to fool anybody.'' I would argue that the time to get spending under control was when Republicans exploded the deficit with their tax cut for billionaires. I agree with Mr. Jordan on this: A sham vote like that isn't going to fool anybody. Mr. Speaker, while I think everybody knows that what is going to happen on this balanced budget amendment is really show business, I think it is important to stress that it really underlines the values of my friends on the Republican side and what they think is important and what they believe is important to protect. As I said, if this or anything like what they are proposing ever became the law of the land, programs like Social Security, like Medicare, and like Medicaid would be at risk. There are no provisions in their draft to protect these programs that so many millions of Americans rely on. And again, this is not surprising because we have seen over the years their attempts to privatize Social Security, their attempts to privatize Medicare, their attempts to undermine Medicaid, their constant attacks on programs like SNAP. This is nothing new. Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying to my Republican friends that there are some things worth defending, and programs like Social Security and programs like Medicare are worth defending. They are worth fighting for. And I want to make it clear that, on the Democratic side, any Republican attempts to undermine, to weaken, to undercut Social Security or Medicare, we will fight you. We will fight you with every ounce of energy and strength that we have because these programs are important. They are important to our values, but more importantly, they are important to our constituents. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this uncertainty could devastate the nearly half of older American households whose principal incomes come from Social Security or the over 50 million Americans who depend on Medicare. Even small cuts to Social Security checks or increases to Medicare premiums could impact the finances of older Americans and disabled Americans. Now, the same week that the Congressional Budget Office predicts this Republican majority and their tax scam bill will lead to the return of trillion-dollar deficits, we will consider a balanced budget amendment that has been subject to no hearings and no markups. Even for this record-breaking closed Republican Congress, to attempt to amend our Constitution for only the 28th time in our Nation's history in this manner, quite frankly, is stunning. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule which would amend the bill to exempt Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, vital pillars of our social safety net. I would just say to my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle who go home to their constituents and regularly talk about how great Social Security is, how great Medicare is, and how important Medicaid is, if you really believe it, you are going to vote to defeat the previous question so we can offer this amendment. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Republican majority is on full display today. After passing a $1.5 trillion tax scam bill that showers all the benefits on the wealthy and very rich corporations, we are now going to consider an amendment to the Constitution to balance the Federal budget on the backs of hardworking Americans by eviscerating social safety net programs. According to the AARP, this balanced budget amendment could subject Social Security and Medicare to deep cuts without regard to the impact on the health and financial security of our most vulnerable citizens. Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment would put the pillars of our social safety net at risk. If you don't believe me, again, maybe you will listen to our friends at the AARP. They said, this week, in a letter: ``A balanced budget amendment would likely harm Social Security and Medicare, subjecting both programs to potentially deep cuts without regard to the impact on the health and financial security of individuals.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the AARP's letter.

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 the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is attempting to amend the United States Constitution with a bill that has had no hearing, no markup, and will be considered without any opportunity to offer amendments or even a motion to recommit. We have only amended the Constitution 27 times in our Nation's history. Why isn't the Republican leadership treating this with the seriousness that it deserves? Maybe because even conservative members of their own party know that this vote is a charade. In a Politico article titled ``Conservatives irate over GOP spending hypocrisy,'' Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows said: ``There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on Main Street, that will take this vote seriously.'' I couldn't agree more. Republicans just added almost $2 trillion to the deficit with their tax cut for billionaires. As the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in the same article: ``This reads as, `Give us something to hide behind,' rather than a serious process proposal.'' But we are here because Republican leadership is trying to check a box, as the Club for Growth put it, in hopes that people will forget their tax scam giveaway. And no wonder why Congress' approval rating is at just 15 percent. This is a dangerous gimmick that my Republican colleagues are pushing. If this is successful, it will lead to major cuts to Social Security, to Medicare, and to Medicaid. We need to take that seriously, and we need to stop it. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this Politico article titled ``Conservatives irate over GOP's spending hypocrisy.'' [From POLITICO, Apr. 10, 2018] Conservatives Irate Over GOP's Spending Hypocrisy (By Rachael Bade and Sarah Ferris) House Republican leaders, stung by President Donald Trump's rebuke of Congress' recent trillion-dollar spending spree, are moving to give their rank and file cover by passing a balanced budget amendment this week. But many conservatives, including a good number of House Republicans, say the vote is insincere at best--and blatantly hypocritical at worst. ``There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on Main Street, that will take this vote seriously,'' said Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), on the heels of a $1.3 trillion spending package that Republicans approved just last month. ``Leadership is just trying to check a box here,'' added Andrew Roth, vice president for government affairs at the Club for Growth. ``I don't see how voters can distinguish between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending.'' One conservative commentator, Barbara Boland, equated the upcoming exercise to ``gorging on a sumptuous feast while insisting that you want a svelte physique.'' And other members of the House Freedom Caucus, all of whom voted against a $1.3 trillion spending package in late March, are calling it little more than a charade. ``The time to get spending under control was four weeks ago,'' said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), again referring to the late-March spending vote. ``Coming back four weeks later and saying, `Oh, now we're going to pound our chest like Tarzan and say we're for a balanced budget amendment,' it's not going to fool anybody.'' Jordan and Meadows support the balanced budget amendment as a marker for fiscal austerity--it's the timing of the vote, on the heels of the spending bonanza, that rankles them and other conservatives. The proposal requires supermajorities in both chambers to pass, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states, an impossible hurdle. But with Republicans swimming in red ink--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected regular trillion-dollar annual deficits starting in 2020, despite a growing economy--the party feels pressure to do something. The CBO's deficit forecast hasn't been that bleak since the Great Recession. And this time, Republicans can't blame Barack Obama and the Democrats. Rather, it's a result of a combination of GOP-approved bills: tax cuts that CBO now expects to add $1.9 trillion to the deficit over 10 years; a newly passed bipartisan deal to raise strict spending caps by $320 billion for two years; and a recent $100 billion infusion of cash into emergency disaster coffers--almost entirely unpaid for. The balanced budget amendment has been a staple of the GOP playbook going back at least to Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America. It often resurfaces after major spending battles that leave conservatives feeling jilted. The last vote, for instance, followed the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, when Republicans were anxious about the national debt, which now tops $20 trillion. Republicans are returning to it two weeks after Trump chided Congress for wasting money in the omnibus spending deal--a scolding that came as the president backed away from a threatened veto and signed it. ``I will never sign another bill like this again,'' Trump vowed, adding that ``there are a lot of things I'm unhappy about'' with it. His remarks, GOP lawmakers and aides say, effectively threw every Republican who backed the bipartisan deal under the bus at a time when the party already faces an uphill battle retaining its majority this fall. Hill Republicans were shocked because White House staff members were in the room negotiating the budget deal with the top four leaders in both chambers. They had reassured some skittish Republicans that it was OK to take the vote because Trump would have their backs. When they returned home afterward for the spring recess, some Republicans caught flak from constituents, which in turn sent GOP leaders into damage-control mode. ``This reads as, `Give us something to hide behind,' rather than a serious process proposal,'' said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who said she'd believe the sincerity of the effort when Republicans propose a budget with actual spending cuts. Not all fiscal hawks are scorning the effort. Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.), who asked for a vote on a balanced budget amendment in October, applauded the looming vote--even as he acknowledged the uncomfortable timing for the GOP. Walker argued that it's consistent for Republicans to back the amendment after voting for the omnibus, because of the need to fund the military. Walker added, though, that most members pushing hard for deficit- reduction votes right now personally opposed the spending bill, as he did. ``We don't see this as a show vote. We need this. It's something that we've been talking about for years,'' Walker said Tuesday. The balanced budget amendment is one of several measures GOP leaders might bring to the floor in the coming weeks to signal their commitment to lower spending. The effort is being led by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is working with the White House to try to force a vote on a ``rescissions'' package that would cut billions of dollars from the just-approved omnibus legislation. It's still unclear whether the House will take up the measure, which GOP aides say could cut as much as $20 billion. House appropriators hate the idea, and some more pragmatic-minded Republicans argue it would cripple bipartisan spending negotiations in the future. Republicans clinched the amount they got for defense only because they gave Democrats some money for their own pet projects. A move to recoup money retroactively would infuriate Democrats--even though GOP leaders fully expect it would fail in the Senate. GOP leaders similarly expect the balanced budget amendment to fail this week in the House. It requires 290 votes for passage; the last time lawmakers voted on one, in 2011, it failed 261-165, with 25 Democrats backing the bill. Speaker Paul Ryan was one of only four Republicans to oppose the measure at the time. It is unclear whether he will do so again this year. He said the proposal before the House then could have led to higher taxes to pay for more spending. A balanced budget amendment would tightly restrict federal spending and require two-thirds of lawmakers to approve any tax changes. Critics argue it would trigger hundreds of billions of dollars in across-the-board cuts. Ironically, a balanced budget amendment would have potentially prevented the GOP Congress' biggest legislative achievement this year: tax reform. With the amendment, Republicans could not have enacted tax cuts that weren't paid for; these ones were not. The GOP also probably couldn't have gotten the huge budget increase for the Pentagon that was included in the omnibus. In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested Tuesday that he might follow suit on a balanced budget amendment vote. He said a vote is ``likely . . . at some point.'' Democrats are blasting Republicans for what House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer called a ``political stunt.'' The Maryland Democrat on Tuesday said Republicans are ``worried'' about the midterm elections and ``they're flailing about.'' ``It sounds to me very much,'' he said, ``like they're . . . saying one thing and doing another, speaking out of both sides of their mouth.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying legislation. Quite frankly, I had hoped that, when we returned from our Easter break, we would be debating and voting on legislation that would help people. I had hoped that maybe we would be able to finally help the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers whose lives are now in limbo because of President Trump's decision to end DACA and that we would be able to pass a bill called the Dream Act to actually provide them some peace of mind. But, no, we don't see that on the schedule. I had also hoped that maybe we would do something to address the epidemic of gun violence in this country. Millions of young people all across the country have been protesting in front of congressional offices and have been holding rallies demanding that Congress debate the issue of gun violence and do something. No, we are not doing that. Instead, what we are doing is another bill to help the financial services industries, and in that effort, we are doing something that I think is going to make consumer protections less relevant. This week, again, the Republican leadership of this House is ignoring the most pressing issues facing our country and our constituents in favor of more legislation to roll back financial protections put into place to prevent another financial crisis. Need I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle how damaging the 2008 financial crash was? Millions upon millions of Americans--our constituents, Mr. Speaker--lost their homes, and they lost their jobs and their life savings. Many of these families have still not fully recovered from these terrible financial blows. In response, Democrats in Congress came together to pass the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, landmark legislation to address risk in our financial system and ensure our constituents are protected from another damaging financial crisis. Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. Nobody in this Congress says it is. But I strongly object to the calculated campaign by Republicans in this House to continue to chip away at the law, making our financial markets more vulnerable just to benefit their billionaire donors. One of the key provisions of Dodd-Frank is the Volcker rule. It prohibits banks from engaging in risky trading activities that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Simply put, it prevents banks from acting like casinos and gambling with our money. The rule we are considering today provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, legislation to undermine the Volcker rule by exempting certain banks from the requirements. The bill also puts rulemaking authority solely in the hands of the Federal Reserve, making it easier for the Trump administration to further weaken or eventually repeal this vital consumer protection. Now, that is, of course, the goal of my Republican colleagues in the first place. They have continually advanced legislation to roll back and weaken the rules put into place to prevent another financial crisis. It is deeply frustrating, and more importantly, it is very dangerous to the financial security of the American economy and American families. Now, Mr. Speaker, this rule also provides for additional debate time on the Republican majority's misguided balanced budget amendment, H.J. Res. 2. Normally, when legislation of this magnitude is debated, the leadership of this House brings it through the Rules Committee to set the terms of debate and to allow for alternative proposals to be offered and debated. This will be the seventh time a balanced budget amendment has been voted on in the House. In the past, it has generally been considered under a structured rule granting many hours of general debate, making in order substitute amendments, and providing the minority with a motion to recommit. But as they did in 2011, Republicans will once again bring this legislation to the floor under suspension of the rules, providing no opportunity-- none--for Members of the majority or the minority to offer any substitute amendments. Now, why does this matter, Mr. Speaker? It matters because this legislation, the so-called balanced budget amendment, could do irreparable harm to our economy. It would hinder Congress' ability to respond appropriately to an economic crisis and could potentially even create one. It could even require Congress to cut funding for safety net programs that millions of our constituents rely on, programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP--which is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--Supplemental Security Income, and veterans' pensions. We owe it to our constituents to have a full and open debate on this legislation, to hear from experts and to thoughtfully consider alternatives. But this Republican majority didn't even take the time to hold a hearing or a markup on H.J. Res. 2. They are rushing it to the floor under suspension of the rules with no opportunity for us to consider any alternative proposals whatsoever. We are talking about amending the Constitution of the United States. Why in the world would we want to use such a flawed process on such an important issue? Mr. Speaker, because maybe this isn't a serious effort in the first place. My Republican friends know this awful legislation will never become law. So why are we wasting the House's time on this effort? I have a simple answer: to appease the far-right wing of the Republican Party in an election year and to give the impression that these guys, these Republicans, are somehow fiscally responsible. You don't have to take my word for it. Republican Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania confirmed in the press this week that this is merely a messaging vote. If you think this is cynical, consider for a moment the impetus of bringing this legislation to the floor. Press reports indicate that Speaker Ryan agreed to a vote on the balanced budget amendment in exchange for votes to advance the Republican tax scam. Can you believe that? Speaker Ryan, the leader of this House, is advancing legislation that could do irreparable harm to our economy and our safety net just so he could jam through his precious tax giveaway to corporations and wealthy donors last December. Let me remind everyone just how terrible the tax scam Republicans rammed through Congress really is: It raises taxes on 68 million middle class families to give 83 percent of the tax cuts included in the bill to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. It gives a $1.3 trillion tax rate break to the largest corporations in this country and rewards these same corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Here is the other part: it explodes the deficit by $2 trillion, jeopardizing the future of Medicare and Medicaid. But this balanced budget amendment is supposed to trick people into believing Republicans still care about fiscal responsibility. It really is disheartening. There is a pattern here, Mr. Speaker. At every turn, House Republicans favor the well-off and well-connected while ignoring the needs of those in the middle class and working class and certainly turning their backs on those struggling in poverty. I meet with constituents in my district every day. Quite frankly, they don't ask what we are doing to repeal Dodd-Frank. They certainly don't ask us to ransack Social Security and cut Medicare to give tax breaks to big corporations. They want better jobs and they want better wages. They want us to fix our crumbling infrastructure in their communities and to invest in education. They want us to protect our water and air from pollution. They made it clear to us last month, when over 1 million young people took to the streets across this country, that they want action on legislation to protect our communities from the plague of gun violence. But the Republican leadership is ignoring this call, and it is ignoring any call for progress in favor of legislation to help the wealthy and well-connected donor class. I get it. They need all this money for reelection. But the price is being paid by the American people. They are getting legislation that is not in their best interest but is in the best interest of a few wealthy donors. It is reckless and it is wrong. Over 56 percent of the legislation that we have considered in the Rules Committee this year--that is over half--has been bills to roll back regulations on Wall Street and the financial industry. I don't see millions of people protesting in the street to give Wall Street a bigger break. I don't hear the voices being raised all across this country to say: ``Let's make the rich even richer. Let's do more to give corporations tax breaks.'' I don't hear that, and yet that is what the focus of this Congress has been about. By the way, the vast majority of these bills to help the well- connected and the well-off haven't even gone through regular order. This whole process has been a joke. The legislation we are set to consider later this week is no exception. I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule, to oppose efforts to weaken the Volcker rule, and to oppose the balanced budget amendment when it is considered later this week. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the farm bill should be about helping our farmers and strengthening our food and nutrition programs. It shouldn't be about beating up on poor people. As the House Agriculture Committee prepares to mark up the 2018 farm bill, I rise to express my deep concern and my outrage with reports that Republicans on the committee are considering drastic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP. Press reports indicate that the majority intends to dismantle the core function of SNAP to pay for a huge, new, untested bureaucracy, while cutting and even eliminating benefits for millions of the most vulnerable Americans, including seniors, older workers, individuals with disabilities, working families with children, and other struggling adults. We are still awaiting the full details on the plan, which was crafted behind closed doors without any input from Democrats on the committee-- I am not even sure any input from Republicans on the committee. But this is what we have learned: that the Republicans intend to focus their cuts in three areas. First, we are hearing Chairman Conaway's bill will eliminate broad- based categorical eligibility, an important State option that helps working families with kids and seniors qualify for benefits when times are tough. More than 40 States currently implement this option, which allows them to raise income cutoffs and ease asset limits. Broad-based categorical eligibility also mitigates any cliff effect, albeit small, that exists in SNAP, and eliminating it would penalize families from accruing modest savings to help lift themselves out of poverty. Estimates suggest that at least 400,000 eligible households will lose their SNAP benefits if broad-based categorical eligibility is eliminated, and 265,000 students will lose access to free lunches at school. I mean, really? Mr. Speaker, this is shameful. We are also reading that the Republicans are looking to cut benefits for households with out-of-pocket utility expenses by disconnecting the link between SNAP and the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program known as LIHEAP. Doing so will require those with utility expenses to produce the actual bills for each expense rather than receiving a standard allowance. It will force the elderly, it will force people who are disabled and working families to make another trip to the SNAP office and cut benefits for those who are unable to produce the receipts. Mr. Speaker, we expect that this proposal will cut benefits by at least $6.6 billion. Lastly, we have heard the Republicans intend to focus much of their damaging proposal on harsher work requirements that target vulnerable groups of adults who do not have children or other dependents, known as ABAWDs. We are reading that the Republican majority is proposing to develop a massive new bureaucracy and subject 3 to 5 million vulnerable Americans to new mandatory work requirements. I want to remind my colleagues that the ABAWD population is diverse. Many have limited access to education, with more than 80 percent having no more than a high school education or a GED. Some have mental health issues, difficult histories of substance abuse, or are ex-offenders with nowhere else to turn. And as many as 60,000 of them are veterans who have served our country. These childless adults on SNAP are often extremely poor and sometimes experience chronic homelessness. They turn to SNAP as a safety net when they lose their jobs, their hours at work are cut, or their wages are so low that they are unable to make ends meet. Under current law, ABAWDs are already subjected to severe time limits on the program. They are only provided access to benefits for 3 months out of a 3-year period and are completely cut off from assistance after that time if they have not been able to find work. Mr. Speaker, this Congress should be committed to helping people who are living in poverty and working to help make their lives easier, not cutting them off from assistance when they most need it. Estimates suggest that as many as 1 million people will lose assistance if these incredibly damaging work proposals advance. The House Agriculture Committee held 23 hearings on SNAP over the past several years. I attended every single one. We heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, Republicans and Democrats alike; and not one witness, not one, Mr. Speaker, suggested that we make the drastic changes to the program that will cut off those most in need of assistance, let alone the ones whom the Republican majority are advancing. Quite frankly, I don't know where these ideas are coming from, maybe some rightwing think tank, but they are certainly not coming from the Agriculture Committee. Let's be clear about what is happening. Speaker Ryan made clear a few weeks ago that he views the farm bill as a key piece of his misguided welfare reform agenda. And just yesterday, President Trump issued a new executive order aimed at forcing SNAP recipients off of assistance. The Republican farm bill isn't about trying to help people. It is about politics and it is about appeasing the rightwing of the Republican party. It relies on negative stereotypes to advance the goal of undermining our safety net programs and cutting people off of help who need it most. It is disgusting. Mr. Speaker, I plead with you, I plead with Chairman Conaway and Republicans in this Congress to stop this attack on those who are living in poverty. SNAP is an important program. It is about providing people food, and I urge my colleagues on both sides to reject any and all proposals that will undermine this important program. Mr. Speaker, the war against the poor must stop.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues: Give us the vote. Give us this vote. If you don't like it, then vote ``no.'' But if we were to bring this bill to the floor, I guarantee you it would pass. I think every Democrat would vote for it, and a big chunk of Republicans, maybe even a majority, might vote for this. I don't know what the gentleman is afraid of. I don't know why this is so hard. This is the Congress of the United States. This is the place where these issues are supposed to be resolved; and, instead, all we get from the leadership of this House is obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. They block everything--block everything. Everything is closed. It is my way or the highway. Enough. These people deserve better than this institution is providing. They deserve a vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, said that he appreciated the Speaker's listening to the different opinions of all Members here in the House. I think the frustration here is not that we can't raise our voices, the frustration here is that we cannot bring things that we care about to the House floor for debate. The gentleman just talked about the issue of guns. We are living in a country where we have massacres on a regular basis. The American people overwhelmingly want us to bring gun safety legislation to the floor. Things like universal background checks, for example. The leadership of this House will not let us bring those bills to the floor for debate or for a vote. They have shut us out. So this process that has been endorsed by the Republican leadership is not open. It is very, very closed. In fact, we are on record to becoming the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. That is not something that I think the United States Congress should aspire to. Maybe that is something that the Russians might want to aspire to, but it is certainly not something that we here in this country want to aspire to. Everybody in this Chamber has ideas. Everybody represents the same number of people. Everybody should be heard, and important legislation and important ideas ought to be brought to the floor for debate and for a vote. If you do not want to vote for universal background checks, or if you do not want to vote to ban bump stocks, or if you do not want to vote for an assault weapons ban, then don't vote for it. But it is wrong and it undermines this institution when, on issues like that, we are told: You cannot deliberate on the House floor. Another issue is DACA. The President of the United States single handedly ended the DACA program, and he threw the lives of hundreds of thousands of people into chaos. It was a cruel and rotten thing to do. The President's arbitrary March 5 deadline ending this program has come and gone, and instead of leadership and compassion, all we have seen is partisan tweeting. It is maddening, and it betrays our values. Earlier this month, President Trump tweeted: ``Total inaction of DACA by Dems. Where are you? A deal can be made.'' Well, to answer President Trump's question, the Democrats are right here, offering bipartisan solutions to protect these young Americans. This is the 26th time that we have attempted to bring a bipartisan bill, the Dream Act, for a vote on the floor. And I am going to ask people to vote against the previous question so we can bring a solution to the floor and protect these incredible young people who have given so much to our country. But this is the 26th time that we have attempted to do this. And, by the way, this is not just a Democratic bill. There is bipartisan support for this. And what is particularly frustrating is that the Republican leadership of this House will not let us have that vote. Why? Because they know it will pass. They know it will pass. They don't want the majority to work its will in this Chamber. They have deliberately said: No. We are not allowing you to bring that to the floor. If you want to help these people, you have to bring a bill to the floor. And if you don't want to help them, well, bring the bill to the floor and vote ``no.'' But this is ridiculous. There is bipartisan support to fix this problem, to help these people, to live up to our values in this country. Again, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, and this bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help hundreds of thousands of young people who are American in every way except on paper. 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 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 want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee and my friend, for the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for his thoughtfulness in the aftermath of the passing of our dear friend, the former chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter. We appreciate his support. We appreciate the support of all the Republican members on the Rules Committee, especially for the Democratic staff, but we are truly grateful for all of his consideration and for all of his remembrances of our friend. We want him to know it means a great deal to all of us, so we thank him. I also want to take this opportunity to once again wish the chairman of the Rules Committee a happy birthday. I had the honor to be with him at 1:30 in the morning yesterday and to wish him happy birthday then. So we will wish him happy birthday again at 9:30 in the morning, and we wish him many, many more. Mr. Speaker, you know, here we are, and I am kind of at a loss for words. There is really not a lot to say. We are here, yet again, facing another manufactured and totally avoidable crisis. You know, what on Earth will it take for the Republican leadership of this Congress to actually step up to the plate and start governing? Because this process that is bringing us this bill today, I don't think, represents good governing. We have seen five continuing resolutions. We have seen two government shutdowns in less than 6 months. It is mind-boggling. It takes my breath away. Mr. Speaker, Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, they control the White House; but the truth is that it turns out that they can't govern. Governing is hard work. It takes skill. It takes compromise. It is not all press conferences and it is not all tweets. It takes leadership. So I would encourage our Republican colleagues to cut the nonsense and get down to business. We can't keep on embracing processes like the one that we are seeing unfold today. Give the American people the certainty they deserve, fund this government the right way. But this process that brings us this omnibus today, I think, is disappointing not just to Democrats, but to a lot of Republicans as well. Now, as lousy as this process was to get here, there are some things in this agreement that we can be enthusiastic about. We are encouraged by increases in spending for domestic priorities, like infrastructure, education, medical research, and support for our veterans, among other things. These are things that are of great importance to Members on the Democratic side. We are pleased that the negotiators on our side of the aisle worked diligently to remove poison pill riders, and they fought to limit the construction of the President's stupid border wall. Our enthusiasm is tempered because of what else might be in the bill, what we might not know. It is over 2,200 pages long, and it was posted at 8 p.m. last night. I am not sure anyone in this Chamber has had the chance to actually read the entire text of this omnibus. I don't know how many inadvertent errors may be contained in this omnibus. I worry what kind of provisions we could find tucked away in this bill in the days and the weeks to come. This is no way to govern, Mr. Speaker. Our Republican colleague from Louisiana over in the Senate, Senator John Kennedy, said yesterday that he thinks this whole process is an embarrassment. He said: ``As bad as it looks to the American people from the outside, it is worse on the inside.'' I don't blame the Appropriations Committee. I have nothing but the highest respect for Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey. They did an incredible job, and they and their staffs deserve our gratitude. There were many sleepless nights to be able to produce a product so that we could actually move forward and not shut the government down. They did what everybody expected them to do, and I want to thank them for their work. And to be honest with you, I don't really blame the Rules Committee. We were given this last night, and we had to come up with a process and a rule to bring it to the floor. But I do blame the Speaker, and I do blame the Senate majority leader, and I do blame the President, because they are in charge and we shouldn't be at the brink of a government shutdown before we consider spending bills. This should have been done months and months ago. Mr. Speaker, again, the American people deserve much better. They deserve a Congress that works for them, a Congress that is responsive to their calls for action, a Congress that listens to all voices, both Democrats and Republicans alike. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this omnibus legislation will ultimately work its way through Congress and to the President's desk to avert yet another Republican-manufactured shutdown. But I would ask the Republican leadership of this Congress: Let's reform the way we do business around here. I don't believe that those of us in the minority expect to win all the time, but we expect to have our voices heard, and we want and we demand a fair process. We want enough time to read bills before you bring them up for a vote. That is not too much to ask. Let's work together to bring a little bit more transparency, a little bit more sunshine, and yes, a little bit more democracy into the people's House. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. I don't know why it is such a radical idea that we deliberate every once in a while. Instead, we are presented with a 2,200-page bill, and we have been given summaries, but, in all honesty, none of us know what is actually in this bill and whether or not there are some things here that, quite frankly, might be very, very troubling once we begin to read this bill over the days and weeks ahead. Let's have an honest and open debate. Let's resolve that we are not going to ever go back to this process again where we fund government hour to hour. We need to get back to important issues facing our country and the American people. Again, I want to express my gratitude to the appropriators and to those who were in these negotiations to try to get us a bill here today, but this is a lousy process, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. We can't sanction this process. No matter what you think about the bill, this process is something that we have to stand up and say: This is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Speaker, let me close by echoing the words of our distinguished minority whip and by saying that we need a better process, and I hope my colleagues will vote against the rule. I just want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, one of the reasons why I think there is so much polarization in this Chamber, why it is hard to kind of get things done, is because of the process. I think process matters. When people don't have the opportunity to read the bills, when people are routinely denied the opportunity to bring to the floor their ideas for debate and vote, it results in increased tensions and increased polarization; and, quite frankly, it undermines the integrity of this institution. This is supposed to be the people's House. We all represent the same number of constituents, yet routinely the voices of the people are denied to be heard on this House floor. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring the Dream Act to the floor, we can help the Dreamers, we can help those DACA recipients who everybody says publicly that they want to help, yet, when it comes to actually helping them, all we get is obstruction from the Republican leadership here. Let's bring that to the floor. This is our 26th time trying to do it. Let's do something that will make a real difference, that will help these people. They deserve our help. They deserve our support. They are valued members of our community. They are American in every way except they weren't born here. And Democrats, Republicans, and Independents overwhelmingly believe we ought to help them. We ought to stop playing politics with the Dreamers. I know the President is holding them hostage and wants a ransom that gets bigger and bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Enough. Let's do what is right for these people. So vote ``no'' on the rule. Make it clear that this process is something that we cannot endorse or embrace. We want a change in process. Vote against the previous question so we can bring up relief for the Dreamers. Finally, I just, again, plead with the Republican leadership of this House, we need to have a better process here. If you want to end the polarization, if you want to end the partisanship, you have to open this place up. I don't think that is too much to ask. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

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