Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right, we can work together and come together in a bipartisan way to pass a post office bill, to name a post office after somebody, but my friends didn't think it was important to come together and work with us on improving the Affordable Care Act, totally cut out of the process. I am willing to bet that when the tax bill comes up, the tax bill that is going to give wealthy people a big tax break and raise taxes on a lot of middle-income families, that will be a very closed process as well. So yeah, you know, Hats Off to Teachers Day, naming post offices, stuff that, I mean, Western civilization, as we know it, doesn't hinge upon, yeah, there is lot of bipartisanship here. We had a couple of bills yesterday that passed unanimously. I mean, we had votes on them. They were noncontroversial. But when it comes to anything really meaningful, there is no bipartisanship, and there is no openness here. Again, let me repeat, so my colleagues understand this. This is the most closed session of Congress ever in history, and the year is not even over yet. Today, we are considering the 49th closed rule of the 115th Congress, officially making it the most closed session of Congress in history. More than half of the rules the Republicans have reported out of the Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments. They have blocked over 1,300 amendments. Speaker Ryan now is the only speaker who has not allowed an open rule. Speakers Boehner, Pelosi, Hastert, and Gingrich all allowed some open rules. This is the first time we never had one. Mr. Speaker, again, I would say to my colleagues, process matters, and this is really a sad day for this House, for this institution, and I hope my Republican friends think about it a little bit because you are doing great damage to this institution, and that makes me very sad. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are bringing to the floor two bills today that I think are bad bills. But, nonetheless, they represent the thinking of the Republicans who are in charge of this Congress. What is particularly distressing to me is that, on one of those measures, it is being brought to the floor under a completely closed process. As I mentioned, last night, the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee came before the Rules Committee to offer three germane amendments, and the Rules Committee said: No, you don't have the right to have a debate on your ideas, even though they are perfectly germane, on the House floor. I think that is lousy. As a result, we come today and we make history. This is now officially the most closed Congress ever in the history of our country. My friends on the other side of the aisle are getting up and talking about how proud they are. They talk about bipartisanship. What they don't tell you is that most of the bipartisanship are on things that really don't mean a lot: naming of post offices and bills that pass by 435-0. On big things, on important issues, they block us. I mentioned some of the things they blocked. I know a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply about the DREAMers, since Donald Trump decided to throw their fates into the balance. They want to do something to help these young people, many of whom came when they were 1 year old or 2 years old and know no other country as their home but this country. We tried to fix that legislatively, as the President said he wanted us to do, and the Republican majority blocked us. They blocked us. We tried to offer an amendment again to say let's not invest a gazillion dollars on a border wall. Let's invest in our people. Let's build up our infrastructure. Let's construct the finest railway system in the United States--in the world--over the next decade. They blocked us. We had an amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic violence and child abuse, and they blocked us. We had an amendment to say we need to ensure that this culture of corruption that we see in the White House doesn't grow any bigger, that the Trump family doesn't benefit from the taxpayers, they don't benefit financially from the taxpayers, and we were blocked on that as well. Then we have been blocked on amendments to debate these wars that have gone on for years and years. The war in Afghanistan is endless. It is the longest war in American history. We can't have a debate on the floor. We are told that it is not appropriate and that it is not the right time. The bottom line is, what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing is they are running this place in a very authoritarian way, basically saying: It is our way, and that is it. It is our way or the highway, and you don't matter. Well, we have had enough. We have had enough of being shut out, and we are not going to shut up. We are not going to sit by and allow this pattern of closed rules and closed processes to continue without a protest. This is a serious matter. For the Speaker of the House in his press conference today to get up and say, ``Oh, we have a very open house,'' I mean, where is he living? That does not reflect the reality. Maybe Donald Trump can say those kind of things that don't reflect reality, but the Speaker of the House ought to know that today, under his leadership, this has become the most closed House ever, and it diminishes this institution and it diminishes every single Member of this institution. So vote ``no'' on this rule. I urge my Republican friends, who care about process, who want this place to be more deliberative, to vote ``no.'' Send a message to your leadership that you have had enough. If you want more bipartisan legislation, if you want a less polarized Congress, then open the process up a little bit. I have news for you, if you do, maybe the popularity of Congress will go up a little bit. I think we are at, like, 12 or 13 percent now. Maybe that might get you up to 15 or 16 percent. But it is the right thing to do. This is not the way we are supposed to run a legislative body. When you do it this way, you end up with lousy legislation. Your healthcare bill was a disaster. It reflected no input from anybody. Thank God the Senate said no to it. We see the same thing going on with the tax bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so maybe we can bring up a little bit of a debate on the need for a select committee to study gun violence. But, please, vote ``no'' on this. Please send a message to the Republican leadership that enough is enough and we are tired of these closed rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, boy, I don't even know where to begin after that. My good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, made reference to the Tax Policy Center, and I have the report from the Tax Policy Center here. In fact, it is their analysis that was the basis for that chart that I held during my opening remarks, which said that the top 1 percent would receive 80 percent of the tax breaks based on the Republican framework. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record excerpts from the Tax Policy Center report. [From the Urban Institute & Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center Staff, Sept. 29, 2017] A Preliminary Analysis of the Unified Framework Abstract The Tax Policy Center has produced preliminary estimates of the potential impact of proposals included in the ``Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code.'' We find they would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over ten years and $3.2 trillion over the second decade (not including any dynamic feedback). In 2018, all income groups would see their average taxes fall, but some taxpayers in each group would face tax increases. Those with the very highest incomes would receive the biggest tax cuts. The tax cuts are smaller as a percentage of income in 2027, and taxpayers in the 80th to 95th income percentiles would, on average, experience a tax increase. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution or their funders. Alternative Ways of Presenting Change in Distribution of Tax Burdens by expanded cash income percentile Expanded cash income percentile, Percent change in after- tax income, Share of total federal tax change (%), Average federal tax change, Dollars, Percent, Share of federal taxes, Change (% points), Under the proposal (%). Panel A: 2018. Lowest quintile, 0.5, 1.1, -60, -10.4, 0.0, 0.9; Second quintile, 0.9, 4.1, -290, -9.3, 0.0, 3.8; Middle quintile, 1.2, 8.2, -660, -7.2, 0.2, 10.1; Fourth quintile, 1.2, 11.6, -1,110, -5.5, 0.6, 18.7; Top quintile, 3.3, 74.5, -8,470, -9.6, -0.7, 66.5; All, 2.1, 100.0, -1,570, -8.6, 0.0, 100.0. Addendum. 80-90, 0.8, 5.1, -1,140, -3.1, 0.9, 15.1; 90-95, 0.7, 3.3, -1,500, -2.6, 0.7, 11.4; 95-99, 2.3, 12.8, -7,620, -6.9, 0.3, 16.4; Top 1 percent, 8.5, 53.3, -129,030, -17.6, -2.6, 23.5; Top 0.1 percent, 10.2, 30.3, -722,510, -20.4, -1.7, 11.1. Panel B: 2027. Lowest quintile, 0.2, 0.8, -50, -5.4, 0.0, 1.0; Second quintile, 0.5, 3.0, -230, -5.0, 0.1, 4.1; Middle quintile, 0.5, 4.9, -420, -3.4, 0.4, 10.2; Fourth quintile, 0.4, 4.3, -450, -1.7, 0.9, 17.3; Top quintile, 3.0, 86.6, -10,610, -8.5, -1.3, 67.4; All, 1.7, 100.0, -1,690, -6.7, 0.0, 100.0. Addendum. 80-90, -0.4, -3.5, 820, 1.8, 1.2, 14.4; 90-95, -0.3, -1.5, 760, 1.1, 0.8, 10.3; 95-99, 1.8, 11.9, -7,640, -5.3, 0.2, 15.4; Top 1 percent, 8.7, 79.7, -207,060, -17.4, -3.5, 27.2; Top 0.1 percent, 9.7, 39.6, -1,022,120, -19.0, -1.8, 12.2. Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model (version 0217-1) The full report can be found at: http:// www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/ 144971/a preliminary analysis of the unified framework 0.pdf

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 Georgia, my friend Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule. Today, House Republicans are pushing a job-killing budget so they can use fast-track reconciliation procedures to steamroll through their billionaires-first tax plan. Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be the people's House. We ought to have the people's budget, a budget that helps the millions of Americans who sent us here to Congress, not a budget that helps only a few, the well-connected and the well-off. I disagree with Mr. Woodall. This is not a time to celebrate. This is a terrible budget. This budget will devastate America's investments in good paying jobs, it threatens growing wages and the bedrock promise of a secure and healthy retirement. It makes cuts across the board that would hurt seniors, children, veterans, and the hardworking people across this country who are already struggling to get by. Why are Republicans doing this? Well, it is all in the name of fast-tracking the Ryan-McConnell tax plan, which explodes the deficit by $1.5 trillion, and then provides multitrillion-dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. We Democrats think this is a horrible idea. What is particularly astonishing is the blatant hypocrisy of Republican leaders pushing this deficit-busting budget. Republicans are always telling us how much they care about the deficit, but when it comes to giving their beloved tax cuts to their billionaire friends, they suddenly develop a convenient case of amnesia. They say: What deficit? Don't worry. These tax breaks will pay for themselves. Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. In this Republican-controlled Congress, we can now say with certainty that the deficit and debt no longer matter. All of the talk by Republicans, well, they didn't really mean it. If Republicans really cared about the deficit, they would in no way imaginable bring up a bill, a budget that is as reckless as this to the floor. This kind of shows what they truly believe, where their values are, where their priorities are. How many times have Republicans talked about the importance of a balanced budget? The Speaker called for a deficit-neutral tax plan in his Better Way agenda. Well, I guess this debt-creating budget is the ``Somewhat Less Better Way'' plan. Your budget chair took to Twitter just 2 weeks ago to chastise Senate Republicans for not pursuing a balanced budget, yet now she is fully in support of their budget, which adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit with no way to pay for it. Now, let me spell this out for my Republican friends. This is not a balanced budget. Clearly, Republicans desperately need a refresher on basic arithmetic. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing balanced about hitting middle class families and millions of hardworking Americans with cuts while giving billionaires and corporations tax cuts they simply do not need. Billionaires aren't knocking down our door asking for more tax breaks. This is disgusting. This is shameful. The Republican budget destroys middle class jobs by stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from investments in infrastructure, job training, advanced energy, and research and development. It devastates Medicare and Medicaid. It demands deep cuts to safety net programs like SNAP. I am talking about food for hungry children and hardworking families. It goes after college affordability. It makes college more expensive for working families. It undercuts key supports for veterans and their families. What is particularly offensive is that Republicans are using this terrible budget as a means of passing tax cuts for the wealthy as quickly as possible regardless of the consequences and without bipartisan support. The tax reform framework supported by Republicans in Congress will raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the wealthy. Under the Republican plan, the top 1 percent would receive 80 percent of all tax benefits. Let me repeat that. The top 1 percent would receive 80 percent of all tax benefits. Give me a break. Those making more than $900,000 a year would receive an average tax cut of more than $200,000. Think about that. A person working full time in minimum wage makes $290 a week before taxes. And under this plan, people who make over $432 an hour, $900,000 a year, would get a massive tax break. Corporations will receive a tax cut totaling $2 trillion. Who loses in this plan, Mr. Speaker? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, one in three middle class taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would actually receive a tax increase, and nearly half of middle class families with kids will see their taxes go up. Can you believe that: raising taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and corporations? This is insane. To make matters worse, Republicans are planning to steamroll their tax plan through Congress. We are reading in the press that we might see actual text of their plan next week and maybe a markup and floor consideration a week or two after that. Really? Don't you think we owe it to our constituents to have thoughtful, open debate on this legislation which will impact every single one of them? I guess not. Democrats agree that our tax system needs to be updated, to be more fair, and especially to be more fair to the middle class and to working families. We have always been willing to engage in real bipartisan tax reform, but the Republican tax framework is not tax reform. It is just one more GOP multitrillion-dollar giveaway to the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class and working Americans. In all my time in Congress, I have never seen a budget and a tax plan that harms so many just to benefit so few. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, to vote against this cruel Republican budget, and to oppose a tax plan that puts wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent ahead of hardworking middle class families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, where did I get this figure about adding to the deficit by $1.5 trillion? Did I just make that up? I will tell the gentleman where I got it from. It is basically the Republican report in the Senate on the budget. Let me read from their report here. It says: ``This title includes two reconciliation instructions to the Senate committees. The first would allow the Finance Committee to reduce revenues and change outlays to increase the deficit by not more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' These are the words of Republicans in the Senate. The gentleman wants to know why we are talking about the tax plan. It is because we are presented here with a budget that essentially fast tracks a tax plan. He is right, we don't have all the details yet because it is being negotiated and written in some back room somewhere in this building. I wish I knew where it was so we could maybe try to find out some more details. But what we do know is the framework that the Republicans have put forward, and that is the basis for the analysis that economist after economist have stated that this budget basically is a giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in this country, and it is not somehow a break for the middle class. It is the exact opposite. This is a gift for billionaires and millionaires, and it does nothing for working families. That is why this is all relevant. This budget puts in place procedures for the Republicans to fast track a tax bill that they are now writing in some back room somewhere that nobody will see probably until the last minute, and basically it will be rushed through here, and it is a big giveaway to the wealthiest individuals in this country. I just wanted to clarify that for the Record. Mr. Speaker, let me say that Republican plans for tax reform would also eliminate the State and local tax deduction, called SALT. This deduction prevents millions of middle class families from being taxed twice on the same income by deducting already-paid State and local taxes from their Federal income tax. Half the people hit by this tax hike would be middle class families earning a household income of less than $100,000, and local communities will also feel that pain. Repealing the SALT deduction, which would effectively make State and local taxes more costly for taxpayers, would put pressure on local governments to lower taxes. The bipartisan National Governors Association said in a September 22 letter that the SALT deduction, ``has contributed to the stability of State revenues that are essential for providing public services.'' These services include healthcare, police and fire departments, and schools. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from the National Governors Association. National Governors Association, Washington, DC, September 22, 2017. Re Tax Reform (State and Local Tax Deduction and Municipal Bonds). Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Ron Wyden, Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin Brady, Chairman, Committee on Ways & Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Richard Neal, Ranking Member, Committee on Ways & Means, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Wyden, Chairman Brady, and Ranking Member Neal: The nation's governors appreciate congressional efforts to reform and improve federal tax policy. Federal and state tax systems are complex and often interconnected. Therefore, as Congress considers reforms, we urge you to maintain the balance between state and federal tax systems by preserving the income exclusion for municipal bond interest and the deductibility for state and local taxes. The financing engine that drives U.S. infrastructure is the $3.8 trillion municipal bond market. Changes to federal laws and regulations should not increase issuance costs to states for municipal bonds or diminish investor demand for them. If federal changes make issuing municipal bonds cost-prohibitive for states and local governments, then fewer projects could be funded, taxes could rise, fewer jobs created, and economic growth will suffer. Governors also believe that no federal law or regulation should preempt, limit, or interfere with the sovereign rights of states. A mark of sovereignty includes the ability to develop and operate revenue and tax systems. Deductibility of state and local taxes has contributed to the stability of state revenues that are essential for providing public services. We encourage you to avoid changes to the tax code that would undermine the ability of state and local governments to meet the needs of the citizens whom we all serve. Eliminating state and local tax deductibility, moreover, exposes a higher share of an itemizing taxpayer's income to federal taxation because it adds back mandatory payments of state and local taxes already paid, as taxable income. Federal tax reform requires an intergovernmental partnership because decisions at the federal level will affect state and local governments profoundly. We look forward to working with Congress on bipartisan tax reform to maintain balance between our systems and modernize the federal tax system to meet the needs of our citizens. Sincerely, Gov. Brian Sandoval, NGA Chair. Gov. Steve Bullock, NGA Vice Chair.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Members to vote to defeat the previous question; and if we do, I will offer an amendment proposed by Representative Schneider that would prohibit any legislation from limiting or repealing the State and local tax deduction. 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, to discuss this proposal and to discuss the importance of the State and local tax deduction, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been outspoken on this issue on behalf of States and communities and middle class taxpayers.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, and this will probably have to be it because, unfortunately, we have so many speakers over here. I wish I could enjoy the loneliness that my colleague from Georgia enjoys that nobody wants to speak to defend this budget.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member on the Tax Policy Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to the gentleman from Georgia, we don't need lectures on cooperation and bipartisanship. We have offered to work with Republicans on tax reform. We have offered to work with Republicans on improving the Affordable Care Act. Every time the Republicans talk about rolling up their sleeves, we are not there. We are not invited. So if you want bipartisanship, open up this process. Go back to regular order. Hold hearings. Listen to our ideas. Don't write bills in the back room and rush them to the floor and force the Members up here to vote up or down on them. Yes, we want cooperation. We want bipartisanship, but we don't need any lectures from anybody on the other side of the aisle. This has been the most closed Congress in history. We don't need any lectures on the importance of cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a budget that will basically pave the way so we can bring up a massive tax cut for billionaires. Again, the gentleman from Georgia mentioned the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in his opening remarks, and this chart is based on their analysis. Basically, let me repeat, the top 1 percent get 80 percent of all the benefits. If you think that that is fair, if you think that that is representing your constituents, then go ahead and vote for this budget, because it is paving the way for a tax cut that will do just this. I don't think it is fair. I don't think anybody on the Democratic side of the aisle thinks it is fair, and I am hoping that there are some on the Republican side of the aisle who think that that is not fair as well. The gentleman from Georgia talks about cooperation and about we need to get along. I mean, who disagrees with that? But actions speak louder than words. You can't talk about open, transparent processes and then, as we just heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), have the Ways and Means Committee which is writing this tax bill behind closed doors without any help from the Democrats, but having no hearings--not allowing any administration official to come up and testify. How is that an open and transparent process? How does that encourage the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship? I mean, I thought my friends would have learned from their terrible experience with their repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act what happens when you write bills behind closed doors without bipartisan input, without even the committees of jurisdiction, by the way, in that case, deliberating on what the final product should be. I thought you would have learned from that process, and you ended up failing at the end of the day. I hope that this effort that my Republican friends are now undertaking for tax cuts for wealthy people in this country, I hope that that fails as well. A lousy process usually leads to a lousy product. My friends on the other side of the aisle have mastered the art of lousy processes. In the Rules Committee, almost virtually everything is closed. Everything is shut down. Germane amendments routinely deny the ability for Members to offer them on the House floor because the Republicans don't want to deal with them. They are afraid they might lose. They don't want to have the debate. If you want cooperation, if you want a bipartisan tax reform bill, then you just can't say it; you have to do something. In 1986, the last time Congress did a comprehensive tax reform, we had 30 days of full committee hearings spanning over a year. There were 26 days of markup between September and December. This time, the timelines being reported in the press are maybe just a week, or a little bit more, if that. Again, if recent history is any indication, we might not even get that. A bill might just miraculously appear one day and be rushed to the floor so that no one has time to read it or analyze it and so that none of our constituents have time to understand what is really happening here. So I go back to that chart. One percent--1 percent--of the wealthiest interests in this country get 80 percent of the tax breaks. If you think that that is fair, then vote for this budget, because this budget paves the way for that tax bill to move forward. If you care about a balanced budget and if you care about deficits and debt, please vote ``no'' on this budget, because this allows us to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion. Whatever happened to deficits matter? I guess it is inconvenient because tax cuts for billionaires matter more than deficits and passing on that debt to our kids. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``no'' on this budget, and to fight like hell against this horrendous tax cut plan that my friends on the Republican side are pushing. This is bad policy. This is bad for our country. This is bad for middle class families. This is bad for not only my constituents, I would argue it is bad for your constituents. It is about time that the people's House starts enacting legislation that benefits the people of this country, not just a few who are well off and well connected. Mr. Speaker, 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 an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to respond.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Dr. Deirdre J. Loughlin. Deirdre's work as a teacher has touched the lives of so many students and families. As Manager of Staff Development, she poured her time and talent into creating an atmosphere of excellence throughout Worcester Public Schools, leaving a legacy of progress that will benefit our students for years to come. But Mr. Speaker, her lessons extended far beyond the classroom. In fact, if you spent the day with her, you would think she taught the entire city of Worcester. Seldom does a day pass by that she doesn't run into a former student. Deirdre is the kind of teacher that becomes a friend for life: staying in touch as students grow and continue on to that next chapter, always remembering a name, a memory--and yes, even that homework assignment you missed in Chemistry class. In the years I have known her, I have been personally inspired by her drive to make things better for every single young person in Worcester, no matter who they are or where they're from. She's worked with the School Committee to set strategic goals and measure success by the best benchmarks available. She's gotten creative, partnering with outside organizations to improve each school's curriculum and expand students' horizons. She's created a solid foundation which our schools will build upon for generations. And she's never lost sight of what it's all about at the end of the day: ensuring that each student has the support and opportunities he or she needs to thrive. It is with warm wishes and a deep appreciation for her lifetime of public service that I send my congratulations on behalf of the people of Worcester and the United States Congress as together we celebrate ``Dr. Deirdre J. Loughlin Day'' on October fifteenth, two thousand seventeen.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues tonight in calling the attention of Congress to the horrific ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya people that is underway in Burma. On August 25th of this year, an illegal armed militant group known as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army attacked police outposts in Rakhine state, Burma, killing twelve people. I condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms. Forty-five years ago, Pope Paul VI said ``If you want peace, work for justice.'' Especially in today's world, I do not believe that armed insurgency is the best path to justice, nor to peace. But let me be clear: the Burmese government's response to the August 25th attack over the last several weeks has been so disproportionate that one is at a loss to describe it. The military has carried out a massive scorched earth campaign in which hundreds of Rohingya villages and tens of thousands of homes have been burned and destroyed. There are many highly credible reports of people, including children, being shot in the back as they ran, and of rapes, torture and ill-treatment. As many as half a million Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh and at least another 27,000 are displaced within Burma. That is on top of the tens of thousands of Rohingya who fled after a previous armed militant attack a year ago. Most of the Rohingya population of Rakhine has now been forced out of the state. 120,000 of those who remain live in IDP camps. Stunningly disproportionate? Unimaginably, brutally, barbarically disproportionate? Flagrantly, in-your-face, try-to-stop-me disproportionate? I am left without words. Do I regret the killing of 12 policemen on August 25th? Absolutely. Do more than half a million people deserve to be punished for it? Absolutely not. And please do not talk to me about a ``growing terrorist threat'' in Burma. The Rohingya in Burma are stateless and subject to the most profound discrimination. They are poverty-stricken, denied access to education and work, and their movements within the country are restricted--and all of this was true before the militant attacks. The Burmese government has allowed the conditions for radicalization and extremism to fester within their country. The current military campaign is only making things worse. What should we be doing? First, all available leverage should be brought to bear on the Burmese military to end its violent campaign against the Rohingya people. Its actions to date are entirely removed from any concept of rule of law and make a mockery of the government's obligation to protect its people. Second, the government must ensure full and unfettered humanitarian access to Rakhine state. Given the dimensions of the crisis, this means letting in experienced aid organizations in addition to the Red Cross. It also means ending the threats, allegations and misinformation against humanitarian staff that have sparked fear among humanitarian workers, especially national staff, and contributed to an environment in which targeted attacks against humanitarian staff have taken place. Enough already. Third, the Burmese government must grant access to the fact-finding mission authorized by the UN Human Rights Council last March, after last ``clearance operation'' the military conducted from October 2016 to February of this year. Now more than ever, we need an objective international presence on the ground. Fourth, a roadmap to ending this crisis already exists. It's found in the Final Report of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. International actors, including this Congress, must do all we can to make sure that the Burmese government implements the recommendations included in that report--especially the ones that have to do with ending statelessness and poverty. Otherwise, we should not be surprised if the situation in Burma just gets worse and worse. Finally, we need to be clear-eyed about the nature of the Burmese government. I have been among those in Congress who have welcomed the political transition in Burma that began with the 2015 elections. But the events of the last few weeks raise very serious questions about the extent to which that transition is real. As events have unfolded in Burma in recent weeks, a lot of criticism has been focused on Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Laureate and de facto leader of the civilian government. Her defenders have responded that the military still has a lot of power, and that she has to walk a very fine line. But if that is true, what kind of ``democratic'' government are we talking about? If the military is still in charge--if the civilian government is powerless to stop ethnic cleansing--then we need to recognize that. If not, then let's be clear about the requirements of moral leadership. Standing by in silence--even worse, downplaying the seriousness of what is happening to the Rohingya people because of political convenience--is not the leadership we expect from Aung San Suu Kyi. Those who want to claim the mantle of human rights leader must defend the human rights of all people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, people have their ideas. Some of them are maybe not so good ideas; some of them may be very good ideas. But let's begin to talk about what our response should be. That is at least doing something. That is better than a moment of silence or offering your thoughts and prayers to people who were victims in this terrible latest massacre. We have got to do something, and nothing is no longer sufficient. We can't keep on doing that. People are horrified that Congress seems indifferent. We can't even have a hearing on this issue, never mind a debate on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Thompson bill, and maybe we can start coming together and coming up with some ideas that might save some lives. That is the least we can do. Mr. Speaker, to my other point that we either do nothing or you guys do things that make life worse for people, it brings us to the budget. This budget basically, in my opinion, is a cruel budget that targets, disproportionately, those who are poor and those who are in the middle class. It is astounding to me where some of the savings are sought. The idea that you would cut SNAP by $164 billion, a program that provides food to people; a program where 67 percent of the people on the benefit are children, are senior citizens, or people who are disabled; a program where those who can work, the majority of them work, but they earn so little in the workforce that they still qualify for that program. You want to take that benefit away, a benefit that is $1.40 per person per meal. Come on. What are people thinking when they make those kinds of suggestions? By the way, we all know what this is. It is basically a pretext to move forward on your tax cut plan, which benefits Donald Trump, Donald Trump's family, and Donald Trump's friends. This idea that somehow this would be deficit neutral is laughable. The OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, stated: ``If we simply look at this as being deficit neutral, you're never going to get the type of tax reform and tax reductions'' that you guys are looking for. That is the former colleague and the OMB Director. So we all know what is going on here. But people ought to think long and hard before they cast their vote for this Republican budget. Budgets basically indicate what we value, what we think is important. I have got to tell you, I just don't believe that if people read this budget, that a majority of my friends, we have disagreements on lots of issues, but I just don't believe that deep in your heart you actually believe this stuff. I mean, this is offensive. We ought to be talking about lifting people up and not putting them down. We ought to be talking about all of the citizens of this country with respect and treating them with dignity. We ought not treat people who are in poverty as if somehow they are invisible, and that is what this budget does. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down this Republican budget. I urge them to defeat the previous question so we can bring up, under an open rule--under and open rule, which nobody in this Congress has seen--a bill that would allow us to create a commission, a bipartisan commission to examine gun violence. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I just want to tell my colleague from Georgia, if he hasn't read what we are trying to propose here, we are suggesting that they bring up the Thompson bill to the floor under an open rule, and even get a motion to recommit, but under an open rule. Take us up on this offer because we have had no open rules in this Congress. Try it; you might like it. It might be contagious. We might see more open rules where Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives can offer their ideas. We suggest they bring it up under an open rule. I would urge all of my colleagues to think about that before they cast their vote on defeating the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I began by saying the frustration I have with this place is that we either do nothing or we make things worse for people. Going back to this issue on creating a commission to deal with gun violence, there are a lot of things I would like to do, but maybe this is a way to get some bipartisan buy-in to actually try and figure out how to respond to this epidemic of gun violence. There have been 26 bills on gun safety introduced in this Congress sponsored by Democrats and Republicans. I include that list in the Record. Gun Safety Bills in the 115th Congress 1. H. Res. 367 Establishing the Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention. 2. H.R. 2841 Title: Disarm Hate Act 3. H. Res. 361 Supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Gun Violence Awareness Day'' and ``National Gun Violence Awareness Month''. 4. H.R. 57 Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act of 2017 5. H.R. 62 Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act of 2017 (200 additional ATF Agents) 6. H.R. 1982 To authorize funding to increase access to mental health care treatment to reduce gun violence 7. H.R. 370 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that a standing committee (or subcommittee thereof) hearing be held whenever there is a moment of silence in the House for a tragedy involving gun violence 8. H.R. 630 National Statistics on Deadly Force Transparency Act of 2017 9. H.R. 445 Buyback Our Safety Act (gun buyback program) 10. H.R. 1079 Campus Gun Policy Transparency Act 11. H.R. 163 Gun Manufacturers Accountability Act 12. H.R. 2033 Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act 13. H.R. 3013 Help Communities Fight Violent Crime Act 14. H.R. 1111 Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2017 15. H. Res. 90 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that gun violence is a public health issue and Congress should enact by the end of the 115th Congress comprehensive Federal legislation that protects the Second Amendment and keeps communities safe and healthy, including expanding enforceable background checks for all commercial gun sales, improving the mental health system in the United States, and making gun trafficking and straw purchasing a Federal crime. 16. H.R. 1475 Title: Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2017 17. H.R. 1612 Title: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2017 18. H.R. 1708 Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2017 (insurance for gun owners) 19. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention. 20. H.R. 2380 Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2017 21. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention. 22. H.R. 1478 Gun Violence Research Act 23. H.R. 3613 Safer Neighborhoods Gun Buyback Act of 2017 24. H.R. 3361 SECURE Firearm Storage Act 25. King-Thompson Background Check Bill (closes gun show and Charleston loopholes, not yet reintroduced) 26. No Fly No Buy (not yet reintroduced)