Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from Georgia, thanks for reminding us that the Republicans have been working on the budget for 10 months; but according to your own Republican Budget Committee website, the budget was supposed to be presented and finished by April 15, so you are a little late. In any event, I also want to remind the gentleman, because I know he is on the Rules Committee, so I know he knows this, that the rule sets the agenda for the House. Yes, if one of the things that the Republicans want to bring up is their terrible budget, that is fine. You can do that. But the rule can also be an opportunity for us to bring up the bill that Mr. Thompson has offered, to set up this commission to deal with gun violence. We can do both. You can walk and you can chew gum at the same time. This is not a radical idea. But this is our only way to be able to bring something to the floor, because the leadership of this House has said no to everything. They have said no to everything. We can't get hearings. We can't get votes. We can't get debates. We get nothing. Don't be startled by us trying to defeat the previous question. It is a perfectly legitimate way to try to expand the agenda, and I hope that some of our Republican friends will vote with us to defeat the previous question. We can still do the budget, but we can also do the Thompson bill as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I include in the Record letters from the UAW, the SEIU, The National Treasury Employees Union, AFSCME, the American Federation of Government Employees, and NARFE. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW, Washington, DC, October 3, 2017. Dear Representative: On behalf of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), I am writing to strongly urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget resolution. The federal budget is a moral document as well as a fiscal blueprint, and H. Con. Res. 71 fails spectacularly on both fronts. This draconian budget would be a disaster for our economy, the middle class and our most vulnerable citizens. The proposed budget forces working people and retirees to pay for enormous tax cuts to the wealthy. Despite claims to the contrary, by 2027, roughly 30 percent of households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would see an increase in their taxes. H. Con. Res. 71 cuts $1.5 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid and ends the programs as we know them. Medicaid and Medicare are literal lifelines for many of our most vulnerable citizens--especially children and the elderly. Medicaid is the largest provider of nursing home and long- term care. This radical piece of legislation creates fast-track procedures to implement the tax cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and multinational corporations. The average tax cut for millionaires would be $230,000 a year by 2027. It eliminates the estate tax, which currently only applies to the top two tenths of one percent of estates, giving the ultrawealthy $239 billion in tax cuts. By 2027, 80% of tax cuts will go to the top one percent. It also uses these procedures to make at least $203 billion in cuts to mandatory programs that are important for working families and our most vulnerable citizens. In total, this budget assumes $5.4 trillion in spending cuts. Cuts of this magnitude would almost certainly lead to slashing funding for Legal Services Corporation, federal employee pensions, nutritional assistance infrastructure, and unemployment compensation, to name a few. It also repeals the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and the Affordable Care Act. This budget resolution takes America in the wrong direction. We have tried ``trickle down'' economics several times in the past; it did not work then and it will not work now. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Instead, they will come at the expense of hardworking every day Americans--many of whom have trouble affording basic necessities today. We strongly urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71 and instead work on a federal budget that invests in our country and works for ALL Americans. Sincerely, Josh Nassar, Legislative Director.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in opposition to the Republican budget. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC, August 31, 2017. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: As Congress proceeds with the 2018 budget process, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reaffirms that the federal budget is a moral document with profound implications for the common good of our nation and world. The budget requires difficult decisions that ought to be guided by moral criteria that protect human life and dignity, give central importance to ``the least of these'' (Matthew 25), and promote the welfare of workers and families who struggle to live in dignity. The Catholic Church teaches that it is the role of the state to promote the three pillars of the common good. In May 2017, we outlined these three pillars: respect for the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person, promotion of human development, and defense of peace. Our Conference has long supported the goal of reducing future unsustainable deficits that would harm all citizens, especially those who are poor. However, a just framework for sound fiscal policy cannot rely almost exclusively on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons. Sharp increases in defense and immigration enforcement spending, coupled with simultaneous and severe reductions to non-defense discretionary spending, particularly to many domestic and international programs that assist the most vulnerable, are profoundly troubling. The House Budget Committee's H. Con. Res. 71 proposes increasing defense spending by $929 billion over the next decade, which is $72 billion above sequester levels. This is coupled with a proposal to cut $4.4 trillion over the same period from domestic and international programs that assist the most vulnerable, potentially impacting health care safety net programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP, as well as food security programs like SNAP. The proposal would also reduce current funding levels for environmental stewardship by $824 million. Such deep cuts would harm people facing dire circumstances, and would place the environment and natural resources at risk. When the impact of other potential legislative proposals, including the proposed reduction of spending on health care by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade and implementation of tax policies that would offer trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy over the same period are considered, the prospects for vulnerable people become even bleaker. Our nation should elevate diplomacy, along with humanitarian and international development assistance, as primary tools for promoting lasting peace, regional stability and human rights. The USCCB urges Congress to reject H. Con. Res. 71's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget authority level of $41.521 billion for the International Affairs functions of government. This would represent a $10 billion cut from this year's appropriations for those functions. Although the USCCB does not support every individual International Affairs account, it has repeatedly called for robust diplomatic efforts to end longstanding conflicts in a range of countries, including Syria and Iraq, as well as for robust funding for refugee and humanitarian assistance. It is hard to reconcile the need for diplomacy, political solutions, and life-saving humanitarian and development assistance with cuts to the State Department budget of the magnitude proposed by H. Con. Res. 71. At the same time, H. Con. Res. 71 anticipates dramatic increases in immigration enforcement spending. We fear that such increases could pave the way for enactment of many of the destructive proposals contained in recently released budget plans, including increases in immigrant detention beds, the construction of a wall along the entire border between the United States and Mexico, and the expansion of agreements with state and local governments that threaten local law enforcement's ability to foster trusting relationships with immigrants in their jurisdictions. Any changes to the tax code called for through reconciliation should include a provision to empower the educational choices of families. The reconciliation process should not be used to achieve savings through cutting health care, nutrition, income security, or other anti-poverty programs. This budget attempts to use the reconciliation process to fast-track over $200 billion in cuts to anti-poverty programs over the next ten years, including Medicaid and Medicare. The bishops have devoted their efforts to addressing the morally problematic features of health care reform while insuring that all people have access to health care coverage. The human consequences of budget choices are clear to us as pastors. Our Catholic community defends the unborn and the undocumented, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, educates the young, and cares for the sick, both at home and abroad. We help mothers facing challenging situations of pregnancy, poor families rising above crushing poverty, refugees fleeing conflict and persecution, and communities devastated by wars, natural disasters and famines. In much of this work, we are partners with government. Our combined resources allow us to reach further and help more. Our institutions are present in every state and throughout the world, serving some of the most marginalized communities and enjoying the trust of local populations. The moral measure of the federal budget is how well it promotes the common good of all, especially the most vulnerable whose voices are too often missing in these debates. The Catholic Bishops of the United States stand ready to work with leaders of both parties for a federal budget that reduces future deficits, protects poor and vulnerable people, and advances peace and the common good. Sincerely yours, His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York, Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities. Most Rev. Oscar Cantu, Bishop of Las Cruces, Chairman, Committee on International Justice and Peace. Most Rev. Christopher J. Coyne, Bishop of Burlington, Chairman, Committee on Communications. Most Rev. Frank J. Dewane, Bishop of Venice, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. Most Rev. George V. Murry, SJ, Bishop of Youngstown, Chairman, Committee on Catholic Education. Most Rev. Joe S. Vasquez, Bishop of Austin, Chairman, Committee on Migration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in strong opposition to this rule. This can be a frustrating place. So frustrating, that sometimes I want to tear the remaining two strands of hair I have on my head out, because what we do here, in my opinion, is not to advance anything that is good for the American people. This is a frustrating place, because what happens on this House floor is either nothing or you guys make things worse. On Sunday, we once again witnessed a massacre, the worst mass shooting in American history. People across this country are demanding action, but the response of the Republican leadership in this Congress is nothing. We had a moment of silence, but it means nothing because that is all we do. There are no hearings, no debate, no votes, just absolutely nothing. It is obvious that too many Republicans have been intimidated and have been frightened or have been bought off by the National Rifle Association. It is shameful and, quite frankly, it is disgusting. If the Republican leadership of this House is not willing to lead, then move aside. Allow us to bring measures to the floor so we can have a vote, so we can have a debate, so we can enact measures that might save some lives. Mr. Speaker, what we are considering today, this Republican budget, is an example of the majority making things worse for the American people. Budgets are moral documents. They show what we value and what we care about. And if this budget reflects Republican values, then shame on Republicans. When you look at the specific programs House Republicans target, it becomes clear just how cruel this budget really is. Last night, in the Rules Committee, I complained loudly to the distinguished chairwoman of the Budget Committee about the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP, basically a program that provides poor people food. It helps prevent hunger in this country. In this budget, they call for $164 billion in cuts to this program. The chairwoman said: Well, I believe that people who get this benefit ought to work. I pointed out to her last night, and I am going to point out to my colleagues here today, that the majority of people on this program--67 percent of the people who are on this program are not expected to work. Why? Because they are children, because they are senior citizens, because they are disabled. Of those who can work, the majority work. But you have individuals who are working, who are on SNAP because they earn so little that they still qualify for this program. So why aren't we demanding that work pay more in this country? Why aren't we coming together to demand an increase in the minimum wage so it is a livable wage, so that people who work don't have to be on public assistance? Instead, we have yet another attack on poor people in the form of these cuts. The gentlewoman said: Well, I want to narrow it down to just able- bodied adults without dependents. They all ought to work. Well, many of these people do work, Mr. Speaker, but many of them don't work, for a number of reasons. Many have limited educational experience, with 80 percent having no more than a high school education or a GED. Some are aging out of foster care. Some have underlying mental health issues, difficult histories of substance abuse, or are ex-offenders with nowhere else to turn. As many as 60,000 of these able-bodied adults without dependents who have qualified for SNAP initially are veterans. These are brave, courageous men and women who have served our country, who have returned home and are having difficulty reintegrating into the community, getting on their feet. Our gratitude for their service is, we are going to throw you off the food benefit? I don't know what people are thinking who drafted this in the budget. The chairwoman of the Budget Committee said: Well, it is important that we constantly review programs to see if they are working, if they are living up to our expectations. I agree. I am a liberal Democrat. I want to make sure that whatever programs are in existence are working, are effective. Nobody is for ineffective government. I happen to sit on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Speaker. We have already held 23 oversight hearings on this program--23 on SNAP alone. We have had Republican witnesses, and we have had Democratic witnesses. As my friend from Georgia knows, his party is in control, so Republicans get to have more witnesses than Democrats do. We have had 23 hearings, and not one witness, not one, recommended a $164 billion cut in this program. In fact, what they recommended, Democrats and Republicans, was that we ought to strengthen wraparound services. That means like you ought to fund fully job training programs so that States can guarantee people a slot in a job training program. Many argue, Democratic and Republican witnesses, that the benefit is too inadequate, that we need to expand the benefit, because contrary to what you hear oftentimes on this floor about SNAP and about how generous the benefit is and that it is like a gravy train, if you will, the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. That is it. That is the benefit. That is why when you talk to the heads of food banks all across the country, in every State in this country, they tell you the same thing, that they experience an uptick in people who need to utilize their services in the middle and toward the end of the month because, basically, the benefit is not enough to carry them through the month so they can put enough food on the table for them and their families. We have 42 million people in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, who are hungry. I am ashamed of that, and I am ashamed because hunger is a political condition. What I mean by that is we can solve it, but we don't, because for some reason, this population, these people struggling in poverty, never quite rise to the level as the very wealthy in this country. We have a budget here that not only cuts SNAP but basically cuts a whole bunch of other programs aimed at helping people get out of poverty and helping struggling middle class families. Basically, this budget, just so everybody is clear, is kind of a blueprint to help pave the way for the Republican tax cut bill that they are going to produce on this floor in the not-too-distant future. It was interesting last night in the Rules Committee, we heard people talk about, well, we have to make tough choices because we don't want to saddle our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren with debt. Well, if, in fact, my Republican friends get their wish and pass this tax cut, we are told that it will add about $2.4 trillion to our debt. The deal is this, Mr. Speaker. One of the faults in their budget is they have these assumptions that we all know are not true. Like, for example, the Affordable Care Act is going to kind of mysteriously just disappear, and they are going to be able to cut Medicaid by close to $1 trillion to help offset the cost of their tax cut. But the last time I checked, their repeal barely passed this House, and it can't seem to get anywhere in the United States Senate. Their assumptions are fantasy. They are not based on reality. Mr. Speaker, it is not just food assistance that this budget dismantles. It cuts half a trillion dollars in Medicare and ends the Medicare guarantee. It rips apart the Affordable Care Act, drastically raising healthcare costs for older and low-income adults, and kicks another 20 million people off their health insurance if they get their wish here. It makes higher education more expensive. It cuts veterans' benefits. It reduces our commitment to ensuring that our neighbors have access to affordable housing. It even sticks the American taxpayer with a $1.6 billion bill to begin constructing a costly and stupid and ineffective wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico. In case people are scratching their heads, during the campaign, Donald Trump said that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I guess he didn't mean it because a downpayment was put into their budget. I could go on and on and on, but you might ask yourself, Mr. Speaker: Who wins? The answer is simple. If this budget goes through, and they pave the way for their tax cut, it is clear who the winners are: Donald Trump, the Trump family, and all of his wealthy friends. While all these cuts in the budget come from our safety net programs, infrastructure investments, and programs that help middle and working class families, none of the savings in this budget--that is right, not one penny--come from closing tax loopholes that benefit big corporations or the wealthy. As I said before, the drastic cuts are all being used to try to finance this massive tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest in this country. Give me a break. Mr. Speaker, it is galling how indifferent that so many in this House seem to be to those who are struggling in poverty. America's most vulnerable, granted they don't have super PACs, they don't have big lobbyists, their voice in Washington is supposed to be us. The whole purpose of government, in my view, is to make sure that everybody gets a fair shake, and the people who need government the most are the people who are struggling in poverty. But to listen to my colleagues and to look at this budget that they put together, it is clear that the poorest Americans in this country are being treated as if they don't exist, as if they are invisible, as if they don't matter. I just find that deeply offensive. President Kennedy said it this way. He said: ``If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'' It is frustrating. It is just frustrating that here we are with this budget which devastates so much of what I think is important. If we implemented what this budget asks us to do, this country would become a tale of two cities, and it is already getting to that point. It would truly become a tale of two cities. It would create a government without a conscience, and I think we need to push back and we need to reject that. Mr. Speaker, this isn't some Ayn Rand fantasy where we can just mess with the numbers and see what happens. We are talking about real people here--people who are counting on us; people who need help. This budget fails by any measure, in my opinion, to be a budget even for Republicans to support. I think America's hardworking middle class families and all those working to struggle to get in the middle class deserve a heck of a lot better than this. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and certainly vote against this cruel Republican budget, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the AARP, the Main Street Alliance, and the League of Conservation Voters, all in strong opposition to the Republican budget.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all Members of Congress from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda against this Republican budget. National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, July 26, 2017. Re NHLA opposition to House Budget Resolution. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), the coalition of the nation's 45 preeminent Latino advocacy organizations, we are writing to express our deep concerns with the budget resolution that recently passed out of the House Budget Committee and urge you to vote against passage of the resolution if it comes to the House floor. The resolution threatens the basic living standards of tens of millions of Americans in order to subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy. From education and scientific research to basic assistance and health programs, the House budget would cut $4.4 trillion from entitlement programs and $1.3 trillion from non-defense discretionary programs over the next decade, crippling the most important drivers of our nation's economic engine--working families. For these reasons, and those detailed further below, NHLA will consider any votes on the budget resolution for inclusion in future NHLA scorecards evaluating the support of Members of Congress for the Latino community. Budget resolutions serve as fiscal blueprints that signal the priorities of government spending to support all Americans in their attainment of the American Dream. However, rather than seek to bolster opportunities for American working families, the House budget places the burden of reducing our deficit squarely on the backs of families struggling to make ends meet in order to give tax breaks to wealthy corporations and individuals. Rather than investing in America's future homebuyers, workers, and students, both the House budget and President Trump's budget undermine the progress our country has made and prioritize corporate interests over those of hardworking American families. The trillions of dollars of cuts in the House budget would have a catastrophic impact on the millions of Latinos who struggle to put food on their tables and a roof over their heads. Recent research by UnidosUS (formerly NCLR) provides evidence of the strong impact of federal assistance programs on lifting millions of Latinos, especially children, out of poverty. In 2015, for example: Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) lifted about 2 7 million Latinos out of poverty, including 1.4 million children. Child Tax Credit (CTC) lifted an estimated 981,000 Latinos out of poverty, including 560,000 children. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) lifted an estimated 1.3 million Latinos out of poverty, including 640,000 children. Rental assistance lifted about 720,000 Latinos out of poverty, including 270,000 children. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) lifted an estimated 630,000 Latinos out of poverty, including 140,000 children. The House budget resolution would threaten the effectiveness of many of these programs. The budget plan also calls for cuts to Medicaid and other health programs more severe than the House-passed bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Further, the House budget resolution dismantles consumer and worker protections, jeopardizing the ability of Latino and all working families to build and maintain wealth. The budget plan not only guts the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--the only agency whose sole mission is to protect Americans from predatory practices in the financial marketplace--but also undermines our nation's workforce, cutting funding for the Wage and House Division in the Department of Labor more deeply than proposed in the Trump budget. Additionally, Latino workers cannot afford cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, which protects our human health and environment from toxic chemicals. Working families need more and better enforcement of consumer financial and labor protection laws to protect Americans from abuse, and also ensure law-abiding financial service providers, as well as employers, are not harmed by unfair competition by unscrupulous actors. Simply put, the House budget resolution would harm American families and workers, especially Latinos, making our nation more inequitable and less prepared for economic challenges. We strongly urge Members of Congress to oppose the House budget plan and instead support a budget that defends the interests of the American public and prudently spends taxpayer dollars. Sincerely, Hector Sanchez Barba, Chair, NHLA, Executive Director, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA). Bruce Goldstein, Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee, President, Farmworker Justice. Eric Rodriguez, Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee, Vice President, UnidosUS.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition on Human Needs against the Republican budget. Coalition on Human Needs, Washington, DC, October 3, 2017. Dear Representative: On behalf of the Coalition on Human Needs, I strongly urge you to vote no on H. Con. Res. 71, the proposed FY 2018 Budget Resolution, and to vote for the substitute budgets advanced by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the Democratic alternative budget resolution. The Coalition on Human Needs is an alliance made up of human service providers, faith organizations, policy experts, labor, civil rights, and other advocates for meeting the needs of low-income and vulnerable people. Our members understand that the economic security of millions of American families depends on building on the progress we've made in health coverage, jobs, basic living standards, and ensuring that our children are well-prepared for productive lives. But the majority's proposed budget does not build--it breaks apart our engines of progress. It will make our nation weaker for decades to come. The most recent survey data on poverty in the U.S. shows the biggest two-year decline since the late 1960's. Refundable tax credits for working families, SNAP/food stamps and housing subsidies have lifted multi-millions of people out of poverty. The decline in the proportion of our population without health insurance continued its decline in 2016, down to 8.8 percent. More people are working, and in general, low- and moderate-income households have finally started to make income gains. The budget advanced by the House Budget Committee would be a dangerous backwards plunge, stripping trillions of dollars from programs that work to reduce poverty and create security and opportunity. Medicaid, Medicare, working family tax credits, nutrition assistance, education and housing assistance: these are just some of the services the budget would massively cut. The budget takes trillions in funding that supports economic security and progress and hands it to the wealthy and corporations in the form of enormous tax cuts. The primary goal of H. Con. Res. 71 is to allow huge tax cuts to be enacted with only a simple majority in the Senate. These tax cuts are claimed to be a critical element in increasing economic growth enough to make the tax cuts deficit neutral. Reputable economists are skeptical that the proposed tax cuts would boost the economy to the 2.6 percent average growth projected in the budget and acknowledge that tax cuts to corporations and the rich deepen the deficit. History supports this: the economy grew and unemployment declined more during the Clinton tax increase years than during the Bush era tax cuts. And the Kansas experience with tax cuts is cautionary: revenues plummeted, with the tax take in 2016 $570 million lower than in 2013, even after counting increases enacted in sales and cigarette taxes. The economic growth that did occur from cutting taxes was estimated to bring in about $30 million, leaving the state very deeply in the hole. The state legislature has recently reversed course, unwilling to slash education budgets as much as the revenue hole would have forced. They saw that they were weakening their state. Congress should not inflict the same dangerous lesson on the entire nation. We urge you to reject H. Con. Res. 71 because of its central choice: paying for tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the rich and corporations with cuts to essential services. Our nation faces major challenges: reducing disproportionate poverty among children and helping children and young adults to advance in education so they can meet the challenges in our economic future, protecting seniors in their retirement, and rebuilding communities. Both the emergency needs of communities devastated by natural disasters and the similarly urgent threats from opioids and other epidemics, decaying infrastructure and inadequate public health and consumer protections demand a vigorous federal response. Instead of making these investments, the House budget would cripple the federal capacity to respond by slashing domestic appropriations by 44 percent compared with FY 2010 levels over the next decade and making similarly extreme cuts in health care, nutrition, income assistance for seniors, people with disabilities, and working families. In addition to trillions of dollars in cuts and structural constraints to basic mandatory programs, the budget would fast-track $203 billion in cuts to domestic programs over the next ten years through reconciliation rules. Cuts like these would recklessly weaken us; they are self-inflicted wounds. The proposed tax cuts will worsen inequality and reward businesses that park their income offshore. Instead, Congress should insist that corporations and the rich pay their fair share. Please vote against weakening America, and instead protect and expand investments as called for in the budgets proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the House Budget Committee Democrats' substitute. These three constructive alternatives deserve your yes vote. Sincerely yours, Deborah Weinstein, Executive Director.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that it is clear that, certainly on the Democratic side, we are very much dedicated to trying to lift people out of poverty. That is one of the reasons why we oppose this Republican budget that cuts $211 million from financial aid programs to help people be able to get additional higher education. That is one of the reasons why we have complained loudly about the inadequate funding for job training. You want people to train for employment, you need to make sure that those slots are available so that people can get the training and the assistance they need. The gentleman says: Don't worry about the debt because the reconciliation instructions will instruct the Ways and Means Committee to do a deficit neutral tax plan. Well, I mean, there is lots of stuff in here that are assumptions that aren't true, like, you repealed the Affordable Care Act. That didn't happen and it is not going to happen. And what we are told from the Tax Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, according to their analysis, is that what the Republicans are proposing in terms of their tax plan will basically cost well over $2 trillion, and that will be added to our debt. So I don't--we can debate fantasyland if we want, but the reality is the reality, and this budget is a bad deal for everybody. Mr. Speaker, this week, our Nation witnessed the deadliest mass shooting in history. We have endured horrific mass killings in Newtown, San Bernardino, Orlando, and now Las Vegas, among many others, all without any congressional action. The killings happen every single day on our streets, at public events, and even in our homes. Mr. Speaker, my heart broke when the children of Sandy Hook were killed, and I remain absolutely stunned that this Congress has done nothing about it, nothing. Now 59 people lost their lives in Las Vegas during what was supposed to be a celebratory event, a concert, and this is only 16 months after the last deadly mass shooting in Orlando. Gun violence in this country is out of control, and all we have done is cater to the gun lobby. The United States Congress is a legislative body, Mr. Speaker. We are not a think tank or a church or a synagogue. Thoughts and prayers are not what this country expects from us, and it is not what it needs from us. The people of this country need us to act, to pass laws that protect their lives and their children's lives. As my colleague in the Senate, Senator Chris Murphy, has said: ``This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend that there aren't any public policy responses to this epidemic. There are. And the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with legislative indifference.'' For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Mr. Thompson's bill, H. Res. 367, which I am a cosponsor of, which would establish the Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention. Mr. Speaker, let me explain what I mean when I say ``defeat the previous question.'' We are here debating which bills will come to the House floor this week, the agenda for the House of Representatives. The majority chose to consider their misguided budget. Fine. We can do that. But what I am saying is that we should also take the first step in at least setting up a committee to look at gun violence in America. So if we say no to ending debate on this rule, by defeating the previous question, we can then debate whether or not to create this committee. This is the least we can do. 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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this Friday marks the 40th anniversary of the Food Stamps Act of 1977, landmark legislation that expanded the reach of the Food Stamps program and made it more effective and efficient. The bipartisan legislation came as a response to the severe hunger and malnutrition that plagued our country in the 1960s. In 1968, a CBS documentary called ``Hunger in America'' turned the Nation's focus to this terrible problem, making us all aware that even in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, kids were going to school hungry and families couldn't afford nutritious meals. For the next decade, my friend and mentor, Senator George McGovern, the Democrat from South Dakota; and Senator Bob Dole, a Republican from Kansas, led the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. This bipartisan panel worked to examine the issue of hunger and malnutrition in the United States. They held field hearings to witness firsthand how devastating the curse of hunger was across this country. They worked together to educate the public and other Members of Congress on hunger, and worked together to find common ground on how best to tackle this terrible problem. Out of this work came important updates to the Food Stamps program. The Food Stamps Act of 1977 established national standards of eligibility for the program and eliminated the requirement that recipients pay for their stamps. It was revolutionary and it helped to dramatically reduce extreme poverty and extreme hunger in the United States. Since the 1970s, Congress has worked to strengthen the program, making it even more effective and efficient. We have modernized benefit processing, and replaced the paper food stamps with EBT cards. We have added incentives for the purchase of healthy foods, and improved access to fresh fruits and vegetables. We have updated benefit calculations to exclude combat pay for military families, and allow childcare deductions to assist families with young children. In 2008, we renamed the program SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The modern SNAP provides millions of children, seniors, and other vulnerable adults with food assistance each year. It helps families lift themselves out of poverty, and improves health, educational, and economic outcomes for its recipients. As I hear from families in my district, I learn how powerful SNAP is in transforming lives. Just last week I heard the story of a graduate school-educated constituent who became disabled and was unable to work and was resistant to applying for SNAP. She didn't think she fit the profile of someone who needed food benefits, but she did. She applied for and received benefits, and now she no longer panics about where her next meal is going to come from. This constituent wanted us to know that people who use SNAP are not lazy. She said: ``SNAP helps people at least not to have to worry as much about going to bed, school, or work hungry.'' Another constituent shared that she and her husband rely on SNAP to eat healthier meals. Prior to receiving benefits, they had peanut butter and jelly for almost every meal. Now, with modest assistance, they are able to buy fruits and vegetables. While they still continue to struggle, they are able to enjoy more nutritious meals, and they have seen an improvement in their health. These are just a few stories of how important it is to maintain--and increase--these lifesaving food benefits. Still, as 42 million Americans continue to struggle with hunger and food insecurity, more needs to be done. In preparation for the 2018 farm bill, the House Agriculture Committee has conducted a thorough review of the program. We have held 23 hearings and received testimony from dozens of expert witnesses-- both liberal and conservative--who all agree that the program is working. Based on this testimony, we have learned that there is no reason whatsoever to undermine the program through structural changes, block grants, further restrictions, more onerous requirements, or cuts, as some of my House colleagues have proposed. Instead, we should be focused on making the program even better. We need to make sure that anyone who needs modest food assistance benefits has access to them. We need to support and expand innovative programs that help to increase the purchasing power of SNAP, and we need to increase SNAP benefits which currently average a mere $1.40 per person, per meal, in order to provide families on the program with access to more nutritious food that will last them through the month. Mr. Speaker, SNAP works. It is our Nation's first line of defense against hunger and one of the most important tools we have to help lift our neighbors out of poverty. In the spirit of Senators McGovern and Dole, it is time for Congress to renew their bipartisan commitment to ending hunger in this country once and for all. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the landmark Food Stamp Act of 1977, I urge my colleagues to join me in strengthening SNAP and working to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Mauro G. DePasquale. Mauro is a gifted filmmaker, singer, writer, and composer who has put his creativity to work as the Executive Director of Worcester Cable Community Access TV, where he started as a volunteer in 1990. Mauro has been a driving force behind the success of Worcester Cable Community Access TV, where he has used his platform to encourage community involvement and educational programming. Mauro has produced over one thousand television shows, and hosted and produced music scores for many TV and documentary films. His work in television production has been recognized with a Pegasus TV award, a TELLY award, and many other awards. Through WCCA, Mauro offers citizens of Worcester from all walks of life and opinions the chance to speak their mind and be heard. Mauro's soft-spoken exterior gives way to lively piano and vocals when he performs with his popular musical combo Jazzed Up, which he started in 2012. For the past few years, Jazzed Up has performed at the Worcester Columbus Day Parade Grand Marshal Banquet. Jazzed Up has been nominated Best Jazz Act at the Worcester Music Awards 2012-2015, and in 2014, Worcester Living Magazine voted Jazzed Up Best Entertainment group in Central Massachusetts. Mauro is proud of his Italian heritage. Like so many Americans, his family came to the United States in search of a better life. His own experiences--hearing of the oppression and prejudice faced by immigrants when they first arrived in the United States--have made Mauro a lifelong supporter of the underdog and a strong voice for community service in Worcester. Mauro has been a fierce advocate for preserving Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church. As President of the Mount Carmel Preservation Society, he has fought tirelessly to save the church, which has been an epicenter for the Italian-American community in Worcester for nearly ninety years. But Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just to recognize Mauro's public service, but to congratulate him on a new honor--on October 8, 2017 Mauro will march down Shrewsbury Street as Grand Marshal of the 2017 Worcester Columbus Day Parade. I join with all the residents of Worcester in thanking Mauro for his service to our community, and congratulating him on his selection as Grand Marshal of the 2017 Worcester Columbus Day Parade.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as kids, we were taught that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Still, far too many students-- especially those living in poverty--arrive at school hungry each day. Congress can and must do more to bolster our school breakfast programs so that all students across the country have access to a nutritious breakfast to start the day. I have joined my Republican colleague on the House Agriculture Committee, Congressman Rodney Davis, on a bill to expand commodity support to the School Breakfast Program. The bipartisan Healthy Breakfasts Help Kids Learn Act will provide schools with additional nutritious food to ensure no student starts his or her day hungry. Importantly, this legislation will allow schools to expand their breakfast programs, improve their menus, and serve students nutritious, American-grown foods. Mr. Speaker, school meals are just as essential as a textbook when it comes to helping our kids learn and succeed. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this bipartisan legislation that, combined with other antihunger safety net programs, will work to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who deserves a vote in this House, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), my colleague, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.