Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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 make sure everyone understands that. We thought we were through with it here in the House, but we may not be. After Republicans used emergency procedures on more than one occasion to rush their bill through the House of Representatives, we found out that Republican leaders had yet to send a bill over to the Senate for its consideration. Instead, they have been hiding the bill for nearly 3 weeks. What happened to the urgency that my colleagues were talking about a few weeks ago? We heard from our Republican friends that the sky would fall if we didn't act upon TrumpCare immediately. It had to be done right then and there. We couldn't slow down long enough to hear from the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office. We couldn't slow down enough so that people could actually read what was in the bill. We couldn't slow down enough to do hearings or to get estimates on how this massive bill would impact the healthcare of millions of Americans. I think it has become clear to all of us, Mr. Speaker, that the only reason to rush through this process was to trick their own Members into voting for this disastrous bill. It was to keep their Members from seeing the CBO score before they voted for the bill, because if they had seen it, many of them may not have voted for it. Republican leadership couldn't risk transparency, and they wouldn't let the facts get in the way of passing TrumpCare. We expect CBO to release their final analysis tomorrow. Finally, we will know how many millions of Americans will be kicked off of their healthcare because of these reckless and heartless Republican policies. We will find out how devastating this bill will be for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. And we will finally learn just how big that tax cut for wealthy Americans is going to be. I guess my question to Republican leaders of this House is: What was the rush? If you were going to have to hold up the bill over here until the CBO score was released anyway, why couldn't we just have waited to receive this very important information before we asked the House to vote on this terrible bill? Oh, wait. I know why the Republican leadership needed to move TrumpCare so fast, so that the bill's namesake--President Trump--didn't throw a temper tantrum. That is what this was all about. So he wouldn't call them out in one of his infamous Twitter rants. But it wasn't about good legislating. It was a lousy process basically designed to prematurely shove a bill through that is bad for Americans, all for some headline or temporary political gain. Now, if you have been watching the news lately, you will notice that our 45th President hasn't been generating the best headlines, what with ``this Russia thing''--those are his words--constant leaks of information from his staff to the press, never mind the President's leaking of sensitive classified information on national security matters. President Trump needed a win for himself, even if it is a loss for the American people. As we all know, it is all about him. Now, I remind my Republican colleagues that they work for the American people, that the ultimate boss for all of us is our constituents, not the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has made a habit of completely skirting regular order and rushing through legislation crafted behind closed doors with no opportunity for meaningful debate and consideration, and this TrumpCare bill is a prime example. We had emergency meetings, backroom deals, and fixes to the fixes to the fixes, and what we were left with is a lousy product that we may have to consider again. My Republican colleagues should be ashamed of themselves. Process matters. We are on the Rules Committee. If you don't believe process matters, you ought to get on a different committee. It matters for the integrity of this institution, and it matters if we are to prevent lousy legislation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the Trump budget that was just released this morning. We are still digging through the text and combing through the details, but from what we have already seen, it is devastating. Reports indicate that this budget makes the deepest cuts to Federal programs that help the most vulnerable, the poorest of the poor. Mr. Speaker, that is nothing to be proud of. At a time when our crumbling infrastructure needs repair, our kids need access to affordable education, and our workers need training to move into high-tech jobs, we simply cannot afford to turn our back on these critical investments that will move our country forward. But this budget plan does just that. Since we are on the floor to talk about an antienvironment bill today, I should note that the Environmental Protection Agency is among the agencies hardest hit by President Trump's ruthless proposal. Through massive cuts to the EPA, the Trump administration is paving the way toward dirtier air and more polluted water. But my Republican colleagues don't seem to be too concerned with that. They have been proposing cuts to EPA for years and years and years. Mr. Speaker, of all the rotten provisions tucked into this document-- and I could go on and on and on--I find the most troubling to be the radical assault on people living in poverty. You know, it is easy to sit in an office at OMB and concoct plans to throw people off of SNAP and off of Medicaid and kick them out of their housing. This plan does just that. By any reading, by any measure, that is what it does. We are reading about a $274 billion cut to our safety net, on top of the over $800 billion cut to Medicaid included in the TrumpCare bill. These are real people, Mr. Speaker. They are our constituents. They are our neighbors and our friends. Our kids go to school together. But given some of the proposals I have seen from this majority party, I have to wonder whether some of my colleagues might never have talked with anyone living in poverty. I would say to them, life is very different when you leave your country club. Life is very different. It is very hard for people struggling in poverty. Being poor in this country is hard work, and you ought to know that by now. My Republican colleagues have made a habit of belittling the poor instead of trying to understand their struggles. They work hard, Mr. Speaker--often at more than one job--to put food on the table for their kids and to find a roof over their heads. They are exhausted from work and from worry. We see them every day, serving tables, washing dishes, hauling away trash, cleaning offices, mowing lawns, stacking heavy loads, taking care of people's children, comforting the sick. Theirs are the faces in the bus windows going home from work at 2 in the morning. Theirs are the faces arriving at work at 5 in the morning the next day. They deserve our respect, not the disdain shown to them and to their families in this disgraceful budget. I would like to remind my colleagues that poverty and hunger in rural areas is often as bad as, and sometimes even worse than, in cities. So I find it highly offensive that this budget slashes our safety net for the very people that President Trump promised to protect, the very people who put President Trump in office. You know, I heard some of the rationale for this budget from the White House, saying: Well, you know, people who are on SNAP ought to work. Well, let me just say for the Record so it is clear to everybody here that the majority of people on SNAP are children, are senior citizens, are people who are disabled. Of those who can work, a majority of them work. They work, but they earn so little that they are still stuck in poverty. Why aren't we having a debate about increasing wages in this country? Why is the debate focused on how we make the lives of those in poverty even more miserable? You know, budgets are moral documents, and this is the most heartless, reckless, and damaging plan I have ever seen. It is immoral. The President's Budget Director talked yesterday about compassion for taxpayers and for Trump supporters. Well, give me a break. You know, I would tell Mr. Mulvaney I don't think that word means what he think it means. Compassion, that is feeding starving children, helping a father get back on his feet after a job loss, helping a mother get back on her feet after a job loss, cleaning up poisoned water, ensuring everyone has a chance at living a healthy life regardless of how much money they have. That is compassion, not turning our backs on these people. Tax cuts for the wealthiest among us at the expense of the public safety net is cruel. It is coldhearted and, Mr. Speaker, I am sick of it. I assure you that is not compassionate. So I hope my Republican colleagues will have the courage to stand up against this administration and do what is right for the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Throughout his campaign, President Trump made promises that he would not cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Now we have come to find out that he has broken every one of those promises. The Trump budget includes more than $800 billion in Medicaid cuts in the GOP healthcare bill and then adds additional cuts on top of that, with total Medicaid cuts of over $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Furthermore, the Trump budget guts Social Security disability insurance which, as of 2015, covered 10 million recipients. The Trump budget also slashes funding for SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger, by $193 billion. That is a 25 percent cut. SNAP is the program that provides people food. That's it--food. We have 42 million people in this country who are food insecure--42 million. We should all be ashamed of that. And the answer is to cut SNAP by 25 percent? Oh, and by the way, the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. And let's not forget that the Republicans' healthcare disaster takes $75 billion out of the Medicare trust fund, shortening the life of the trust fund.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman wants to yield me some of his time, I am more than happy to go on for as long as you would like.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to my colleagues that I urge everybody in this House to remember why we came to Congress and who sent us here. Our primary obligation is to the people of this country, and they did not send us here to make their lives more miserable. When you look at the priorities in the President's budget, when you look at the impact that the healthcare bill, the TrumpCare bill that the House of Representatives passed, when you look at the impact it is going to have on tens of millions of Americans in this country, these bills will devastate people. So we need to get back to what is important. It is not about propping up the President during his difficulties. It is not about playing to the cheap seats at the Heritage Foundation or some other rightwing think tank. Our primary obligation is to people of the United States. This budget and the priorities of this Republican majority and the priorities of this President undercut the security and the economic well-being of every single person in this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Well, I don't think it is. I would just simply say to the gentleman, if he wants more cooperation, then maybe we ought to open the process up, and actually listen to what the Democrats have to say too.

Mr. McGOVERN. Again, hearing the gentleman say that we all want to protect the lives of pregnant women and children, I just want to ask as an inquiry: Is the amendment by Eddie Bernice Johnson that prohibits the discharge of toxins in such circumstances where they would be harmful to pregnant women, or could harm fetal, or early childhood development, which is perfectly germane, is that made in order? Is that part of the rule?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McGOVERN. I would just say that the bill has changed over the years, and I voted against it in committee. I guess the question is: If we are all in agreement that we want to protect women and children, what was the harm in making in order an amendment that would have done that? It was perfectly germane, and the Rules Committee decided not to make it in order. I think that is a question that the gentleman hasn't answered. I appreciate that all the people on the Agriculture Committee are experts, but you know what? There are other people who know a lot about science, pesticides, and agriculture who were not on the committee. And just because a committee takes action--I mean, if that is the new rule now: if you are on the committee, you can't offer amendments. Well, that is an unfortunate new approach that the Republicans are taking.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. So, Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that, instead of protecting our most vulnerable, President Trump and the House Republicans continually insist on tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Mr. Speaker, we need to hold President Trump to his word. Therefore, I am asking that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would change the rules of the House to prevent any legislation from being considered if it would result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under the Social Security Act, if it would increase either the early or full retirement age to receive Social Security benefits. This would prevent any legislation from being considered if it would privatize Social Security. We would prevent any legislation from being considered that would result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits for individuals entitled to or enrolled for benefits under Medicare or result in a reduction of benefits or eligibility for individuals enrolled in or eligible to receive medical assistance through a State Medicaid plan or waiver. 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 would just say to the gentleman that a number of amendments that are germane were offered in the Rules Committee to protect the health and safety of women and children, and they were not made in order. So amendments were offered and they were blocked. I just point that out for the Record.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me begin as well and echo what Mr. Woodall said in praising Brian Cooper for his many decades of service to this body. We appreciate all of his years of service. We appreciate all of the years he drove back and forth to work from Baltimore. And we appreciate the incredible patience that he has demonstrated over the years by having to listen to us time and time again. One of the great joys of serving in this body is that you meet some remarkable people. Brian Cooper is certainly a remarkable person, and he will be missed. And I think on behalf of everybody here, we want to say: thank you. Mr. Speaker, let me rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. My colleague, Mr. Woodall, just referenced all of the times we passed it, it went over to the Senate, and it didn't go anywhere. Maybe we should take a hint from the Senate that it is not a good bill and we ought to kind of reconsider some of the aspects of this bill. But here we are again on the House floor with yet another regulatory rollback. It is shameful that the leadership of this House continues to waste precious time on bills that seem to address the concerns of Big Industry over the needs of our constituents, especially as we have so much that needs to be accomplished. By the way, whatever happened to regular order? Do you remember when committees held hearings and markups? The Agriculture Committee, on which I serve, did not hold a hearing. It held a markup, but it did not hold a hearing. And the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the committee with primary jurisdiction over this bill, held no hearing and did no markup. And let's talk about amendments. The majority made in order less than half of the amendments submitted--two amendments--but they blocked through completely germane amendments. Members jumped through all of the hoops, they dotted all of the Is, and they crossed all of the Ts. These were properly drafted amendments, and they were blocked because the Republican majority was afraid to vote on them. Now, what were these amendments? Well, an amendment to prohibit the discharge of toxics in such circumstances where they would be harmful to pregnant women or harm fetal or early childhood development. The amendment protects pregnant women and children. Blocked. An amendment to create an exception for communities that use a source of drinking water where a Federal or State emergency declaration has been issued due to a threat to public health, such as heightened exposure to an identified contaminant. Blocked. An amendment to ensure existing Clean Water Act protections apply to waters that a State has already determined are polluted by pesticides. Blocked. They were blocked because they would have passed. Why are my colleagues afraid of protecting pregnant women, and ensuring clean drinking water? That is what these amendments were about. They were germane. The only reason why they are not in order is because you chose to block them in the Rules Committee. I would say to my Republican friends: You are not running this institution. You are ruining this institution. This is supposed to be a deliberative body. Let's start acting like it. And that means bringing germane amendments to the floor, letting us have a debate, letting Republicans and Democrats debate, and then vote on those amendments. There is not a single reason at all other than the fact that the Republican leadership did not want these amendments to pass that they were not made in order. That is not the way this place is supposed to work. And speaking of a bad process, late last week, Billy House at Bloomberg News broke the news that the House may need to vote again on this devastating TrumpCare bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article by Billy House. [From www.bloomberg.com, May 18, 2017] House May Need To Vote Again on GOP Obamacare Repeal Bill (By Billy House) House Republicans barely managed to pass their Obamacare repeal bill earlier this month, and they now face the possibility of having to vote again on their controversial health measure. House Speaker Paul Ryan hasn't yet sent the bill to the Senate because there's a chance that parts of it may need to be redone, depending on how the Congressional Budget Office estimates its effects. House leaders want to make sure the bill conforms with Senate rules for reconciliation, a mechanism that allows Senate Republicans to pass the bill with a simple majority. Republicans had rushed to vote on the health bill so the Senate could get a quick start on it, even before the CBO had finished analyzing a series of last-minute changes. The CBO is expected to release an updated estimate next week. ``Unaware,'' said Representative Jeff Denham of California, with noticeable surprise Thursday, when advised that his party leaders still hadn't sent the bill over to the Senate. Denham was one of the House Republicans who ended up voting for the measure, after earlier in the week opposing it. ``I am on the whip team and we have a lot of conversations, but we have not had that one. So I am going to look into it,'' said Denham, a member of the party's vote-counting team. Downplaying Concern One senior GOP aide downplayed any concern over the potential trouble from the CBO report, depicting it as hypothetical, and saying that leaders will cross that bridge if they need to. According to several aides and other procedural experts, if Republicans send the bill to the Senate now and the CBO later concludes it doesn't save at least $2 billion, it would doom the bill and Republicans would have to start their repeal effort all over with a new budget resolution. Congressional rules would likely prevent Republicans from fixing the bill after it's in the Senate, the aides said. In the Senate, the bill must hit separate $1 billion deficit reduction targets in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee and the chamber's health committee. Republican aides said failing to meet those numbers would force the House to fix the bill even if the legislation meets the overall cost-savings target. If Republican leaders hold onto the bill until the CBO report is released, then Ryan and his team could still redo it if necessary. That would require at least one more House vote of some sort. Ryan told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday that he doesn't think the House will need to vote again on the health law. ``We just want to, out of an abundance of caution, wait to send the bill over to the Senate when we get the final score,'' Ryan said. That vote could be cloaked in some kind of arcane procedural move, but it would still be depicted as a proxy for yet another vote on the same bill--and reluctant Republicans will once again be forced to decide whether to back it. Only this time, they would also be saddled with the CBO's latest findings about the bill's costs and impacts. Republicans had a sizable deficit reduction cushion--$150 billion--before several amendments were added to the bill at the last minute, including changes allowing states to legalize much skimpier health insurance plans. Budget Assumptions It's unclear what assumptions the CBO will make about what states will do with that newly created flexibility. If millions of people sign up for much cheaper, minimal insurance, that could trigger billions--and potentially even hundreds of billions--in costs over a decade because of the House bill's health insurance tax credits. ``We've got to wait for the CBO score,'' said Greg Walden of Oregon, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which authored much of the bill. ``To prove that you meet the reconciliation test.'' But other senior Republicans weren't aware that leaders had been holding onto the bill. ``I had no idea,'' Dennis Ross of Florida, another member of the vote-counting team, said Thursday, adding that the prospect of another vote ``does concern me.'' GOP leaders never said publicly they were planning to hold on to the bill for two weeks or longer. Democrats' Criticism ``Every school child knows that when you pass a bill in the House, you send it to the Senate,'' said Louise Slaughter, the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee. ``You don't hide it in a drawer somewhere for two weeks, while you wait for information that you should have had before you passed it.'' The speaker and other Republicans urgently pushed their May 4 floor vote, despite a polarized Republican conference, using the frantic final hours to win over holdouts. Even so, 20 Republicans still voted against the bill. After the bill squeaked through, Ryan and other senior Republicans dashed to the White House for an unusual celebration of a one-chamber vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 20 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Nigeria are on the brink of famine. We saw this coming. The warning signs were there long before January of this year. I am so proud that Republicans and Democrats joined together to include an additional $1 billion in the FY 2017 omnibus bill to address these famines. Our citizens and our farmers have always been generous in times of such grave need. They know that we have to protect children from hunger and the violence of war. They know that we need to support diplomacy and development to avoid future catastrophes. Our united effort must continue in FY 2018, but the President's budget eliminates the Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole programs, and reduces funding for disaster assistance. I only hope President Trump and Secretary Tillerson will come to their senses. We must not stand by and watch millions of children and families literally starve to death. We must act, and we must lead.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, June 17 will mark the fifth anniversary of the arrest of Raif Badawi, a human activist and writer who created the website ``Free Saudi Liberals.'' He is a prisoner of conscience sentenced to 1,000 lashes, 10 years in prison, and a 10-year travel ban for exercising his fundamental right to freedom of expression. He was convicted of violating Saudi Arabia's draconian information technology law and ``insulting Islam.'' Since his imprisonment in 2012, Raif's case has garnered international attention and outrage. For the courage he displayed as a free-speech advocate, he has won many awards, including the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Prize in 2014, the PEN Pinter International Writer of Courage Prize, and the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2015. His writings were a breath of fresh air in a country that ranks 168 out of 180 in Reporters Without Borders 2017 World Press Freedom Index. In January 2015, Raif received the first 50 of the 1,000 lashes ordered by the so-called court that sentenced him. Try to imagine what that means, what it would feel like to have someone whip you 50 times in a row, what it would do to your body, and how it would cut you up and make you bleed. The lashing was carried out in public in front of a mosque as men stood around and cheered. It was barbaric. A week after the first session of flogging, a doctor advised prison authorities that Raif's wounds had not healed enough for him to undergo the second round of this brutal punishing. To date, the lashings have not continued, but they could resume at any time. Last year, Raif had to resort to a hunger strike to get access to healthcare. It has been 5 years since he has seen his wife, Ensaf, and his three children. They are growing up, and he is missing it because he dared to write what he thought. I am sorry to say that Raif is not an isolated case. Reporters Without Borders has identified another 10 journalists and citizen journalists detained in Saudi Arabia. Waleed Abu al-Khair, a prominent human rights defender and Raif's lawyer, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for ``harming the reputation of the state by communicating with international organizations'' and other supposed crimes, like ``insulting the judiciary and questioning the integrity of judges'' and ``disobeying the ruler and seeking to remove his legitimacy.'' Many other human rights defenders are in prison for doing things like setting up human rights organizations without permission and calling for protests. All of the founders of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association have been wrongfully put on trial or imprisoned. Mr. Speaker, I understand that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States, but we also know that Saudi Arabia's human rights record is terrible. According to our own State Department, ``The most important human rights problems include citizens' lack of ability and legal means to choose their government, restrictions on universal rights such as freedom of expression, including on the internet, association, movement, and religion, and pervasive gender discrimination and lack of equal rights that affect most aspects of women's lives.'' That is not exactly a short list, Mr. Speaker. Yet the President of the United States just traveled to Saudi Arabia without saying a single word in public about human rights, without speaking up even once on behalf of all the people who are wasting away in jails because they chose to defend a client, advocate for minorities, or call for reform. The President wants to buy cooperation in the fight against extremism with a $110 billion arms deal, but Saudi Arabia will not achieve security or stability by repressing peaceful dissent. On the contrary, repression creates the conditions for extremism. Haven't we learned that lesson by now? Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, understands what the President does not. We in the United States have long believed moral concerns must be an essential part of our foreign policy, not a departure from it. Our values are our great strength and greatest treasure. We have been the country that saw the world as it was and made it better. Mr. Speaker, I am here today in the best tradition of the United States to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Raif Badawi, who must be allowed to be reunited with his wife and children in Canada. And I call also for all of the other prisoners of conscience in Saudi Arabia to be released. The United States must not be silent while people sit in prison for exercising their most basic human rights.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this week I joined my colleague Representative G.T. Thompson of Pennsylvania on a visit to DC Central Kitchen. G.T. serves as the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee's Nutrition Subcommittee, and I serve as the ranking Democratic member. Our committee oversees Federal nutrition and antihunger programs, including SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger in communities all across this country. I have been fortunate enough to work with the incredible staff, students, and volunteers of DC Central Kitchen, so I am so pleased G.T. was able to join us this week to experience firsthand the impact that this organization has on the D.C. community. I very much appreciate his commitment to nutrition and his support for antihunger initiatives. During our visit this week, we heard from the Kitchen's CEO, Michael Curtin. I continue to be inspired by Mike's commitment to and passion for alleviating hunger and offering some of the most vulnerable adults in this community the opportunity for a second chance. What makes DC Central Kitchen so special is its mission. Not only does the organization work to address the immediate nutritional needs of local residents, but it works to train and empower adults with high barriers to employment to a successful job-training program. This preeminent job-training program prepares vulnerable adults, those with difficult histories of incarceration, addiction, homelessness, trauma, and chronic unemployment, for careers in the culinary industry. Importantly, students of the program also receive career-readiness training and self-empowerment counseling. As Mike pointed out during our visit, these important components of the program are a big part of why students are able to find and keep jobs after graduating. The program works. After graduating, almost 90 percent of the program's participants find jobs in restaurants, hotels, cafeterias, schools, and other parts of the culinary industry. So not only does the program offer participants the training they need to enter the workforce, it also helps local businessowners staff their companies with motivated, trained individuals. It is a successful model that should be replicated. A core aspect of DC Central Kitchen's mission is feeding hungry children, seniors, and other vulnerable adults. Each day the Kitchen uses 3,000 pounds of donated and recovered foods to make 5,000 healthy meals. In the past year alone, the Kitchen has delivered 1.8 million meals to 80 partner agencies. A majority of the meals are delivered to at-risk children in afterschool programs, emergency shelters, adult education and services providers, child and youth services providers, and homeless shelters, but also to transitional housing, rehabilitation, drug treatment, and domestic violence shelters. They also receive food from the Kitchen as well. I am particularly impressed by the reach of DC Central Kitchen's school food program, which provides healthy meals to kids in 15 local schools. Last year alone, the Kitchen prepared a million meals and snacks, and at least 50 percent of every plate was made of locally sourced produce. The program is supporting local farmers as well. DC Central Kitchen is also working to expand its reach across the country by engaging high schools and college students with its successful campus kitchens project. On 53 high school and college campuses, students work to fight hunger and food waste by turning surplus food into healthy meals for those in need. On top of all of this, DC Central Kitchen also has a successful catering arm that uses locally sourced produce to create healthy and delicious meals for special events. The catering coupled with private donations help to fund the Kitchen's programs and invest in these incredible students. So during our visit earlier this week, we saw firsthand the positive impact the DC Central Kitchen is having on our community. We were able to meet some of the Kitchen's students, volunteers, and graduates who are now working at the Kitchen. They are inspirational. But during our visit, we were also reminded that charities like DC Central Kitchen can't do it alone. They are only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to alleviating hunger and helping our most vulnerable neighbors get back to work. In Congress, we need to support our Federal antihunger safety net and commit to long-term investments in areas like job training, housing, addiction recovery, and education, just to name a few. At a time when progress in Washington is stalled, it was refreshing to join my colleague G.T., his staff, and a bipartisan group from the House Agriculture Committee in accomplishing something. We all need to do more to help those who are having trouble putting food on the table, so it was great to chop peppers and carrots and radishes to help make nutritious salads for those in need. It was a great reminder that, working together, we can end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics opposed to this bill. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Washington, DC, May 2, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: Nutrition services save money, improve chronic disease outcomes and save lives. For this reason, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the nation's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, remains opposed to H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act (AHCA) as amended by the MacArthur amendment. The Academy and our 75,000-plus members believe that all Americans should have both coverage and access to high- quality health care. The Academy urges Congress to support measures that include nutrition services and prevention that reduces the cost of health care and improve patients' lives. The new proposal set forth in the AHCA not only fails to improve the health of all Americans, but it will worsen patient care and public health by removing vital resources that are currently effective in improving health across the country. This legislation continues to eliminate investments in prevention and public health, reverse advancements made in disease prevention and chronic care management, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, would result in the loss of health care coverage for at least 24 million Americans Allowing states to waive pre-existing conditions and essential health benefits will lead to decreased coverage and utilization of vital nutrition services. Individuals with chronic disease such as diabetes and hypertension benefit from medical nutrition therapy and nutrition services to lower their blood sugar and blood pressure, while reducing reliance on expensive medications. The cost of these services is inexpensive and replaces more costly interventions that are necessary as chronic disease progresses with many complications. The Academy holds five key tenets for analyzing any legislation to reform health care: 1. The health of all Americans should improve as a result of our health policy choices. Sufficient resources must be made available to ensure optimal health. 2. Access to quality health care is a right that must be extended to all Americans. 3. Nutrition services, from pre-conception through end of life, are an essential component of comprehensive health care. 4. Stable, sufficient and reliable funding is necessary for our health care system to provide everyone access to a core package of benefits. 5. Health care must be patient-centered. Affordable access to care is an ongoing challenge that any reform legislation should address. Although this legislation purports to provide access, it fails to make coverage more affordable; unaffordable access to coverage is really not coverage at all. The proposal fails to maintain a core package of benefits that improve the health of Americans, by removing a basic floor of services that should be provided without cost-sharing to the Medicaid population. Additionally, the new proposal would allow states to opt out of requiring that health plans cover the Essential Health Benefits which help reduce longer term health care costs, allow insurers to charge people higher premiums based on pre- existing conditions like nutrition related diseases like diabetes and heart disease and increase out-of-pocket costs for vulnerable older adults. By repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund, the proposal eliminates the sole federal investment in prevention, which will harm our state and local communities that depend on these effective public-private partnerships to improve the health of their communities. The AHCA as currently drafted fails to meet the Academy's five tenets, and therefore we cannot support the passage of these proposals. The Academy urges Congress to not hold future votes without an evaluation of the proposed amendments from the Congressional Budget Office estimating the budgetary impact of the amended legislation and the anticipated effect on coverage for Americans. We look forward to continued collaboration to improve the health and nutrition for all Americans. Sincerely, Lucille Beseler, President.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, pathetic, that is the word to describe this process and this bill. If the American people could sue Congress for malpractice, my Republican friends would be in deep trouble. How could you do this? How could you do this to the American people? How can you do this to the people you represent? You are taking away essential healthcare protections. You are allowing insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. You are supporting a bill that will throw 24 million people off of their health care and cut Medicaid by $880 billion to give a $1 trillion tax break to the wealthiest people in this country. What is wrong with you guys? Today's rule self-executes three of the newest Republican amendments to the Republican health plan. This means, without any sort of debate or discussion whatsoever, the Palmer, MacArthur, and Upton amendments will magically pass the House. What I find so hard to believe about this latest backroom deal is that they actually make this bill worse. I didn't think that was possible, Mr. Speaker. To shore up support amongst this Chamber's most conservative faction, Representative MacArthur and others made a deal with President Trump to gut protections for individuals with preexisting conditions and to eliminate essential health benefits like maternity care, mental health treatment, and prescription drug coverage, just to name a few. These are among the most popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The American people were justifiably outraged, and they showed up by the thousands to townhalls to express their anger. And there were some on the Republican side who actually got it. They listened to their constituents and they had the courage to stand up and say no. But when Republican leaders came up short in their whip count, Representative Upton ran to the White House and concocted a deal with President Trump to try to win back votes. His amendment adds a measly $8 billion spread out over 5 years in a futile attempt to soften the devastating effect that this bill will have on millions and millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. Now, $8 billion over 5 years sounds like a lot, but when we are talking about an entire country, it really isn't. Don't take it from me. Robert Graboyes from the conservative Mercatus Center said: ``The $8 billion amount is a pittance. Spread over 5 years, it's a fifth of a pittance.'' This is not a leftwing organization. This is an organization funded by Koch Industries, the Koch brothers. My friends love the Koch brothers. What's more, some analysts have already estimated that an additional $200 billion will be needed over a decade to adequately fund high-risk pools. So this amendment is billions upon billions upon billions of dollars short. And as the Center for American Progress points out, the Upton amendment ``will have almost no effect.'' Now, my colleagues who have been won over by this should be ashamed of themselves. We are supposed to fix problems and help people, not merely settle for political cover that can be used in a press release. $8 billion to cover a $200 billion shortfall? Back where I come from, we call that being a cheap date. I guarantee you, your constituents are going to figure this out, and they will not be happy. So to so-called moderate Republicans who have contorted themselves this week to try to find a fix to the damage being done to the people with preexisting conditions, I have breaking news: I have a magic bullet fix if Republicans really want to protect people with preexisting conditions. Are you ready? Brace yourselves. Don't change the law. Everyone is already protected by the Affordable Care Act, including people with preexisting conditions and those who struggle to find affordable care. Let me say to my colleagues that to claim or imply that this Republican plan covers preexisting conditions is a lie, plain and simple. Now, let me say a few words about the process that has been used to bring this bill to the floor. It has been a disaster from start to finish, with secret negotiations, backroom deals, and bribes to buy off factions within the Republican Conference. There have been no hearings on this bill whatsoever. And the Republican leadership couldn't even slow down long enough to receive a score from the CBO. I have one simple question: What is the rush? Wait a week and get a CBO score. Why is that such a radical idea? Mr. Speaker, are Republican leaders jamming this bill through to appease Donald Trump? Are they concerned that a new CBO score will confirm what we already know is true, that this bill will be devastating to the people of this country, force even more people to lose their health care, especially to older, sick, and low-income Americans. Or maybe, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are worried that their colleagues will go home over this weeklong break and actually hear from their constituents who overwhelmingly oppose this effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Honestly, I don't know how my Republicans friends can defend this terrible, closed, authoritarian process. It is an absolute disgrace. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, or, better yet, I urge my Republicans colleagues to do what they did a couple of weeks ago and pull this disastrous bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. It looks kind of lonely over there. It speaks volumes about how much support there is for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Children's Leadership Council opposed to this bill. Children's Leadership Council, May 1, 2017. Dear Representative: The Children's Leadership Council opposes the American Health Care Act (AHCA) because it would jeopardize health care for millions of babies, children, youth and families. We urge you to vote NO on this legislation. The Children's Leadership Council (CLC) is a coalition of organizations dedicated to improving the lives and opportunities of America's children. Nationwide, CLC members work to advance the health, education and well-being of babies, children and youth in order to prepare them for school, work, and life. The CLC is the only national children's coalition solely dedicated to supporting investments in our nation's children and youth; and collectively, CLC's members have affiliates, partners, and members in every state in the nation. The Affordable Care Act and Medicaid play a crucial role in the lives of children, including those facing the greatest challenges such as children in poverty; children suffering abuse and neglect; children in foster care, and children with disabilities. Medicaid, for example, provides coverage for approximately 37 million children, including children with disabilities, children in foster care and children from low- income families. Children are the largest group of Medicaid recipients, and nearly 40 percent of all the nation's children rely on Medicaid and CHIP for their healthcare. Medicaid provides health care treatment and preventive services, mental health care, case management and transportation services to and from medical appointments for children who are low-income or disabled. The AHCA's changes to Medicaid would radically restructure a program that has worked for more than 50 years to support children's health. The Medicaid cap would shift $839 billion to stages, forcing them to cut eligibility, benefits, or provider rates that could have disastrous health consequences. There is no question that the massive cuts to Medicaid, increased premiums likely for millions of families, and eliminating the Essential Health Benefits requirements under current law will seriously harm children and families. Maternity benefits would be among the many medical services no longer guaranteed if this bill were to become law. The massive Medicaid reductions in substance abuse treatment will add to the increases nationwide in the need for child welfare services because of the surge in opioid addiction. Families caring for children with disabilities will find supports for care at home jeopardized. With a record 95% of children with health coverage in our country, the AHCA would turn back the clock on progress for children. And recent proposed changes to the bill would further undermine consumer protections that make health care out of reach for low-income children and their families--thus making the already harmful bill worse for children. Polling conducted by the Children's Leadership Council found 71 percent of parents, including 67 percent of Independent parents (of children under the age of 18), want increased investments in programs that help children in the areas of education, health and nutrition, not less as proposed by the