Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. This would be the key vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, Republicans love to find ways to justify kicking millions of working people off of healthcare. The chairwoman of the Rules Committee talked about fraud. If fraud is your primary concern, how about you start with President Trump, who has pardoned or commuted not one, not two, but 12 people. He pardoned 12 people convicted of healthcare fraud. My Republican friends have been silent, not a word. One guy was convicted of $1.3 billion in a Medicare fraud scheme, the largest healthcare fraud scheme charged by the Department of Justice. We had another woman convicted of orchestrating $205 million in a Medicare fraud scheme involving assisted living facilities. We had another guy convicted of 67 counts of healthcare fraud and related charges relating to Medicare and other healthcare programs. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure what they did to earn those pardons, but maybe they promised to say nice things about Trump. When Republicans come to the floor and talk about fraud, just remember that they are the ones who pardoned over and over and over again healthcare fraudsters while at the same time screwing over the American people by taking away their healthcare. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let's be honest about what is happening here because this really is not that complicated, and the American people aren't stupid. This Republican bill does not fix the healthcare crisis facing this country. It doesn't even try. Instead, Republicans are going to raise costs, weaken coverage, and deliberately allow the Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire, knowing full well that millions of families will lose affordable coverage as a result. That outcome is not a side effect. It is the point. For more than a decade, Republicans have promised a better healthcare system, a replacement for the ACA, something, anything that would justify taking coverage away from people who need it. Ten years later, there is still no plan, no replacement, no solution. Why? Because they are totally fine with a system of the haves and have- nots. They want a system where those at the top have affordable care, and everyone else is left in the dust. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives for 3 long years. During that time, the priorities of this majority have been crystal clear. When billionaires, CEOs, and corporate special interests need something, Republicans move with lightning speed. Loopholes appear out of nowhere. Regulations vanish into thin air while Big Oil, Big Tech, and big banks get what they want. Republicans have no problem handing out massive tax giveaways to donors who write big campaign checks. They have no problem padding the profits of greedy corporations. They have no problem voting to give the Pentagon $8 billion more than it even asked for without so much as a shrug. When it comes to working people, when they need affordable healthcare, suddenly the story changes. Suddenly, there is hand- wringing. Suddenly, there is paralysis. Suddenly, the money is gone. Suddenly, America can't pay for it. If my friends on the other side of the aisle are okay with that, we do not share the same values. If they think it is fine to give handouts to billionaires, while stealing healthcare from regular people, we do not have the same moral compass. The bottom line is this country has a Republican Congress that works just fine for the rich and powerful, while telling everybody else to tighten their belts. There is always money for giveaways to CEOs and corporate stock buybacks. There is always money for billionaire tax shelters. When a working family needs help staying insured, Republicans say it is too expensive. This is a question of our priorities as a Nation. What makes this even more infuriating is that Democrats have already put forward a responsible and reasonable solution that would help stop this crisis in its tracks. We have 218 people who have signed this discharge petition. Mr. Speaker, four Republicans signed this discharge petition. I hope they will vote to bring this same bill up today. To the moderates who didn't get the opportunity to sign it, I say this. This is their chance to go on record and show their constituents that they are serious about getting this done. Imagine what that would mean. It would mean lower costs, stable coverage, and a Congress that proves it still answers to working families instead of to the billionaire class. Instead, we get this GOP inaction and incompetence. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, healthcare coverage should not depend on how much money someone makes. We live in the richest country on Earth. Healthcare should be a human right available to every person and every community without exception. The United States remains the only major developed Nation that does not guarantee healthcare for everyone. That is not because we can't afford it. It is because powerful interests make too much money from the status quo. To any Republican who knows this bill is wrong, who understands what this will do back home, and who still believes that this institution should work for the people it represents, this is the moment. Extend the tax credits. Protect the coverage of our constituents. Stand with us to say that it is time for Congress to put patients ahead of profits and working families ahead of billionaires. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is at it again. It is death by a thousand cuts to our Nation's antihunger programs. Nearly $200 billion stolen from Federal food assistance in the big, ugly bill wasn't enough. Now they are literally trying to bury the data on hunger. In September, USDA announced that it was canceling its annual ``Household Food Security Report'' which for 30 years has measured food insecurity data. More recently, we are hearing that USDA is canceling food security questions as part of the Census Bureau's population surveys. Mr. Speaker, at first blush, these cancellations may sound wonky. This vital data helps researchers, policymakers, and community-based organizations understand the problem of hunger and target resources to those most in need. Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that Trump doesn't want USDA to measure how many people go hungry, as his big, ugly bill kicks millions and millions of people off of food assistance and makes hunger worse. Trump is literally burying the data to hide how terrible his policies are. We can and we should do more to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would say this, but I am glad I am not on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I thought the Rules Committee was tough. Listening to this debate, I would go out of my mind. I couldn't follow the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I want to correct something. This is not a Democratic resolution. It is a bipartisan resolution. Maybe that is something the chairman is not familiar with, but this is a bipartisan resolution. Democrats and Republicans have sponsored it. In this Chamber, I guess we have all become accustomed to debating trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. We spend a lot of time renaming post offices and passing bills that do nothing for anybody. Maybe the distinguished chairman is not used to doing big things. Mr. Speaker, I will say that the issue of war is a big deal. It is a big deal. It should be a big deal to Democrats. It should be a big deal to Republicans. It is our constitutional responsibility, and so I am here because I am deeply troubled that the President of the United States, in my view, is slowly but surely marching us toward open hostilities with Venezuela. I don't say that as a Democrat. I say it as an American who is worried about this country getting dragged into another potentially endless war. Mr. Speaker, let me be crystal clear. I mean, that is what we are talking about. That is what we are talking about. This is not some hypothetical, abstract debate. Donald Trump has already engaged in acts that are considered hostile under U.S. law. He has threatened to close Venezuelan airspace. He says that he plans a naval blockade against the country soon. He has warned that military strikes on Venezuela will start ``very soon.'' Our Constitution provides this body, the United States Congress, with the solitary authority to declare war, and the President, despite already engaging in hostile actions toward Venezuela, has neither requested nor received the authorization for the use of military force as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Mr. Speaker, American troops take an oath to protect and defend this country. It is our duty in Congress to debate and vote before they are put into harm's way. Right now, by placing U.S. military assets off the coast of Venezuela, this administration has them in harm's way right now. That is why, in a bipartisan way, we have introduced this resolution. It provides the House of Representatives with the simple up-or-down vote. It is a simple ``yes'' or ``no.'' Do my colleagues want an unauthorized war in Venezuela or not? Mr. Speaker, you may want a war in Venezuela. You ought to vote for it if you want it, but I do not want any war in Venezuela. I am joined on this resolution, again, by Members of Congress across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans who, like me, are deeply troubled by the idea of endless wars and of America spending more of its treasure on wars that are not clearly defined, that we have no idea how they will end up, at a time when we can't even provide people healthcare in this country and where we have homeless veterans. I was here in 2002, Mr. Speaker. I voted against the war in Iraq, and Americans do not want another Iraq. If we intensify hostilities against Venezuela, we have no idea what we are walking into. The oversight in this Congress has been almost nonexistent given what is going on. Congress has been lied to repeatedly--repeatedly by administrations from both parties who want to use our military in ill- defined and often unwinnable conflicts. I remember the Bush administration telling us that the war in Iraq would be a cinch. It was clearly not. We spent over a decade at war. We lost American lives, civilian lives, and added trillions of dollars to our debt at the expense of the basic needs of the American people. At least George Bush had the decency to come to Congress for approval in 2002. Don't the American people deserve that respect today? This is about whether we want to use taxpayer dollars and risk American lives on regime change, endless wars, and costly quagmires, or whether we want to invest here in our own country and solve our own problems. For God's sake, we live in a country where we, again, have homeless veterans, where we have hungry school kids, where seniors can't afford their medication, and families struggle to get by. Mr. Speaker, I think it is immoral. It is not just a strategic failure but a moral failure that we have a President beating the drums of war without so much as a vote in the House of Representatives. This is not America first. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of my colleagues may say that war is justified. I can't for the life of me figure out that logic, but I went to the classified briefing that the administration organized yesterday. I went to other classified briefings. I heard no justification that there was some imminent military threat from Venezuela, nothing that would justify the hostilities that the President is engaged in right now in building up troops. To those who want to go to war and say that this is about drugs and cartels, let me just say that this administration's own Drug Enforcement Administration reports that fentanyl is overwhelmingly produced in other countries using chemicals that come from elsewhere in the world. Venezuela isn't listed as a fentanyl source or transit country in any edition of the National Drug Threat Assessment. More fentanyl comes from China and Mexico than Venezuela. Maybe the chairman wants to go to war with China and Mexico. By the way, as is pointed out, Donald Trump pardoned the ex-President of Honduras who was found guilty of drug trafficking. The chairman said nothing about that. Over 3,667 people in Florida died from fentanyl, and the President of the United States pardoned one of the people who was primarily responsible for getting fentanyl into our country. He also pardoned the dark web guy who smuggled fentanyl in from China. Not a word. No oversight. Who cares because they don't want to say anything about Donald. He is the pardoner in chief. If you want to stop drugs from coming in, start by not pardoning drug dealers. Those who want to go to war also point out that Nicolas Maduro is a tyrant. I agree that he is a tyrant. He violates the human rights of his own people. He has unlawfully detained Americans and Venezuelans as political prisoners. He is a violent, vicious, brutal dictator. Guess what, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, the globe is full of violent, vicious tyrants--in China, Russia, and North Korea. Do you want to go to war with all of them? For God's sake, we sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, countries that have awful human rights violations. I hate Maduro, and I condemn him all the time. While we should have a discussion about how to help the people of Venezuela, the answer is not going to war. Congress should have the guts to at least debate this issue and vote on it and not just cede all of this power to the administration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Washington Post titled: ``Trump pardons major drug traffickers despite his anti- drug rhetoric.'' [From The Washington Post, Dec. 8, 2025] Trump Pardons Major Drug Traffickers Despite His Anti-Drug Rhetoric (By Meryl Kornfield and Emily Davies) On President Donald Trump's first full day in office this year, he pardoned Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who was convicted of creating the largest online black market for illegal drugs and other illicit goods of its time. In the months since, he has granted clemency to others, including Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover and Baltimore drug kingpin Garnett Gilbert Smith. And last week, he pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had been sentenced to 45 years in prison for running his country as a vast ``narco-state'' that helped to move at least 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Overall, Trump--who campaigned against America's worsening drug crisis and promised to crack down on the illegal flow of deadly drugs coming across the border--has pardoned or granted clemency to at least 10 people for drug-related crimes since the beginning of his second term, according to a Washington Post analysis. He also granted pardons or commutations to almost 90 others for drug-related crimes during the four years of his first term, the analysis showed. At the same time, Trump has threatened military action against Venezuela over accusations that the country's government is supporting the drug trade and has pushed the Pentagon to conduct targeted strikes on boats suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean. The contrasting actions have come under fire from Democrats and other critics, who say Trump's broad use of clemency contradicts promises to get tough on drugs. ``President Trump is claiming to be taking action to stop the flow of narcotics into the United States,'' Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) said on the Senate floor Tuesday, describing the crimes of Ulbricht and Hernandez. ``. . . How does this protect Americans from the flow of narcotics entering our country?'' Asked about the contrast, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the pardon of the Honduran president doesn't make it difficult to defend the administration's lethal strikes on suspected drug traffickers. ``I think that President Trump has been quite clear, in his defense of the United States homeland, to stop these illegal narcotics from coming to our borders, whether that's by land or by sea, and he's also made it quite clear that he wants to correct the wrongs of the weaponized Justice Department under the previous administration,'' she told reporters last Monday. Asked about Trump's spate of drug-related pardons and commutations, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Post that Trump had exercised his constitutional authority, and she attacked former president Joe Biden. ``The only pardons anyone should be critical of are from President Autopen, who pardoned and commuted sentences of violent criminals including child killers and mass murderers--and that's not to mention the proactive pardons he `signed' for his family members like Hunter on his way out the door,'' Jackson said. Trump and his aides have baselessly claimed that Biden's staffers routinely used an autopen to sign pardons and other documents without his knowledge. Trump has wielded one of the greatest powers of the presidency, clemency, far more this year than he did in his first term. He has pardoned almost all of the approximately 1,500 Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack defendants. He also has pardoned about a dozen members of Congress, mostly Republicans, including most recently Rep. Henry Cuellar (D- Texas), who was charged last year with bribery, money laundering and conspiracy. By comparison, Trump granted clemency to more than 230 people in his first term, just two of those in his first year. The pardon frenzy has given rise to a lucrative cottage industry, The Post previously reported. Public disclosures show that lobbyists have spent more than $2.1 million this year on firms that advocate for pardons, clemency and other forms of executive relief--more than double the total spent in 2024. The records also show that individuals seeking pardons have paid up to $1 million to hire people close to the president to plead their case. Experts say the administration's efforts to strike boats near Venezuela have not proved effective in limiting the flow of drugs entering the country because the passage is not ordinarily used to traffic drugs to the United States. Drugs containing fentanyl, which have contributed to most recent drug deaths, are typically manufactured in Mexico and smuggled into the U.S. across the land border. The administration has not provided detailed evidence that the boats they have sunk had drugs on board and were heading for the United States. The administration has claimed that the strikes are an effective deterrent for other drug traffickers. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters last week that they paused the strikes ``because it's hard to find boats to strike right now, which is the entire point, right? Deterrence has to matter.'' However, experts say there is no available evidence to support the theory that trafficking is down. ``Drug trafficking is like water,'' said Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University drug policy professor and former acting director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. ``It's going to find a way to get in.'' Critics of the war on drugs have also long asserted that the government has insufficiently addressed the root cause of deaths in the U.S.: addiction. Advocates have urged the government to invest more in overdose prevention measures, such as naloxone and treatment options. The rate of overdose deaths has been on the rise for decades, fueled by fentanyl since around 2015, until the end of Biden's term, when the rate declined.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be lectured by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs because, as I mentioned, in Florida, 3,667 people have died from fentanyl. This President has pardoned drug dealer after drug dealer, and there has not been a peep from my friends on the other side of the aisle, who are now talking about the issue of drugs in the United States, not a peep. I don't know how you explain that to the families of those who lost their lives, number one. Number two, the chairman made a big deal about pictures, that if you are in a picture with somebody and you touch them, that somehow you are affiliated with them. Here is a picture of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with a nice handshake. Does that say that Trump is somehow Vladimir Putin's friend? Here is Trump with Kim Jong-un, giving him a nice hug, another dictator that Trump seems to be enamored with. I don't even know what the hell that proves, but the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs seems to think that photos are a big deal. Let me read our resolution to you. It says: ``Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force.'' That is it. I can't even believe this is controversial. I can't even believe that my friends on the other side of the aisle have a problem with this. This is the most basic stuff. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has said some strange things today about how you interpret photographs if the people are shaking hands or whatever, but, somehow, if your arm is around somebody that means that you are dear friends. I am just looking at this photo of Donald Trump with his arm around Jeffrey Epstein. By the gentleman's standards, they must be in love. This debate is not about the gentleman's personal weird code on touching. This is about war, and that is what we are here to talk about. Quite frankly, it deserves a more serious treatment from the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), who is one of the cosponsors of this resolution.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Florida have additional speakers? I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. The first thing you said.

Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.

Mr. McGOVERN. Read the intelligence.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I really can't believe this debate from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are talking about things that have nothing to do with the underlying legislation. I mean, they are talking about fentanyl. Well, fentanyl is coming from China. That is the problem. Do you want to bomb China? Then make the case to bomb China. That is where fentanyl is coming from. They are talking about nuclear war. I don't even know what that has to do with what we are debating here today. I think what is clear is my Republican friends are basically covering up for the President, who is sleepwalking us right into a war in Venezuela. That is the issue here. The President, by his own words, has said that he wants to block the airspace in Venezuela. He has talked about troops in Venezuela. He is stationing American forces around Venezuela. Under U.S. law, those are acts of hostility. I have seen this movie before, where my Republican friends get up and they talk tough: Let's go to war, let's go to war. Then we go to war, and it becomes a catastrophe. Then they say: Well, I never voted for a war. Oh, I didn't do that. That is not me. Well, under the Constitution, we have a responsibility to declare war. We have a responsibility to debate war. Quite frankly, this Congress, given what is going on in Venezuela, ought to be doing more oversight and ought to be debating this issue. That it is somehow controversial or undercuts our attempts to stop drugs from coming into this country is ridiculous. It is ludicrous. I have been around for a while. The one thing I can tell you with certainty, it is easy to get into a war. It is hard as hell to get out of war. I have been around long enough to hear Presidents of both parties talk about war as something simple: You can get into it, you get out of it easy, no big deal. That has never happened. That has never happened. Even the Pentagon says it will be very complicated to topple Maduro, and what might result might be more violence, more chaos. It could be a quagmire. All we are saying here is, let's do our job. If you don't want to do the job, I don't know why the hell you are here, seriously. The Foreign Affairs Committee ought to be taking the lead on this. This shouldn't be controversial. My resolution is a bipartisan resolution. It deserves bipartisan support. This is the least we can do. This is the least we can do. When we go to war, our troops have no choice but to follow the orders that are given to them. The bottom line is, we have a responsibility to make sure they don't get sent into a mess, that we know what the hell we are doing, that there is a clearly defined mission, and that this is the right thing to do. It is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. We have homeless veterans. We can't provide people in this country with healthcare. People don't have adequate housing. People are hungry. You want to spend billions and trillions of dollars on another war. Well, I don't want any part of it. Please vote for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, food costs are sky high, and regular people are struggling to put dinner on the table for their families. More and more people are relying on emergency food assistance at food banks and food pantries just to survive. This extraordinary need, exacerbated by Trump's cruelty and his administration's awful policies that have increased hunger made this year's March for the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts more important than ever. Every November, an incredible team of antihunger advocates, concerned neighbors, and Federal, State, and local officials embark on a 43-mile walk to raise funds for and awareness about the terrible problem of hunger. As always, NEPM's incredible radio host Monte Belmonte led the group, pushing a shopping cart and rallying us to keep up the fight. This year, Monte's son Pax marched with us to support his dad and our effort to end hunger. I was joined by my incredible family--my wife, Lisa; my son, Patrick; Wendy, Bill, and Courtney Talcott; and baby Hazel. Their support and commitment to the cause of ending hunger means the world to me. I am grateful to Congressman Richie Neal and former Congressman Joe Kennedy for joining the march. I thank my colleagues in State government for showing up and continuing to work tirelessly to protect people in Massachusetts from the cruelty of this administration: Our amazing Governor, Maura Healey; Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Commissioner Ashley Randle; State Senators Jo Comerford and Jake Oliveira; State Representatives Natalie Blais, Mindy Domb, Lindsay Sabadosa, Homar Gomez, Shirley Arriaga, and Pat Duffy. I thank Northampton Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra, Greenfield Mayor Ginny Desorgher, Holyoke Mayor Joshua Garcia, and Chicopee Mayor John Vieau for marching with us. The hundreds of other people who joined the march--students, advocates, members of my staff, community leaders such as Tim Garvin of the United Way of Central Massachusetts, Sean Barry, Shannon from the Martin Luther King Center in Springfield, and so many, many more--are incredible. We had double the number of marchers this year compared to last. Along the way, the marchers stopped by some of the incredible food pantries that serve the people of western Massachusetts: the Amherst Survival Center, UMass Amherst Campus Pantry, Stone Soup Cafe, Kate's Kitchen and Providence Ministries, and Lorraine's Soup Kitchen & Pantry. We were able to keep going thanks to the nourishment of De La Luz and Holyoke Community College Culinary Arts program, Berkshire Brewing Company, Bub's Bar-B-Que, Holyoke Hummus, and Hillside Pizza. A shout- out to Dean's Beans coffee for keeping us caffeinated during the entire march. I also thank local law enforcement--Deerfield and Springfield Police, and the Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin County Sheriff's Departments-- for keeping us safe along the march. I thank our media sponsors--New England Public Media and WRSI 93.9, The River--for broadcasting the walk and raising awareness among people in western Massachusetts. I am so grateful to my friend, Andrew Morehouse, of the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts and his entire team, particularly the development team, for all they do to improve food security among people in western Massachusetts and for their work in organizing this incredible event every single year. This march is tough. The days are very long, and we were exhausted by the end of it, but it is nothing compared to the struggle people in poverty face every single day just trying to survive in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world. My great desire is to never again have to do this walk, not because of the long days or the cold weather or the aching legs and feet, but because I dream of a day when every family is food secure and no person goes to bed wondering where their next meal is going to come from. Sadly, we are further from that goal today than we were a year ago. The Trump administration and the Republicans in Congress have taken a sledgehammer to basic needs programs that help regular people afford food. They have completely ignored rising costs and the needs of real people, instituting the largest cuts to healthcare and food assistance in American history, all to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. This year's march raised nearly a million dollars, and that is a lot of money, but it is nowhere near enough to make up for the cuts imposed by Trump's big, ugly bill. Charity alone has never, will never, can never make up for the hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal cuts. Ending hunger requires strong Federal investments in basic needs programs and a strategy championed by the Federal Government. Until we have a government that is willing to meaningfully invest in basic needs programs, we will continue to march in support of a future where we are able to finally end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is December 2. The year is almost over. We are now only a few weeks away from new health insurance premiums skyrocketing. People's insurance bills are going to double, triple, and, in some cases, quadruple. I would think all of us would be on the floor here today addressing that, right? We would think that, but we would be wrong because we have on the floor this week another embarrassingly pointless and irrelevant collection of bills that does absolutely nothing to help everyday people. When Democrats first raised the alarm about healthcare premiums skyrocketing earlier this year, Speaker Mike Johnson said: Oh, don't worry. This is a policy debate for December. Here we are in December, and Republicans are doing nothing, zero. Actually, they are doing less than nothing. They took an 8-week vacation funded by the taxpayers, while people panicked about how they were going to afford their insurance premiums starting January 1. Families are going to see their bills go up and up, in some cases by nearly $1,000 more a month. Maybe that doesn't sound like a lot of money to Republicans because these guys might not get how much that means to regular people. I know how out of touch they are. They are building a fancy new ballroom at the White House with their billionaire donors. That is where their attention is. They eat caviar and drink fine wine at Mar-a-Lago while regular people suffer. Maybe they don't understand how much $1,000 a month is to the people I represent. Guess what. It is a lot. For most hardworking people, this is a catastrophic amount of money that suddenly needs to be added to a monthly budget. It is more than what a lot of people earn during a week of work. Republicans have known that this crisis was coming for some time. Yet, they still have no plan on healthcare. They say they have one. Where the hell is it? We are still waiting. Their only answer so far is: Good luck, folks. Hope you like choosing between health insurance and food. Here is the kicker, Mr. Speaker. If this House voted today to stop premiums from exploding, it would pass. It would pass easily. Democrats would vote for it, and I know there is a chunk of Republicans who would vote for it, as well. The Republican leadership will not bring it up because they care more about tax breaks for billionaires than tax credits for working families. It is that simple. Don't even get me started about the bills Republicans are bringing to the floor this week. There are two bills for small businesses. That sounds good, right? Do my colleagues know what those bills do? One of them creates a hotline that already exists. Wow, that is groundbreaking. Neither of them does anything about the number one issue that I hear from small businesses, and that is tariffs. Every small business owner I talk to says the same thing: The tariffs are killing them. The tariffs are making prices skyrocket. The tariffs are slowing down business. These guys don't care. They don't care. They just go along to get along. They don't want to tick Trump off. I guess my question is: If Republicans want to help small businesses, why are they blocking a vote to overturn the tariffs? Why have they refused to let Congress vote on the tariffs for months and months, even though it is our responsibility? What is up with that? After all, it is our responsibility. It is our job. Are they afraid that if it comes to the floor for a vote, they will lose? Then we get a bunch of bills about protecting public schools. Give me a break. My sisters are public school teachers. I talk to parents and students all the time. What do they tell me? We need to reduce class size, support teachers, and make schools safer. We need to fund education. These guys are bringing up a bill about foreign infiltration in third grade math class. Are my Republican colleagues kidding me? Is that a joke? They are so concerned about China funding our schools. Well, here is a novel idea. Why don't we have America fund our schools? Why isn't funding our schools a bigger priority in this Congress? There is a crazy idea for my Republican friends. If they really care about public education, let's be the wind at the backs of our teachers and our schools. Of course, they have a bill to help the NCAA take advantage of student athletes because what this Congress desperately needed was another billionaire organization empowered to squeeze young people. It is more of the same. It is more of the same. They give more to those with the most, while taking away from those with the least. It is sick. It is sick. It is immoral. It represents the opposite of what I believe we are here to do, which is to help people, but that is their entire governing philosophy. Republicans want to use their power to reward the billionaires and special interest donors. They want an economy where those at the top get showered in tax break after tax break, while working people get left further and further behind. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that this is what we are doing this week. It is shameful. It is outrageous, and it is wrong. I urge every Member of this body to vote ``no'' on this Republican rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that as the son of businessowners, I don't think the gentleman knows what he is talking about. This is outrageous. I have the bills that we are considering here today, and the reason I am not spending much time talking about them is because they suck. They are awful. It is pathetic. One creates a hotline that already exists. Mr. Speaker, you can go online and call the hotline. They are just restating it. That is what we are doing here. There is nothing about the tariffs that are screwing over small businesses, nothing about the realities that small businesses are dealing with each and every day. My friends come up with these bills that are meaningless and that do nothing for anybody. I am sorry that my Republican friends don't want to talk about the healthcare crisis. However, because of Republican inaction, millions and millions of people are going to see their healthcare bills skyrocket, and millions are going to probably go without healthcare. We have been warning my friends about this for months, and the Republicans have done nothing; not a damn thing. I don't know how they go home and face their constituents who are about to get screwed over with high healthcare premiums and bills and say: Oh, I know, I get it. People are going to lose their healthcare. My friends have been in charge all year, and they have done zero, nothing, not a damn thing. So these bills that we are talking about today, I would encourage anybody who is viewing this on C-SPAN to google them and to look them up. It is pathetic. It is pathetic that this is what we are wasting our time doing. There is so much at stake. We have 2 weeks left to address the healthcare crisis, and my Republican friends have nothing, nothing that talks about that today. The hotline already exists, by the way. You can google it. So you basically establish a hotline that already exists, Mr. Speaker. Boy, that is helping small businesses. Yeah, but that is not a big problem, Mr. Speaker. The big problem is the high cost of healthcare and these tariffs which are just basically putting many of our businesses out of business. So my friends come here and defend this garbage that we are doing. It is pathetic. It is pathetic. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).