Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in 2002, Congress passed the Tibetan Policy Act to support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safeguard their distinct identity. The law laid out steps to protect the distinct religious, cultural, and linguistic identity of Tibet and to press for improved respect for the human rights of the Tibetan people--a dialogue between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government, the immediate and unconditional release of Tibetan prisoners of conscience, establishing a U.S. consular office in Lhasa, and requesting that the 11th Panchen Lama be allowed to pursue his religious studies without Chinese Government interference. Mr. Speaker, these were basic, commonsense steps, yet 15 years later there is little progress. The Chinese-Tibet dialogue has been suspended since 2010. There are hundreds of Tibetan prisoners of conscience. Many are monks. Some like Tenzin Delek Rinpoche have died in custody. There is still no U.S. consular office in Lhasa, a major problem for U.S. officials trying to respond to emergencies like the 2015 earthquake that trapped dozens of our citizens in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. And the Chinese Government, officially atheist, has declared that it will decide who will be reincarnated as the next Dalai Lama. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my concern for the well-being of the missing 11th Panchen Lama, the second highest leader in the Tibetan religion. Twenty-two years ago, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was detained by Chinese authorities when he was just 6 years old and just 3 days after the Dalai Lama declared him to be the reincarnated Panchen Lama. Today, he is one of the world's longest serving political prisoners. China has refused to provide any details of his whereabouts. Let me be clear. The Chinese Government does not have the right or the authority to name the reincarnated religious leaders of Tibet, not the Panchen Lama and not the next Dalai Lama. Mr. Speaker, I constantly receive reports from Tibet of human rights abuses and affronts to basic human dignity, like the demolition of buildings and forced eviction of religious people from the famous Buddhist Institute of Larung Gar or the restrictions that keep Tibetans from traveling around their own country, much less abroad. We need to rethink U.S. policy toward Tibet. For years, China has faced no consequences for its failure to respect the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people. This must change. Along with a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, I have introduced H.R. 1872, the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act. This bill imposes consequences for just one aspect of China's bad behavior: its restrictions on travel to areas in China where ethnic Tibetans live. U.S. diplomats, journalists, and tourists have to get a special permit to enter the Tibet Autonomous Region, and travel to other Tibetan areas is also tightly controlled. But under H.R. 1872, no senior leader responsible for designing or implementing travel restrictions to Tibetan areas would be eligible to enter the United States. The rationale for the bill is simple. The basis of diplomatic law is mutual access and reciprocity. But while the Chinese enjoy broad access to the United States, the same is not true for U.S. diplomats, journalists, or tourists going to Tibet, including Tibetan Americans trying to visit their place of origin. This is simply unacceptable. If China wants its citizens and officials to travel freely in the U.S., Americans must be able to travel freely in China, including Tibet. Allowing travel to Tibet is only one step China needs to take. It must also remove the obstacles to freedom of movement for Tibetans within China and abroad. China can't have it both ways. Either Tibetans are Chinese citizens or they are not. If they are, they must enjoy the same rights and privileges as other Chinese citizens. China also must permit His Holiness the Dalai Lama to return to Tibet for a visit if he so desires. He is a man of peace who will soon turn 82 years old. He should be able to visit his homeland. China also should demonstrate true respect for the human rights and religious freedom of the Tibetan people. A first step would be to permit an independent international investigation into the July 2015 death, in custody, of revered lama Tenzin Delek Rinpoche. On our side, the new Trump administration needs to appoint the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues as quickly as possible. To make progress, we need someone in charge. They must insist that China restart the dialogue to lead a negotiated agreement in Tibet. They should develop a list of Chinese officials subject to sanction under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. No one responsible for torture and extrajudicial killings or for significant corruption should benefit from coming to our country and doing business here. They should publicly engage the Dalai Lama and the democratically elected leader of the Tibetan people. The State Department should take every opportunity to benefit from the Dalai Lama's knowledge and decades of reflections. The Secretary of State should highlight the democratic practices of the Tibetan people and meet personally with the Sikyong, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, and the administration should also engage other governments to create a group of friends of Tibet. It is time to pursue a coordinated international action in support of the Tibetan people. Mr. Speaker, time may be running out for the Tibetan people. All those who say they believe in the rights of Tibetans must move beyond words to concrete actions. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1872, the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act, and to support additional measures to protect all that is unique about Tibet and its people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, one of America's signature child nutrition and food security programs. Established by Congress in the 2002 farm bill, over the past 15 years, it has provided life-saving meals in school settings to over 14 million of the world's most vulnerable children. Administered by the Department of Agriculture, this bipartisan- supported program provides U.S. and international organizations with U.S. commodities, grants, and technical assistance to strengthen child nutrition and education. It receives a modest $201 million each year. Regrettably, the President's FY 2018 budget would cruelly eliminate the entire program. McGovern-Dole is named after two Senators who worked in a bipartisan way during their long tenures in the Senate to end hunger, especially among children in the United States and around the world. They continued their work together after leaving the Senate. They are models for what can be accomplished when Members of Congress actually put petty partisanship aside and make the welfare of children and families become your number one priority. And even though George McGovern is no longer with us, Bob Dole continues to champion this cause. On March 20, in a statement to The Washington Post, he said: ``Eliminating the McGovern-Dole program would have a disastrous effect on the planet's most vulnerable children. Without a reliable source of nutrition, these children face a lifetime of stunted physical and mental development and unrealized opportunity. This global school meals program remains one of the proudest achievements of my lifetime. It embodies the very best of America's values. Saving this program means saving lives. It's as simple as that.'' Madam Speaker, working through partners like the U.N. World Food Programme, Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Save the Children, Counterpart International, and many more, McGovern-Dole has reduced the incidence of hunger among school-aged children. It has increased school enrollments and attendance. It has increased the support of families and communities for education, especially for girls. It is a proven success. Instead of eliminating it, we should be strengthening and expanding it. Now, I have had the privilege of visiting some of these programs around the world. In Colombia, I visited a program in Soacha, on the outskirts of Bogota. On barren hillsides, surrounded by shanties housing thousands of internally displaced families, children were receiving a school breakfast and lunch. Mothers and grandmothers were training as cooks preparing the meals. Clearly visible in the cafeteria were USAID bags of grains, beans, and lentils. One mother came up to me and said: ``Please thank the American people when you go back home. I couldn't feed my children. I couldn't send them to school. I was afraid my son was going to join the paramilitaries or guerrillas just to get food. Now my son is getting fed and he is staying in school. Please tell the American people thank you.'' In Nairobi, Kenya, in the largest slum in the world, I went to a McGovern-Dole breakfast and lunch program. The school principal showed me how they store and prepare U.S. commodities that feed her students and how all the students know that this program is from the American people. I ate porridge made from yellow peas grown by American farmers. The kids dug into this food like it was manna from Heaven. One little boy would take a bite and then scoop a small amount out of his bowl and put it in his pockets. He was taking food home to his younger siblings who don't get anything to eat. Outside of Nairobi in Maasai country is a school for girls where McGovern-Dole provides a hot lunch. I helped cook and serve the meal of U.S. bulgur wheat and locally grown vegetables. One student told me how grateful she was to be able to go to school every day and eat every day. She grew up in a village over 100 miles away. When she was 12, her father told her that she had to marry a much older man. She refused. Her father ordered her to go to her uncle's house and get his machete and bring it back to him. She knew that he was going to kill her. She ran away, walking alone for days, because she had heard of this school. And when I met her, she was 15, healthy, and well fed, and at the top of her class. I knew I was talking to someone who will some day be a leader in her country. In the very best way, she will never forget us. And when we take food away from children, families, and schools, those communities will never forget us either. They won't forget that we took away their children's future. I wouldn't forget it if it were my child. Would you? Madam Speaker, there are many ways to advance U.S. national security and economic interests abroad. Education and child nutrition are very much at the top of the list. So I urge my colleagues to visit McGovern- Dole programs when they travel abroad and to support continued funding of the program in FY 2018. It is yet another way that we can all work together to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the AARP issued yet another statement saying: ``This harmful legislation still puts an age tax on older Americans and puts vulnerable populations at risk through a series of backdoor deals that attempts to shift responsibility to States.'' I include in the Record the statement from the AARP. AARP Maintains Opposition to Amended Health Bill Age Tax, Weakening Medicare, Backdoor Cuts to Preexisting Condition Population Would Harm American Families Washington, DC.--AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond released the following statement today in response to the amended House bill that would create an ``Age Tax,'' increase premiums, eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions, cut the life of Medicare, and give sweetheart deals to big drug and insurance companies. In a letter sent to all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, AARP restated its strong opposition to the bill and urged each Representative to vote `No' on the proposed legislation. AARP believes this legislation will have a significant harmful impact on the health of millions of older Americans ages 50 to 64, as well as other vulnerable groups, including poor seniors and disabled children and adults: ``This harmful legislation still puts an Age Tax on older Americans and puts vulnerable populations at risk through a series of backdoor deals that attempts to shift responsibility to states. Older Americans need affordable health care services and prescriptions. This legislation still goes in the opposite direction, increasing insurance premiums for older Americans and not doing anything to lower drug costs. ``AARP continues to oppose legislation that would impose an Age Tax, eliminate protections for preexisting conditions, weaken Medicare, erode seniors' ability to live independently because of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts, and give sweetheart deals to drug and insurance companies while doing nothing to lower the cost of health care or prescription drugs. ``We intend to let all 38 million of our members know exactly how their Representative votes on this bill in newsletters, in our publications, on social media and in other formats. Our members care deeply about their health care and have told us repeatedly that they want to know where their elected officials stand.'' Past statements and releases about this bill can be found here, here, here, and here. Public policy fact sheets about the Age Tax and other harmful policies can be found here. AARP's full letter to the House of Representatives can be found below: April 26, 2017. Dear Representative: AARP, with its nearly 38 million members in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, nationwide organization that helps people turn their goals and dreams into real possibilities, strengthens communities and fights for the issues that matter most to consumers and families such as healthcare, employment and income security, retirement planning, affordable utilities and protection from financial abuse. We write to again share our opposition to the pending American Health Care Act (AHCA) and urge you to vote NO. Throughout consideration of the AHCA, we have been expressing serious concerns about the impact that this legislation will have on older Americans. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)'s last estimate further demonstrates the harmful impact of this bill on older Americans and some of our most vulnerable. Specifically, we are concerned that the American Health Care Act will weaken the fiscal sustainability of Medicare; dramatically increase premium and out-of-pocket costs for 50-64 year olds purchasing coverage on the individual insurance market; substantially increase the number of Americans without insurance; and put at risk millions of children and adults with disabilities and poor seniors who depend on the Medicaid program to access long- term services and supports and other benefits. In addition, changes under consideration that would allow states to waive important consumer protections--such as allowing insurance companies to once again charge Americans with pre-existing conditions more because they've had cancer, diabetes or heart disease--would make this bad bill even worse. Our members and others 50 years of age and older care deeply about health care and want to know where their elected leaders stand. Recognizing the importance of the upcoming vote on the American Health Care Act, AARP intends to inform our members, and others over age 50, how their elected officials voted. We'll communicate the results of the vote in our widely-circulated publications, in email alerts, in our online channels, and through the media. Again, we urge all Representatives to vote NO on the American Health Care Act in its current form. Medicare Our members and older Americans believe that Medicare must be protected and strengthened for today's seniors and future generations. We strongly oppose any changes to current law that could result in cuts to benefits, increased costs, or reduced coverage for older Americans. According to the 2016 Medicare Trustees report, the Medicare Part A Trust Fund is solvent until 2028 (11 years longer than pre-Affordable Care Act (ACA)), due in large part to changes made in the ACA. We have serious concerns that the American Health Care Act repeals provisions in current law that have strengthened Medicare's fiscal outlook, specifically, the repeal of the additional 0.9 percent payroll tax on higher-income workers. Repealing this provision would remove $117.3 billion from the Hospital Insurance trust fund over the next ten years, would hasten the insolvency of Medicare by up to four years, and diminish Medicare's ability to pay for services in the future. Prescription Drugs Older Americans use prescription drugs more than any other segment of the U.S. population, typically on a chronic basis. We are pleased that the bill maintains the Medicare Part D coverage gap (``donut hole'') protections created under the ACA. Since the enactment of the law, more than 11.8 million Medicare beneficiaries who have fallen into the coverage gap have saved over $26.8 billion on the improved coverage for prescription drug costs due to closure of the donut hole. We do have strong concerns that the fee on manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs, which currently is projected to add $24.8 billion to the Medicare Part B trust fund between 2017 and 2026, will be repealed by the American Health Care Act. Rather than repeal this fee for Medicare, AARP believes Congress must do more to reduce the burden of high prescription drug costs on consumers and taxpayers, and we would be willing to work with you on bipartisan solutions. Individual Private Insurance Market About 6.1 million Americans age 50-64 currently purchase insurance in the non-group market, and nearly 3.2 million are currently eligible to receive subsidies for health insurance coverage through either the federal health benefits exchange or a state-based exchange (exchange). We have seen a significant reduction in the number of uninsured since passage of the ACA, with the number of 50-64 year old Americans who are uninsured dropping by half. We are deeply concerned that the AHCA would be a significant step backwards and result in millions of older Americans who cannot afford their health care, including many simply losing their health care. Based on CBO estimates, approximately 14 million Americans will lose coverage next year, while a total of 24 million Americans would lose coverage over the next 10 years. This is especially troubling given that in the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation's (JCT) assessment ``the non-group (individual) market would probably be stable in most areas . . . under current law.'' Affordability of both premiums and cost-sharing is critical to older Americans and their ability to obtain and access health care. A typical 50-64 year old seeking coverage through an exchange has a median annual income of under $25,000 and already pays significant out-of-pocket costs for health care. We have serious concerns--reinforced by the CBO estimate--that the bill under consideration will dramatically increase health care costs for 50-64 year olds who purchase health care through an exchange due both to the changes in age rating from 3:1 (already a compromise that requires uninsured older Americans to pay three times more than younger individuals) to 5:1 and reductions in current tax credits for older Americans. CBO concluded that the bill will substantially raise premiums for older people and force many into lower quality plans. Age rating plus reduced tax credits equal an unaffordable age tax. Our previous estimates on the age-rating change showed that premiums for current coverage could increase by up to $3,200 for a 64 year old, while reducing premiums by only about $700 for a younger enrollee. Significant premium increases for older consumers will make insurance less affordable, will not address their expressed concern about rising premiums, and only encourage a small increase in the enrollment numbers for younger persons. In addition to increasing premiums from the age rating change, the bill reduced the tax credits available for older Americans to help purchase insurance. We estimate that the bill's changes to current law's tax credits alone could increase premium costs for a 55-year old earning $25,000 by more than $2,300 a year. For a 64-year old earning $25,000, that increased premium rises to more than $4,400 a year, and more than $5,800 for a 64-year old earning $15,000. Overall, both the bill's tax credit changes and 5:1 age rating would result in skyrocketing cost increases for older Americans. In their analysis, CBO found that a 64 year old earning $26,500 a year would see their premiums increase by $12,900--758 percent--from $1,700 to $14,600 a year. In addition, older workers could also face higher out-of-pocket costs because the bill eliminates cost-sharing subsidies which help lower-income Americans with their co-pays and deductibles. It cannot be overstated how much this bill would erase recent gains in health care coverage and affordability for 50-64 year olds, leading to large spikes in the number of uninsured and financial hardship for millions of older Americans. Current law prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against individuals due to a preexisting condition. We are extremely concerned that the bill may now repeal pre- existing condition protections and would once again allow insurance companies to charge Americans more due to a pre- existing condition. We estimate that 40 percent of 50- to 64- year-olds (or about 25 million people in this age group) have a deniable pre-existing condition and risk losing access to affordable coverage. We strongly oppose any weakening of the law's pre-existing condition protections which benefit millions of Americans. Medicaid and Long-Term Services and Supports AARP opposes the provisions of the American Health Care Act that create a per capita cap financing structure in the Medicaid program. We are concerned that these provisions could endanger the health, safety, and care of millions of individuals who depend on the essential services provided through Medicaid. CBO found that the bill would cut Medicaid funding by $880 billion over 2017-2026. By 2026, CBO expects Medicaid spending to be about 25 percent less than what it projects under current law. Medicaid is a vital safety net and intergenerational lifeline for millions of individuals, including over 17.4 million low-income seniors and children and adults with disabilities who rely on the program for critical health care and long-term services and supports (LTSS, i.e., assistance with daily activities such as eating, bathing, dressing, managing medications, and transportation). Older adults and people with disabilities now account for over sixty percent of Medicaid spending, and cuts of this magnitude will result in loss of benefits and services for this vulnerable population. Of these 17.4 million individuals: 6.9 million are ages 65 and older (which equals more than 1 in every 7 elderly Medicare beneficiaries); 10.5 million are children and adults living with disabilities; and about 10.8 million are so poor or have a disability that they qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid (dual eligibles). Dual eligibles account for almost 33 percent of Medicaid spending. While they comprise a relatively small percentage of enrollees, they account for a disproportionate share of total Medicare and Medicaid spending. Individuals with disabilities of all ages and older adults rely on critical Medicaid services, including home and community-based services (HCBS) for assistance with daily activities such as eating, bathing, dressing, and home modifications; nursing home care; and other benefits such as hearing aids and eyeglasses. People with disabilities of all ages also rely on Medicaid for access to comprehensive acute health care services. For working adults, Medicaid can help them continue to work; for children, it allows them to stay with their families and receive the help they need at home or in their community. Individuals may have low incomes, face high medical costs, or have already spent through their resources paying out-of-pocket for LTSS, and need these critical services. For these individuals, Medicaid is a program of last resort. In providing a fixed amount of federal funding per person, this approach to financing would likely result in overwhelming cost shifts to states, state taxpayers, and families unable to shoulder the costs of care without sufficient federal support. This would result in cuts to program eligibility, services, or both--ultimately harming some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens. In terms of seniors, we have serious concerns about setting caps at a time when per-beneficiary spending for poor seniors is likely to increase in future years. By 2026, when Boomers start to turn age 80 and older, they will likely need much higher levels of service--including HCBS and nursing home--moving them into the highest cost group of all seniors. As this group continues to age, their level of need will increase as well as their overall costs. We are also concerned that caps will not accurately reflect the cost of care for individuals in each state, including for children and adults with disabilities and seniors, especially those living with the most severe disabling conditions. CBO estimates that Medicaid spending on a per-enrollee basis would grow at a faster rate than the consumer price index for medical care services (CPI- M)--3.7 percent for CPI-M versus an average annual growth rate of 4.4 percent for Medicaid over the 2017-2026 period. Over time, the difference in the growth rate under the per capita cap (CPI-M) and the actual cost of care would further shift costs to states, which could result in even greater potential harm to some of the most vulnerable individuals. AARP is also opposed to the repeal of the six percent enhanced federal Medicaid match for states that take up the Community First Choice (CFC) Option. CFC provides states with a financial incentive to offer HCBS to help older adults and people with disabilities live in their homes and communities where they want to be. About 90 percent of older adults want to remain in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. HCBS are also cost effective. On average, in Medicaid, the cost of HCBS per person is one-third the cost of institutional care. Taking away the enhanced match could disrupt services for older adults and people with disabilities in the states that are already providing services under CFC and would result in a loss of about $12 billion for HCBS over ten years. AARP also has concerns with the removal of the state option in Medicaid to increase the home equity limit above the federal minimum. This provision would take away flexibility for states to adjust a Medicaid eligibility criterion based on the specific circumstances of each state and its residents beyond a federal minimum standard. AARP continues to support critical consumer protections included in current law, including guaranteed issue, prohibitions on preexisting condition exclusions, bans on annual and lifetime coverage limits and allowing families to keep children on their policies until the age of 26. Also, AARP continues to support restoring the 7.5 percent threshold for the medical expense deduction which will directly help older Americans struggling to pay for health care, particularly the high cost of nursing homes and other long-term services and supports. We look forward to working with you to ensure that we maintain a strong health care system that ensures robust insurance market protections, controls costs, improves quality, and provides affordable coverage to all Americans. Sincerely, Nancy A. LeaMond, Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I find all this particularly puzzling because my friends have said over and over and over and over again that they agree with Democrats when it comes to protecting people with preexisting conditions. They said that they do not want insurance companies to have the ability to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. And yet what they have done is they have created a repeal-and-replacement bill that does just that and then goes after essential benefits. Again, we have been talking about essential benefits over and over and over again. And again, I want to remind my colleagues what the word ``essential'' means. Go to the dictionary. Look up the word ``essential.'' It says, absolutely necessary, extremely important. That is the definition of essential. And so when we talk about essential health benefits, that is what we are talking about. I have one additional speaker. I was going to close, but I would ask indulgence. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Association sent letters to Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi saying that ``We are deeply concerned that the AHCA would result in millions of Americans losing their current health insurance coverage. Nothing in the'' so- called ``MacArthur amendment remedies the shortcomings of the underlying bill.'' And then they say that, basically, this addition that the Republicans added to the healthcare bill ``could effectively make coverage completely unaffordable for people with preexisting conditions.'' I include in the Record the letter from the American Medical Association. American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, April 27, 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: After reviewing the MacArthur Amendment to H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the American Medical Association (AMA) remains opposed to passage of this legislation. As we have previously stated, we are deeply concerned that the AHCA would result in millions of Americans losing their current health insurance coverage. Nothing in the MacArthur amendment remedies the shortcomings of the underlying bill. The amendment does not offer a clear long-term framework for stabilizing and strengthening the individual health insurance market to ensure that low and moderate income patients are able to secure affordable and adequate coverage, nor does it ensure that Medicaid and other critical safety net programs are maintained and adequately funded. The MacArthur Amendment would allow states to apply for waivers from critical consumer protections provided in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the age rating ratio of 3 to 1, the requirements that health insurers must cover certain essential health benefits, and the ban on health status underwriting. The current ban on health status underwriting protects individuals from being discriminated against by virtue of their medical conditions. Prior to the passage of the ACA, such individuals were routinely denied coverage and/or priced out of affordable coverage. We are particularly concerned about allowing states to waive this requirement because it will likely lead to patients losing their coverage. Although the MacArthur Amendment states that the ban on preexisting conditions remains intact, this assurance may be illusory as health status underwriting could effectively make coverage completely unaffordable to people with preexisting conditions. There is also no certainty that the requirement for states to have some kind of reinsurance or high-risk pool mechanism to help such individuals will be sufficient to provide for affordable health insurance or prevent discrimination against individuals with certain high- cost medical conditions. We continue to strongly urge Congress to engage in a bipartisan, bicameral dialogue with stakeholders to work on policies that enhance coverage, choice, and affordability. Sincerely, James L. Madara, MD.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have a number of the day for my colleagues. I feel like I am on Sesame Street. This is the 29th closed rule this year. This is the 29th CR of this Republican majority. And the government is about to shut down when the calendar flips after midnight, and it is the 29th. So 29 must be the number of the day. I want to wish the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) a happy birthday. Maybe he is 29, so it all kind of fits together. I would just say to my colleagues, as an indication of how dysfunctional this place is: How do you get 29 closed rules in 4 months? How do we run a place in such a closed manner? This is supposed to be a deliberative body. We are supposed to be debating issues. People are supposed to have a give-and-take on matters of importance. We have had 29 closed rules in the first 4 months of this year. It is unprecedented. As I have been saying time and time again, when you have a lousy process, you usually end up with lousy legislation. I think that is the case with regard to the repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act. Here we are at the last minute trying to keep the government open for a week so we could have more time to keep it open for the rest of the year. I mean, this is not the way this place should be run. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin with some good news for my colleagues here in the House and for the American people, and that is my Republican colleagues have decided to pull their abysmal repeal and replace bill with regard to the Affordable Care Act from consideration this week. We can all breathe a sigh of relief. The American people dodged another Republican bullet here. Their bill, as my colleagues all know, would have caused 24 million Americans to lose their health care. It would have cut Medicaid by over $800 billion, and then they would have given a trillion-dollar tax break to the richest people in the country. It would have compromised Medicare. It would have basically denied Americans essential health protections that they currently are guaranteed in their health insurance; things like emergency room care, maternity care, mental health care. I can go on and on. Then with their latest addition to their abysmal bill, they would have even allowed insurance companies to once again discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions; something that they said that they wanted to protect, yet their adjustments to their abysmal healthcare bill would have allowed Americans with preexisting conditions to be discriminated against. I mean, when we talk about essential health benefits, I want to stress the word ``essential.'' They are important, yet they are going down a road that I think is disastrous for millions of American people. Let us begin by being thankful that we are not going to do great harm to our country this week. Now, there is always next week--we have to worry about that--but at least this week they had the common sense to pull this terrible healthcare bill that they have been working on for so long. Let's hope that we never ever see the bill. I think it is important for people to understand what is at stake. There is an awful lot at stake for tens of millions of Americans here today all across the country. Mr. Speaker, that brings us to today. Let us be clear about why we are here again with yet another continuing resolution, the 29th--yes, you heard that right, the 29th--continuing resolution since Republicans have taken control of the House. Republicans have nobody to blame for this mess but themselves. They control the White House, they control the Senate, and, unfortunately, they control this House. They were even the ones who set this artificial deadline of April 28 in the first place. That was after Republicans gave themselves a 2-month extension and then a 5-month extension. Mr. Speaker, this should have all been sorted out last fall, but for 7 months Republicans have played games and delayed and bickered amongst themselves about government funding and health care and other priorities. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. Now, maybe the delay was caused by this obsession from the Republican Conference with repealing the Affordable Care Act and ripping health care away from 24 million Americans. Maybe Republicans have been too busy trying to defund Planned Parenthood, trying to undo important consumer protections put in place by Democrats, trying to tear down commonsense rules to protect public safety and the environment. Perhaps if Republicans had been responsibly working with Democratic leaders during the past 7 months, we could have already funded our government and we could be getting to work on other things that our constituents sent us here to do, like creating jobs and repairing our crumbling infrastructure. We could have avoided events that have transpired during the past 48 hours: an emergency Rules Committee meeting, another Republican martial law rule, and threats of a Saturday session. Mr. Speaker, to put it bluntly, this is about Republican dysfunction and incompetence, plain and simple. If Congress could be sued by the American people for malpractice, we would be in big trouble. This is indefensible. I am sure people who are watching these proceedings are scratching their heads saying: What the hell is going on in the people's House? For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are constantly at the edge of a cliff. This Republican leadership jumps from one manufactured crisis to the next, and has proven ineffective at carrying out even its most basic responsibilities, like keeping the government's lights on and funding programs that help our constituents. But don't take it from me. Listen to what some of my Republican colleagues are saying about the priorities of their own leadership. Representative Rooney, a Republican from Florida, said: ``I have been in this job 8 years, and I am wracking my brain to think of one thing our party has done that has been something positive, that has been something other than stopping something else from happening.'' Representative Mario Diaz Balart from Florida commented: ``It is pretty evident that we don't have the votes among Republicans to, in essence, do anything that is real.'' Mr. Speaker, when you have members of your own party making these kinds of statements, you really have to question the capacity of the Speaker and his leadership team to govern effectively. Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that we are here today to consider another short-term CR. One week--that is all this bill does, keeps the government running for one additional week. Our constituents expect and deserve better from their elected officials. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that there is a lot of frustration on our side because of what is obviously a dysfunctional House. The fact that we are here again at the last minute trying to just keep the government running really is unfortunate. It is sad because it is not like we didn't know about this date. We have known about it for a long time. My Republicans friends set this date. They have had months and months to figure out a way to keep the government running. They, again, are in control of the House. They are in control of the Senate. They are in control of the White House. Once again, we have a manufactured crisis where we are right at the edge of a cliff, and the best we could do today is kick the can down the road for a week and we will have this little debate again next week. Perhaps if the leadership of this House actually focused on the people's business instead of on legislation that is about messaging or press releases, perhaps if they focused on the people's business rather than trying to undermine basic healthcare protections for people, we wouldn't have these crises all the time. I said at the beginning of my remarks that we can breathe a sigh of relief today because my friends on the Republican side are not bringing up their abysmal repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act bill. They have been changing it and changing it, and there was some rumor, President Trump was saying that they would probably bring a bill up to pass it in his first 100 days because somehow it is more important to do something in 100 days than it is to get it right. But, nonetheless, they added another provision which they claim makes it more palatable to their Members. But I want my colleagues to understand that what they have done is made a bad bill worse. The American College of Physicians sent us a letter to all Members, Democrats and Republicans, and I will just read one sentence from it. ``This amendment'' that my Republican friends added to their healthcare bill ``would make the harmful AHCA even worse by creating new coverage barriers for patients with preexisting conditions and weakening requirements that insurers cover essential benefits.'' I include in the Record the letter from the American College of Physicians. American College of Physicians, April 24, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, Majority Leader McConnell, and Minority Leader Schumer: On behalf of the American College of Physicians (ACP), I am writing to urge Congress to move away from the harmful changes to patient care that would occur if the American Health Care Act (AHCA) were to become law, and to instead work for bipartisan solutions to improve the Affordable Care Act (ACA) rather than repealing and replacing it. We believe that the AHCA, which would repeal and replace the most important coverage and consumer protections created by the ACA, is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot be made acceptable. We understand that the leadership in the House of Representatives continues to explore ways to bring a modified version of the AHCA to a vote, based on a draft amendment reportedly being developed by Representatives MacArthur and Meadows, a summary of which was made available to the public through news organizations. This amendment would make the harmful AHCA even worse by creating new coverage barriers for patients with pre-existing conditions and weakening requirements that insurers cover essential benefits. The American College of Physicians is the largest medical specialty organization and the second-largest physician group in the United States. ACP members include 148,000 internal medicine physicians (internists), related subspecialists, and medical students. Internal medicine physicians are specialists who apply scientific knowledge and clinical expertise to the diagnosis, treatment, and compassionate care of adults across the spectrum from health to complex illness. The draft MacArthur-Meadows amendment would create what is known as the ``Limited Waiver Option'' that would allow states to eliminate or severely weaken vital ACA Title I consumer protections--specifically, community rating and essential health benefits (EHBs)--returning the country to the pre-ACA days when persons with pre-existing ``declinable'' medical conditions in most states were priced out of the market and the insurance products available in the individual market did not cover medically necessary services. Specifically; The MacArthur-Meadows amendment would create an option for states to obtain Limited Waivers from certain federal standards that would gut existing law consumer protections. Based on a summary of the draft amendment, states could seek Limited Waivers for: Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) Community-rating rules, except for the following categories, which are not waivable: Gender or Age (except for reductions of the 5:1 age ratio previously established) or Health Status (unless the state has established a high-risk pool or is participating in a federal high-risk pool) To obtain the waiver, states would only need to ``attest that the purpose of their requested waiver is to reduce premium costs, increase the number of persons with healthcare coverage, or advance another benefit to the public interest in the state, including the guarantee of coverage for persons with preexisting medical conditions. The Secretary shall approve applications within 90 days of determining that an application is complete.'' [Emphasis added in italics]. In other words, as long as a state attested that there was a ``benefit to the public,'' insurers would be once again allowed to charge more to people with pre-existing conditions, or decline to cover needed benefits like physician and hospital visits, maternity care and contraception, mental health and substance use disorder treatments, preventive services, and prescription drugs. This would take us back to the days when people had to fill out intrusive insurance company applications to document their previous health history, even before being advised what the premium would be based on their individual health risk. Unlike community rating, which bases premiums based on the expected costs associated with all persons in the insurance pool (adjusted only by age, tobacco use, and family size), the Limited Waiver would again allow insurers in states that obtain a waiver to again charge people exorbitant and unaffordable premiums for their pre-existing conditions. Before the ACA, insurance plans sold in the individual insurance market in all but five states typically maintained lists of so-called ``declinable'' medical conditions-- including asthma, diabetes, arthritis, obesity, stroke, or pregnancy, or having been diagnosed with cancer in the past 10 years. Even if a revised bill would not explicitly repeal the current law's guaranteed-issue requirement--which requires insurers to offer coverage to persons with pre- existing conditions like these--guaranteed issue without community rating allows insurers to charge as much as they believe a patient's treatment will cost. The result would be that many patients with pre-existing conditions would be offered coverage that costs them thousands of dollars more for the care that they need, and in the case of patients with expensive conditions like cancer, even hundreds of thousands more. An amendment to the AHCA reported out of the Rules Committee on April 6th to establish a ``Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program,'' which would create a fund that states could use to reimburse insurers for some of the costs associated with insuring sicker patients, would not offset the harm done to patients with pre-existing conditions by allowing the Limited Waiver of community rating and essential benefit protections. The pre-ACA experience with high-risk pools was that many had long waiting lists, and offered inadequate coverage with high deductibles and insufficient benefits. Unless a national high-risk pool is supported with a massive infusion of funding it will not be sufficient to cover the millions of people with pre-existing conditions that would be denied or charged more for coverage under the AHCA. One paper estimates that a national high-risk pool would cost $178.1 billion a year, roughly $176.4 billion more than the annual funding provided to the Invisible Risk Sharing Program. Also, shifting people out of the existing health insurance marketplace to a high-risk pool would undermine the assurance that enrollees could keep their existing coverage. The Limited Waiver Option will also allow states to seek waivers from the essential health benefits required of all plans sold in the individual insurance market, with the result that millions of patients will be at risk of losing coverage for essential services like maternity care, cancer screening tests and treatments, prescription drugs, preventive services, mental health and substance use disorder treatments, and even physician visits, prescription drugs and hospitalizations. Prior to passage of the ACA, 62% of individual market enrollees did not have coverage of maternity services, 34% did not have substance-use disorder-services, 18% did not have mental-health services and 9% did not have coverage for prescription drugs. A recent independent analysis found that the AHCA's repeal of current law required benefits would result in patients on average paying $1,952 more for cancer drugs; $1,807 for drugs for heart disease; $1,127 for drugs to treat lung diseases; $1,607 for drugs to treat mental illnesses; $4,940 for inpatient admission for mental health; $4,555 for inpatient admission for substance use treatment; and $8,501 for maternity care. Such increased costs would make it practically impossible for many patients to avail themselves of the care they need. The result will be delays in getting treatment until their illnesses present at a more advanced, less treatable, and more expensive stage, or not keeping up with life-saving medications prescribed by their physicians. Allowing states to eliminate the EHB will threaten our nation's fight against the opioid epidemic. A study concluded that with repeal of the ACA, ``approximately 1,253,000 people with serious mental disorders and about 2.8 million Americans with a substance use disorder, of whom about 222,000 have an opioid disorder, would lose some or all of their insurance coverage.'' Finally, allowing states to drop important benefits like maternity, substance use disorder treatment, and preventive services will do little to reduce premiums. A report by Milliman found that the main drivers of premium costs were ambulatory patient services, hospitalization, and prescription drugs. These are crucial services that form the core of any health insurance plan. To be clear: while some younger and healthier persons might be offered lower premiums in states that obtained a ``Limited Waiver'' of community-rating and essential health benefits, it would be at the expense of making coverage unaffordable for those who need it most, older and sicker persons, and result in skimpy ``bare-bones'' insurance for many others that does not cover the medical care they would need if and when they get sick. Finally, even without the Limited Waiver Amendment, ACP continues to believe that the AHCA has numerous other provisions and policies that that will do great harm to patients including: The phase-out of the higher federal match in states that have opted to expand Medicaid and the ban on non-expansion states being able to access the higher federal contribution if they choose to expand Medicaid; Converting the shared federal-state financing structure for Medicaid to one that would cap the federal contribution per enrollee; Providing states with a Medicaid block grant financing option; Eliminating EHBs for Medicaid expansion enrollees; Imposing work or job search requirements on certain Medicaid enrollees; Regressive age-based tax credits, combined with changes that will allow insurers to charge older people much higher premiums than allowed under current law; Continuous coverage requirements for patients with pre- existing conditions; Legislative or regulatory restrictions that would deny or result in discrimination in the awarding of federal grant funds and/or Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program funding to women's health clinics that are qualified under existing federal law for the provision of evidence-based services including, but not limited to, provision of contraception, preventive health screenings, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, vaccines, counseling, rehabilitation, and referrals, and; Elimination of the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which provides billions in dollars to the enters for Disease Control and Prevention to prevent and control the spread of infectious diseases. The College strongly believes in the first, do no harm principle. Therefore, we continue to urge that Congress move away from the fundamentally flawed and harmful policies that would result from the American Health Care Act and from the changes under consideration--including the proposed ``Limited Waiver'' amendment--that would make the bill even worse for patients. We urge Congress to instead start over and seek agreement on bipartisan ways to improve and build on the ACA. The College welcomes the opportunity to share our ideas for bipartisan solutions that would help make health care better, more accessible, and more affordable for patients rather than imposing great harm on them as the AHCA would do. Sincerely, Jack Ende, MD, MACP, President.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his indulgence. I would just close by saying I think it is sad that we are here at the last minute trying to kick the can down the road to keep the government running again for 1 additional week. This could have been avoided and, again, it could have been avoided if, instead of trying to take away people's health insurance, instead of trying to take away people's essential health benefits, instead of trying to cut Medicaid by $800 billion and taking that money and giving a tax break of close to $1 trillion to the richest people in the country, that we actually focused on our job, which is keeping this government running. But my colleagues on the Republican side are in charge. We are where we are. We have to keep the government running. Having said all of that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have a press release from the American Hospital Association. Their line here is: ``Our top concern is what this change could mean for older and sicker patients, including those with preexisting conditions such as cancer patients and those with chronic conditions'' could suffer. ``This amendment proposed this week would dramatically worsen the bill.'' I include in the Record the American Hospital Association press release. [From the American Hospital Association--April 27, 2017] Statement on the American Health Care Act (By Rick Pollack, President and CEO, American Hospital Association) The latest version of the AHCA continues to put health coverage in jeopardy for many Americans. Our top concern is what this change could mean for older and sicker patients, including those with pre-existing conditions, such as cancer patients and those with chronic conditions. For these reasons, along with our previously stated concerns about the AHCA, we cannot support the bill. However, we urge Congress to continue to work with stakeholders on a solution that provides meaningful coverage. The amendment proposed this week would dramatically worsen the bill. The changes included put consumer protections at greater risk by allowing states to waive the essential health benefit standards, which could leave patients without access to critical health services and increase out-of-pocket spending. This could allow plans to set premium prices based on individual risk for some consumers, which could significantly raise costs for those with pre-existing conditions. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored the amendment. However, CBO previously projected that the AHCA would result in 24 million fewer people covered in 2026. It is unlikely this amendment would improve these coverage estimates. As the backbone of America's health safety-net, hospitals and health systems must protect access to care for those who need it and ensure that the most vulnerable patients are not left behind. The AHCA continues to fall far short of that goal.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague, I don't have any problem with the underlying bill, but I would argue with him that I think most of our colleagues probably don't know what the hell we are doing here because, in the scheme of things, this is not terribly consequential. I think our problem is the fact that we are at the edge of another crisis where, if we don't fund the government by tomorrow, we shut this place down, we shut the government down, and that has an impact on the American people. I think what our objection is is that the rule that you bring to us here today to consider the underlying bill also allows my Republican friends to bring up anything they want between now and Saturday, including, you know, an awful healthcare repeal bill. And by the way, when we talk about regular order, it would be nice, especially when it comes to the big things like health care, that we actually do things like hearings and listen to what experts have to say and our constituents and patients and doctors, I mean, a whole bunch of people who have a stake in our healthcare system. The bill that my friends brought to the floor, that they had to pull, never had a single hearing and, in all likelihood, whatever monstrosity they bring to the floor in the future will probably not be the result of regular order. It will be the result of a backroom deal where very few people have any input. So I can't celebrate today. I am very concerned for my constituents. I am very concerned for the millions of people who might lose their health care. I am concerned for this country. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's first 100 days have been embroiled in controversy and shrouded in secrecy. The American people deserve a heck of a lot better. They deserve transparency from their government. They deserve to know which special interests are getting face time with the President and his top aides and whether the White House is being used to personally enrich President Trump and his family. It is our duty, as the people's Representatives, to hold this administration accountable, an administration that has so many conflicts of interest, financial conflicts of interest, that it is on a collision course with corruption. So, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Katherine Clark's resolution, H. Res. 286, which would force the White House to release information to us regarding the President's many potential conflicts of interest, including his tax returns, involvement in his business empire, and White House and Mar-a- Lago visitor logs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Katherine Clark) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say to the gentleman from Georgia: he had me at hello, too. If all he said was ``hello'' and introduced the underlying bill, we would be done. There would be no controversy. The underlying bill is being brought to the floor under a rule that is atrocious and that, quite frankly, every Member of this House should be ashamed about. Under this martial law rule, you can bring anything up at any time you want, at a moment's notice, without people having an opportunity to actually understand what they are going to vote on. The gentleman talked about they might bring up the healthcare bill between now and Saturday. He said: Yesterday, we posted the text of our new amendment. He used the word ``yesterday'' loosely. They posted it at midnight last night. I was asleep at midnight; I don't know about the gentleman. The bottom line is, there is nothing that says that they can't change the text again and again and again and again, offer more amendments, because that is what they have been doing since they first began their effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. On something as important as health care, on something that could affect millions and millions of people in this country, that could throw 24 million people off of health care, that will cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars, that will compromise Medicare, that will take away essential benefits, people ought to know what the heck they are voting on. We ought to have regular order on these major pieces of legislation. Why is that so controversial? How about a hearing on health care? The idea that we would like the opportunity to know what we are voting on, to do this in a thoughtful way, is so offensive to my Republican colleagues. I am flabbergasted by this--to basically defend this process. We have to use a procedural motion to be able to try to force a debate or bring to the floor the bill of my colleague, Katherine Clark, which basically calls on the President to release his tax returns and calls for some transparency with regard to visitor logs at the White House and Mar-a-Lago. We have to resort to a procedural motion because the Republican majority basically blocks us from bringing anything to the floor under a normal process. The Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Yet the bill that we have before us, the underlying bill that we are going to consider later today, could probably pass on a suspension. By the way, we have no problem with giving you same-day authority on suspension bills. Those aren't controversial. We don't even have a problem, although you should have prepared for this, with you being able to bring a bill to the floor quickly to keep the government running. It is the broad authority that you have given yourselves to bring anything at a moment's notice, without anybody having a chance to review it. That is what we have a problem with. Quite frankly, my Republican colleagues ought to have a problem with that, too. Mr. Speaker, shortly after taking the gavel, Speaker Ryan said: ``I want to have a process that is more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, more participatory, and that is what we are trying to do.'' That was the Speaker of the House. Unfortunately, Republicans do not appear to be trying very hard. The current Congress is on track to become the most closed in history, with an incredible 26 closed rules in this year's first quarter out of 42 total rules. The Republican majority shut out all amendments from both Democrats and Republicans on fully 62 percent of the legislation considered by the House under a rule. Do Members realize that? On most bills, even they are not allowed to offer amendments. No amendments at all. Under a closed rule, you can't even offer an amendment to fix a typo. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to take a look at this chart. This shows closed rules in the past decade and for the first quarter of the year. Do you see this really long red line on the top? I am happy to bring it over to my colleagues here. If you see that line, you will see that the bottom line is that this shows that this Congress has an abysmal record with regard to an open, fair process. When we were in charge from 2007-2010, we averaged only 8 closed rules in the same timeframe. This Congress is more than three times as closed. We have 26 closed rules in the first quarter alone; that is not to mention zero open rules. You are even crushing your record for 2015, the year that you beat the all-time closed rule record. This is not something to be proud of. What has this historically closed process brought to the House? Complete chaos. Virtually no legislative accomplishments. A lousy process usually leads to lousy legislation. We learned that from your awful, disastrous attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. By the way, I should point out that while we were meeting here today--I guess some of the advocacy organizations had a chance to read the language you posted last night at midnight--so far, the American Hospital Association, AARP, the American Medical Association, March of Dimes, and America's Essential Hospitals have all come out against this terrible, new Republican health proposal. In fact, the American Hospital Association said: ``The amendment proposed this week would dramatically worsen the bill.'' I would just say to my colleagues: We don't have a problem with suspensions. We don't have a problem with a rule that will allow us to keep the government running. We have a problem with your closed, authoritarian approach to the legislation. We have a problem with the prospect that you might bring a healthcare bill to the floor that will impact millions and millions of Americans, and nobody will have read it, nobody will even have any guarantee that what you posted last night at midnight will even be what we are voting on. This is a big deal. It affects my constituents and it affects your constituents. We ought to be doing a better job around here, and this process, quite frankly, stinks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Simply, again, I reiterate that everybody in this House, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be ashamed at the way this House is being run. The American people who are watching should be appalled by the way this House is being run. I don't care whether you are a liberal or conservative or fall somewhere in the middle. You ought to have some confidence that what the people's House is doing is actually thoughtful and is actually in the best interest of the people of this country. That is not what is happening here. Yes, the underlying bill that we are going to talk about later today, we have no problem with it. It could have passed overwhelmingly under a suspension vote. I am happy to support it. No problem. I have no problem, by the way, with bringing up suspensions to fill up time as we try to get a resolution to the continuing resolution. We have no problem, quite frankly, with bringing up a continuing resolution in a quick fashion. This rule continues a lousy process that has been embraced by the current Republican leadership in this House. There is no excuse for this. When it comes to big bills, big legislation, like health care, which is a very personal thing to people in this country, the American people deserve much better than this. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this lousy rule and stand up to your leadership and demand that they open this House up not only to Democratic amendments but to Republican amendments as well. This is a deliberative body. We ought to be able to deliberate. On big issues like health care, it ought not be some backroom deal that a few people put together. We saw the result of those backroom deals with a lousy, terrible, awful bill that would hurt millions of Americans. We ought to do it out in the open. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I first want to begin by thanking the gentleman for his kind words to his constituents about me on the floor. It means a lot to me, and I appreciate it. I should tell him, however, that, even though sometimes people don't realize this, Massachusetts has a robust agricultural base, and, in fact, in my district, I have 1,832 farms on over 142,899 acres, compared to the gentleman who has 209 farms on 13,328 acres. So, in addition to fighting hunger, I am on the Agriculture Committee to represent my farms. I do genuinely appreciate the gentleman's kind words, but then I look at the rule that we are debating today and it kind of spoils the mood. Having said that, I just want to say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that here we are again, just 1 day from our government running out of funding and confronting yet another manufactured, totally avoidable crisis, and instead of working on a bill to fully fund America's biggest priorities, we are back on the floor with--the only way I can characterize this--more filler legislation. It seems my Republican friends care more about looking busy than actually doing their jobs. This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1694, as my colleague mentioned, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017. It is a fine bill designed to strengthen transparency at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I support the legislation. My Democratic colleagues support the legislation. The Republican majority supports the legislation. In fact, I haven't found one person yet who doesn't support the bill. Freedom of information is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, and I support FOIA, but what about the freedom from the threat of a government shutdown? What about freedom from the threat of a default on our national debt? What about freedom to know what our President's conflicts of interest are and to see his tax returns? What about the freedom from having our healthcare protections ripped away, protections like essential health benefits and protections for people with preexisting conditions? And what about the freedom to know what Congressional Republicans and the White House are doing to our healthcare system behind closed doors? None of this seems to matter. But the most troubling part of this rule is that it declares blanket martial law, through Saturday, that allows Republicans to bring anything--and I mean anything--to the floor between now and then. Now, I understand the importance of rushing something to the floor when the government is about to run out of money; although, I would point out that we are 7 months into the fiscal year and my Republican friends set this deadline themselves back in December, so there is absolutely no excuse for Congress to come within hours of yet another shutdown. But this is just the latest example of Republican obstruction, obfuscation, and incompetence that has, once again, brought us to the edge of the cliff. And, Mr. Speaker, this is no way to govern. This rule would allow Republican leadership to rush anything to the floor within hours of it being released. Not just appropriations, it gives them blanket authority to jam us with whatever new disaster they cook up with the White House in the backroom of Capitol Hill, and that includes this latest healthcare deal that I have heard so much about this week. Of course, with it being a backroom deal, we were relying on news reports all week to clue us in to these terrible new provisions; and it was only last night, around midnight, when the Republicans finally posted their newest healthcare proposal that we were able to confirm just how bad it really is. Incredibly, this new amendment will make the bill even worse than before. Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, I didn't know that was possible. In addition to killing the requirement to provide basic, crucial, essential benefits like maternity care and prescription drugs and emergency services, this new amendment will also completely gut protections for people with preexisting conditions. In fact, this amendment directly violates the commitment made by President Trump and House Republicans to protect those with preexisting conditions. This newest proposal will allow insurers to charge an unlimited ``age tax'' to older Americans, and, to make matters even worse, Republicans have set up a system that would allow women to once again be charged more than men for health coverage. It will bring us back to those bad old days when insurance companies could charge women more because they said being a woman was a preexisting condition. Give me a break. All of this, on top of a disaster of a healthcare bill that will cause 24 million Americans to lose their healthcare coverage. And in addition, their bill would cut Medicaid by close to $1 trillion, and take that $1 trillion and give it, in the form of tax breaks, to the wealthiest individuals in the country. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we should be running this House. All of this is being done to appease the most conservative fringes within the Republican Conference in an attempt to deliver, I guess, a political ``win'' to Donald Trump so he can celebrate 100 days in office. It doesn't matter what the details are, he just wants to be able to tout a victory of some sort. Well, this is not a victory for the American people. This would be a disaster for the American people. It is no wonder that my Republican colleagues have been overwhelmed by angry calls from their constituents at home demanding that they oppose this reckless and heartless bill. As one Republican remarked: ``I spent the whole work period hearing from people pissed about preexisting conditions. This isn't helpful.'' That is one of my Republican colleagues. Now, under this rule, these dangerous backroom deals could be rushed to the floor without any proper deliberations, but they will have a very real, very serious, and very dangerous consequence for millions of Americans. Real lives are at stake here. Now, I can't help but also note that this newest amendment exempts Congress from the terrible impacts of this proposal. Can you believe that? Knowing just how damaging these new provisions are, Republicans wanted to keep healthcare protections for themselves but set up another system for their constituents. Now, it was only after the press caught Republicans with their hands in the cookie jar that they introduced yet another bill to unexempt themselves. But the new bill to unexempt Congress would require a 60- vote supermajority in the Senate. What are the odds that is going to happen, Mr. Speaker? Are we seriously supposed to trust that they won't exempt themselves from this terrible plan, to trust that the Senate can muster 60 votes to pass this provision or anything else? Let me be clear: this maneuver is a procedural sleight of hand. This is legislative smoke and mirrors designed to give Republicans, who tried to pull a fast one and got caught, a talking point. Mr. Speaker, Republicans wrote this bill, so change the damn bill. Don't just say: ``Trust us. We will pass another bill to fix the fix, and we will get the Senate not to make any changes. Oh, while we are at it, we will get a supermajority in the Senate to support it.'' Who do you think you are fooling, Mr. Speaker? I urge all my colleagues to defeat this martial law rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the House Agriculture Committee has held 21 hearings during the past 2 years on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP. The committee has heard over 30 hours of testimony from over 60 experts, both liberal and conservative, from all across the country. We have heard from academics, advocacy groups, Federal and State government officials, charitable organizations, and even a few people who have relied on SNAP for food assistance. All of our witnesses have confirmed what we know to be true: SNAP works. It is a powerful program that helps to alleviate poverty and food insecurity, and it is worthy of our support. Today I would like to share with my colleagues a few of the most important takeaways from the 21 hearings I participated in as ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee. First, SNAP benefits should not be cut. Forty-two million Americans, including working families, veterans, seniors, children, and the disabled, struggle to put food on the table. In the richest country in the history of the world, I find that unconscionable. SNAP is a vital tool that helps struggling Americans get back on their feet, and participation has steadily declined as economic conditions have improved. Second, the current SNAP benefit is inadequate. On average, SNAP households receive about $225 a month. The average benefit per person is about $126 per month, which works out to be a meager $1.40 per person per meal. You can't buy a Starbucks coffee for that. Pamela Hess with the Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food and Agriculture, said it best during her testimony before the Agriculture Committee: `` . . . people can't parent well and raise happy, healthy children who are ready to learn, and you can't work well if you are hungry, if you are wondering where your next meal is coming from. . . . `' Cutting this meager benefit would be a rotten and heartless thing to do, especially as so many in our country continue to face incredible hardships. Third, SNAP does not discourage work. The majority of people on SNAP who can work, do work. Almost 70 percent of SNAP recipients aren't expected to work because they are kids, they are elderly, disabled, or caring for a young child or disabled family member. More than half of SNAP households with at least one working-age, nondisabled adult do work while receiving SNAP, and more than 80 percent work in the year before or after receiving benefits. Under current law, able-bodied adults without dependents, known as ABAWDs, are limited to 3 months on SNAP out of every 3 years if they aren't working. I don't agree with that provision, but I have come to learn that some of my Republican colleagues want to shorten that time that these very vulnerable adults can remain in the program. Make no mistake, such a move wouldn't help people find jobs; it would only make them hungry and more vulnerable. As Sherrie Tussler of the Milwaukee Food Bank noted in her testimony before the Agriculture Committee: ``Somehow, we have determined that punishing people with hunger will motivate them towards work. Hunger doesn't motivate. It dulls and it makes people sick.'' Fourth, case management requires a well-funded, multiyear commitment. Case management that helps connect those in need with tailored services to move out of poverty can be successful, but those investments cost money. We need to adequately fund these efforts. Lastly, block grants threaten programs that provide an economic ladder. Past Republican budgets have proposed block-granting SNAP, but we know from decades of experience that funding for block-granted programs erodes over time and does not provide the same responsiveness to economic conditions that SNAP does. SNAP expands during times of economic hardship and contracts as the economy recovers. It successfully reaches those in need and is only limited by the modest benefit calculation and hurdles to access like the ABAWD time limit. There is no reason whatsoever, based on all of our hearings, to undermine SNAP through structural changes, block grants, further restrictions, more onerous requirements, or cuts. At a minimum, the next farm bill must do nothing to make hunger worse in this country--period. Instead, we should focus on strengthening our antihunger safety net to make sure 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 to provide families who benefit from the program access to more nutritious foods that last them through the month. Mr. Speaker, today, chefs and advocates from across the country are on the Hill with Food Policy Action and Environmental Working Group to discuss issues related to the farm bill, including our antihunger safety net. I urge my colleagues to listen to these chefs--they are food experts--and pay attention to them, especially when they ask you to support policies that will be aimed at ending hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am glad the gentleman from Michigan believes that closed rules are regular order--maybe in Russia, but that is not supposed to be the norm here in the people's House. We have an obligation to actually debate serious bills. Right now, my Republican friends are behind closed doors somewhere in the Capitol debating healthcare legislation. And what I am against is this whole process. This is backwards. My Republican friends ought to be out in the open debating health care. They ought to be doing hearings. This is what I am objecting to. In the scheme of things, this is a relatively minor piece of legislation, compared to my Republican friends' plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Yes, we should be debating Russia and all the ties that the Trump administration has with Russia. The question used to be: Who in the administration has ties with Russia? Now the question is: Who in this administration doesn't have ties with Russia? Yes, those are important things we ought to be talking about. But, come on. What we are objecting to is you bringing filler to the floor while, in secret, you are trying to dismantle health care in a way that we believe will harm millions and millions of Americans; that will take away their protections, those who have preexisting conditions; that will throw millions of people off of their insurance; that will take away essential health benefits. Yeah, that is important to us, and it is important to the American people. What we are objecting to is a process where you debate these issues in secret and you bring stuff like this to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this week, President Trump signed a bill to allow internet service providers to sell their customers' sensitive information. This information includes location, financial and health data, information about customers' children, Social Security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of their customers' communications, such as emails and video chats. Yet, amazingly, President Trump's tax return information is still off limits to the American people. Every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax return information. These returns have provided a basic level of transparency that has helped to ensure the public's interest is placed first. So the message from President Trump and the Republican Party is clear: It is okay for companies to profit off your medical and financial information, or information contained in your private emails, but the American voter is not allowed to know if the President has any conflicts of interest. That is right. Donald Trump's privacy matters, but your privacy doesn't. Internet companies can auction off your private, personal information to the highest bidder. But information related to Donald Trump's business life must be kept secret. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better, and it is incumbent upon us, as the people's elected Representatives, to hold the executive branch accountable. So I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, which will require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns. 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, this is a big deal. The American people have a right to know because the American people are concerned that this White House is on a collision course with corruption. It is time to let a little light shine on the President's tax returns so the American people know what his dealings have been and know what, quite frankly, they have been able to know about every other President and every other major party nominee. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) to discuss our proposal.