Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I feel bad for the gentleman from Texas for having to defend this lousy rule and this lousy bill all by himself. We have so many speakers here, we don't have enough time to accommodate them all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says the Republican bill is simple and easy to understand. My question is: Where the hell is it? Maybe it is under the table. We haven't seen it. Every time we get the bill, it changes. So maybe they ought to start with giving us the bill so people know what the bill would do. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleagues, this is a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute's Healthy Policy Center that shows just how dramatically these tax cuts benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and working class families. This bill really is a giveaway to the rich. This chart clearly illustrates that disparity. The rich would benefit greatly from the tax cuts in the bill, with a family making more than $200,000 receiving a $5,680 tax cut, and a family making more than a million dollars a year getting a $51,410 break on their taxes. That is too high to even fit on the chart. Meanwhile, families making less than $50,000 will be paying the price. This bill really is a massive giveaway to the well-off and to the wealthy. This is going to hurt the middle class. This is not what the American people want. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Illinois, but let me just say to him that the Republican plan is not a rescue mission. It is a full-fledged attack on the middle class--a rescue plan for the rich, maybe, slamming the middle class with a tax hike. Ripping away coverage and undermining Medicare is not a rescue mission, I assure you. I have seen the townhalls around the country. They want nothing to do with your rescue plan. Rescuing something you sabotaged, offering Americans a plan that costs more and covers less, going after essential services--please, that is not what the American people want. To my colleague from Texas, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, he is assuring us that Republicans are huddled somewhere. Well, I have got news for him. I have been reading press reports that Republicans have canceled their 9 a.m. Conference meeting. As I understand it, one Republican Member told the reporter that that move ``tells me it's panic time.'' Another Republican source is quoted as saying: This is such a disaster. Representative Massie said: Frankly, it is not very well thought out. So I don't think people are huddling. I think people are dispersed, and so it makes me even more wary about what we are going to see later today. By the way, all we are asking is that we actually see the bill. We had a Rules Committee hearing yesterday on a bill that, quite frankly, will not be the bill we are going to consider later today or tomorrow or Saturday or Sunday or Monday. We are talking about health care that affects millions and millions of people, and nobody in this Chamber has seen what we are going to vote on. This is ludicrous. How can this be? What are you thinking? Do this right. There is no rush. You don't get extra points for being fast. When we read about some of the compromises that are being talked about--going after essential services that basically help the most vulnerable in this country, services like mental health treatment, treatments for opiate addiction, maternity care--essential benefits are being compromised or being taken away. So what will end up happening is you will get up and say: Yeah, we will sell you insurance. It will be cheap, but you get no coverage. Nothing is covered. That is not what the American people want. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Will we have a CBO score before the Rules Committee meets?

Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate the gentleman informing us about next week, but I am concerned about this week still. Can the gentleman inform me whether or not we will have a CBO score on the healthcare repeal bill that we are going to be taking up in the Rules Committee tomorrow?

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman. But as I said in the Rules Committee, I just think, under regular order, we ought to have the score and know how many people will lose their health insurance before we consider it in the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it has been 7 years since the dreadful Citizens United ruling. In upholding the rights of corporations to donate to political campaigns under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court created an election system that is now corrupted by limitless, unregulated donations. Ordinary citizens are left powerless, and politicians are increasingly beholden to wealthy special interests. Since Citizens United, we have seen a major telecommunications company, oil companies, and the tobacco industry all attempt to dismantle regulations and disclosure rules by claiming First Amendment rights. Today, I am reintroducing the People's Rights Amendment to overturn Citizens United and declare, once and for all, that corporations are not people. The Constitution was never intended to give corporations the same rights as the American people. Corporations don't breathe; they don't have kids; they don't die in wars. The Preamble to the Constitution is ``We the people,'' not ``We the corporations.'' Let us hope this Congress doesn't forget that.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this week, the Food Research & Action Center, known as FRAC, and Feeding America, in conjunction with the National Child and Adult Care Food Program Forum, hosted their annual fly-in. Over 1,200 hunger advocates from every State came to Washington, D.C., to meet with their local Members of Congress and to emphasize the importance of the Federal antihunger programs in alleviating food insecurity and poverty amongst our most vulnerable constituents. These advocates delivered powerful messages to Members of Congress: as we consider the FY 2018 budget and appropriations legislation, and as we work to craft a 2018 farm bill, our antihunger safety net must stay intact. That means no block grants or structural changes to SNAP; no funding cuts to SNAP or any other antihunger programs. These advocates, Mr. Speaker, also delivered paper plates to their Members of Congress containing powerful messages from constituents who rely on antihunger safety net programs. I would urge all my colleagues to make sure they read these paper plates. These aren't statistics. These are real human beings. These are our constituents, our brothers and sisters. I would like to read a few of the messages that were sent to me from people in my district. This is from a client at the Northbridge Food Pantry in Massachusetts: ``Without food assistance, I wouldn't have any other source of nourishment. I have many medical issues, and a proper diet is necessary.'' This is from, again, another client from the Northbridge Food Pantry: ``Food stamps are important to me and my family because I have lung cancer, and it is next to impossible to find a job, to buy food. My husband barely makes enough to pay the bills, that is not counting food.'' Also, another client from the Northbridge Food Pantry: ``Food stamps is important to me 'cause I don't make any money to support myself, let alone I'm disabled and I only make $16 for SNAP. I need food to survive and to stay healthy.'' This is from a client at Centro Las Americas in Worcester: ``For me, they are very important, so that my children have good balance and nutrition.'' Also, from Centro Las Americas in Worcester: ``Well, for me, they fill a gap because I am a single father who has a child.'' This is from a client at the Marie Anne Center in Worcester, Massachusetts: ``I think SNAP is important because it helps, because it helps families.'' This is from a client at the Amherst Survival Center: ``It means there is food every night.'' Also, from the Amherst Survival Center: ``I thank God for the food pantry because most of my income goes toward bills. The food pantry really relieves the anxiety of not having enough to go around. Thank you.'' Also, from the Amherst Survival Center: ``I am in bad health. I can't work. The food pantry really helps my family. Thanks to the food pantry. Thanks Survival Center.'' Also, from the Amherst Survival Center: ``It means there is food every night.'' This is from Loaves and Fishes, a food pantry in Worcester, Massachusetts: ``A person has to live.'' Also, from Loaves and Fishes: ``It is very important that I get the food stamps. Please don't take them away. They help me out a lot.'' This is also from Loaves and Fishes: ``SNAP helps supplement my disability from cancers, but my benefit level has been cut.'' From the Marie Anne Center, a client writes: ``It is important to keep food stamps because other poor families don't have money. And the food stamps help them. Also, I think you should keep SNAP because if you take it away, that's basically you saying that other people won't eat.'' This is also from the Northbridge Food Pantry: ``In my given situation, without the local food banks and SNAP, I would not be able to eat three meals per day.'' From a client at Loaves and Fishes: ``A person has to live.'' Finally, this is from the Amherst Survival Center. A client writes: ``Thank you, Amherst Survival Center. You are a saving grace.'' Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to understand that, in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, we have close to 42 million Americans who are food insecure or hungry. They are our neighbors. They are counting on us in this Congress to do something, not to give them a cold shoulder. I will, in all frankness, say to my colleagues that we are not doing nearly enough. Hunger is a political condition. We have the resources, we know what to do, but we don't have the political will. So, rather than cutting these nutrition safety net programs, rather than threatening to block grant SNAP, cut SNAP, or cut other antihunger and nutrition programs, we ought to come together and support them. We ought to dedicate ourselves to ending hunger now. We have a moral obligation to do that. I urge my colleagues to read the plates that were delivered to their offices and join with me in ending hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to Defense Subcommittee Chairmen Granger and Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Visclosky, for their hard work in bringing this bill to the House floor today. The Defense Subcommittee is known for its ability to work in a bipartisan manner, and this bill demonstrates that this tradition continues. Last year, the House approved its version of the FY 2017 Defense Appropriations bill. It was a deeply flawed bill filled with funding gimmicks, including a funding cliff that cut off funding for the war budget in order to boost base defense spending by $18 billion. The Senate version of the Defense Appropriations bill did not contain such gimmicks and was marked up by the Senate Defense Subcommittee, the full committee, and reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, but it never went to the Senate floor for consideration. The FY 2017 Defense Appropriations bill that the House will consider later today is not, therefore, a conference report. It is being treated as if it were a conference report, namely by having a closed rule, but let us be perfectly clear that this is not a conference report. Let me also be clear, Mr. Speaker, that we could have had this type of final bill come before us last December, just as we could have brought up all of the pending FY 2017 appropriations bills before the House last December for final action. Instead, Republican leadership chose to keep nearly the entire Federal Government, including the Pentagon, operating at FY 2016 levels without any clarity about what their annual budgets might be. So when we hear talk about problems with military readiness or shortfalls in defense budgets, I suggest the Republican leadership hold a mirror up to their faces and take some responsibility. This bill is 5 months late. It could also have been taken care of 3 months ago in December, and, in fact, it should have been taken care of in December. It is now making its way through another convoluted process today. But we still have no idea about the fate of the other pending ten appropriations bills that the Republican leadership failed to complete last December. And I say convoluted, Mr. Speaker, because when the House votes on H.R. 1301 today, it still needs to go back to the Senate, and we really have no idea what they are going to do with it. Are they going to pass it without any changes and send it to the President for signature? Or are they going to use it as a vehicle to attach the other ten appropriations bills and send it back to us as the FY 2017 omnibus that we should have completed in December? Perhaps they might consider holding on to it until the President gets around to sending Congress his request for the FY 2017 supplemental so that we finally know how much Congress is actually being asked to approve for Pentagon spending in FY 2017? So hold on to your hats because we are not done today with the defense spending bills for fiscal year 2017, one way or the other. Mr. Speaker, I know that everyone in this House wants to make sure that our men and women in uniform are well staffed, trained, and equipped to carry out the missions and duties that we have asked them to carry out. In these areas, in particular, there is much to recommend in this latest version of the FY 2017 defense bill. The same is true for the funding included in H.R. 1301 for suicide prevention, sexual assault, and medical research. I would also like to point out that H.R. 1301 totals $577.9 billion. This includes $516.1 billion in the base bill and $61.8 billion in the overseas contingency operations account to fund the many wars in which we are engaged. Coupled with the $5.8 billion FY 2017 supplemental Congress approved last year, total defense spending for FY 2017 currently stands at $583.7 billion; and that is before we receive still another FY 2017 supplemental from the President. Mr. Speaker, that is well over half a trillion dollars for the Pentagon, more than the combined total military spending of the next seven greatest military powers in the world. So for those who bemoan how underfunded the Pentagon is, I would argue it is more a matter of failing to set priorities and tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. Every report on every attempted audit of the Defense Department reveals that the Pentagon doesn't have a clue about where the money goes. Billions and billions of dollars cannot be accounted for. No other agency in the U.S. Government gets so much money or is allowed such sloppy accounting, yet the White House and the Congress can't wait to throw even more billions at the Pentagon, rather than demanding accountability and setting clear spending priorities. There are also other matters of concern with this bill, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 1301 not only continues, but adds to the prohibitions regarding the detention facility at Guantanamo. This is all an effort to prevent Guantanamo from shutting down, which hurts America's ability to do human rights work around the world and remains a stain on our own values and ideals. This bill continues to spend billions of dollars on the insane trillion-dollar effort to modernize and produce new generations of nuclear weapons when what we should be doing is continuing to reduce our nuclear arsenal and enter hard negotiations with other nations that have nuclear weapons to eliminate them altogether. Finally, H.R. 1301 continues to provide so-called emergency funding through the OCO account to continue wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. These wars are hardly unexpected or an emergency and should, therefore, be fully incorporated into the base budget for the Pentagon. They are also wars for which Congress has not debated or approved any authorization for the use of military force. We do not have an AUMF to deploy our military forces against the Islamic State, yet we have deployed military forces in the air, at sea, and on the ground in Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere in the region. We do not have an AUMF to deploy our military forces in the civil war in Yemen, yet we have deployed them to Yemen where one of our Navy SEALs was killed in combat and several others wounded in January. The Republican leadership continues to fail at its constitutional responsibilities by not bringing any AUMF before the House for consideration, despite promises to do so. So here we are in the 115th Congress, following in the failed footsteps of the 113th and 114th Congresses, getting ready to vote on tens of billions of dollars for wars that Congress has failed to authorize. I am proud of the courage demonstrated every single day by our men and women in uniform. I wish I could say the same thing about Congress and this House. Finally, Mr. Speaker, while I am glad that at least one of the pending appropriations bills is going to see some action today, I wonder about the fate of the other ten. When will we see those bills, Mr. Speaker? In fact, speaking of urgent pending matters, when will we see a jobs bill? When are we going to see legislation to repair and modernize America's infrastructure? Will extra funds be included in the fiscal year 2017 Transportation--HUD Appropriations bill, in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, in the Interior Appropriations bill for similar improvements on Federal lands? We have all read about the replacement proposed by the Republican leadership for the Affordable Care Act, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I am having trouble remembering how many hearings were held on that proposal so that Congress could benefit from experts in the healthcare field about whether this replacement bill will provide health care to even more Americans at less cost than the ACA. Oh, that is right, Mr. Speaker. The proposal is being marked up today without any hearings or expert testimony whatsoever. Especially for the new Members of this body, it is important to remember that, when the Democrats drafted the Affordable Care Act, there were dozens of hearings and 30 days prenotification before Energy and Commerce held its markup, a markup that continued over many days. And then the bill, as reported out of committee, was posted for over 2 months online before coming before the full House for debate on amendments and final passage. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if a replacement bill to the ACA is not able to make sure that more Americans have health insurance at a lower cost, then what is the point other than politics? We don't need to see any bill that covers fewer people and forces workers, families, and individuals to pay even more for their healthcare coverage and get even less in terms of healthcare protections. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican replacement bill is being marked up in committee without a score by the Congressional Budget Office; and without a CBO score, then no one in this Chamber, in this city, in this Nation has any idea, has any clue how much this replacement bill will cost the taxpayer, let alone who will benefit and who will suffer under its provisions. That is simply a scandal, Mr. Speaker, completely unacceptable. It is a cruel joke on American families, American workers, and the States, local communities, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and healthcare providers who will have to struggle with the consequences of people losing their health insurance. Mr. Speaker, let's see America's priorities taken care of: a jobs bill, an infrastructure bill. Let's make sure we don't weaken healthcare protections for people in this country, and let's see all of the FY 2017 appropriations bills come before the House in the next few days so that we can complete the work that should have been done last December. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his kind words and for understanding that it is inappropriate for Congress to continue these wars without having a vote on an AUMF. I hope that that changes, but I appreciate his support, and there is bipartisan support for having this body actually do its job. That shouldn't be a radical idea, but, unfortunately, nowadays, doing our job seems to be something that a lot of people don't want to do. Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of the year, the Republican majority adopted a rule to explicitly exempt the cost of any bill that repeals or amends the Affordable Care Act from a requirement that it not increase spending by $5 billion. They effectively adopted a legislative blindfold to completely ignore the cost of repeal. Let me show you the poster of the language, and I am happy to provide this to my colleagues on the Republican side. I will even give you my bifocals if you want to read it, because I think it is important that people understand what it says. It says: Point of order: It shall not be in order to consider any bill that would cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5 billion. Limitation: This subsection shall not apply to any bill repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, with this act, the majority declared that they were not going to let the rules of this House, which are purportedly in place to ensure fiscal discipline, stand in the way of repealing the Affordable Care Act no matter how much it would cost American families. But, Mr. Speaker, it gets even worse. As we stand here today, Republicans have taken their head-in-the-sand approach to the Affordable Care Act to a new low. Right now, both the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees are considering Republican legislation to repeal healthcare reform without providing any analysis from the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office on the cost of their legislation. So let me put this another way. Earlier this year, the Republicans said: It does not matter how much it will cost to take health care away from millions of Americans. Now they are saying they don't even want to know how much it will cost or what impact it will have on American families. Mr. Speaker, we have over 200 employees at the Congressional Budget Office. That office costs nearly $50 million a year. We pay them to advise us precisely at times like this. Republicans have talked about repeal and replace for 7 years. Acting like they had not enough time to weigh the cost of their actions would be laughable if it were not so irresponsible. Now, we Democrats care about health care and we care about costs and we demand to know what the impact of this repeal bill will be. Members should not be asked to vote on this legislation until they know the full weight of their decision. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would require a CBO cost estimate to be made publicly available before any legislation that amends or repeals the Affordable Care Act may be considered in the Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means Committee or on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of that amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to defeat the previous question so we can actually bring an amendment to the floor to demand CBO tell us how much the Republican healthcare bill is going to cost and what its impact is going to be on the American people. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why I am worried. The AARP estimates that the Republican repeal bill could increase premium costs by $8,400 for a 64-year-old earning $15,000 a year, and it could put at risk the health care of millions of vulnerable Americans. Now, we have over 200 employees at the Congressional Budget Office. That office costs nearly $50 million a year. We pay them to advise us precisely at times like this. We ought to rely on their information. We ought to ask for their guidance. Before marking up bills, before rushing bills to the floor that could adversely impact millions and millions of Americans that could break the bank in this country, we ought to find out what we are talking about. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can pass the Defense bill and you can also pass an amendment that tells us how much this Republican healthcare bill is going to cost. We ought to do both. So defeat the previous question so that we can bring this amendment to the floor. Let a little sunshine in on this process. Let the American people know what is going on here. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.