Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for extending me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are only one month into 2017; and today we have another closed rule or, as I call them now, Putin rules. This is the kind of process they have in Russia: no amendments, no debate, no nothing, completely shut down. It is your way or the highway. This is not the way the United States House of Representatives, the greatest deliberative body in the world, should be run. This is shameful. I have very serious concerns about the road that we are traveling down, Mr. Speaker. The 115th Congress is only a few weeks old, and we have already ushered in a process that is alarmingly restrictive. Sadly, it has become routine in this Republican House for the majority to close down the process, rush bills through the House without regular order, enforce the rules for Democrats but not for Republicans, and insist on spending all of our time on partisan legislation instead of working together to find bipartisan compromises and solutions to the real problems facing American families and workers. Mr. Speaker, today's legislation makes clear that the Republicans are eager to repeal protections put in place to help the American people. We should be working to expand opportunity for hardworking families and strengthen safeguards to put the American people first, not corporations, not wealthy CEOs, not big donors, and not special interests, but the people ought to come first. Today is another sad day. We are engaged in what I would call mindless legislating. While my Republican friends say they want to repeal needless regulation--something that we all want to do--the process my Republican friends have embraced, to put it gently, is reckless. No matter what you think of a particular regulation, or rule--or, in many cases, they are protections--no matter what you may think of a particular regulation, there is no denying that these rules that my Republican friends are bringing to the floor to repeal went through a vigorous process that took months and months, and even years to complete. They went through agency review. They went through a lengthy comment period, oftentimes thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people weighed in on the pros and cons of a particular idea. But the idea that we would just erase them with the blink of an eye, no hearings, no markups, nothing, it is a mindless way to legislate and a disturbing way to govern. The ``act first and think later'' approach was on full display with President Trump's Muslim ban. It was so hastily enacted that his own Secretary of Homeland Security didn't even know that the President was signing the executive order until he saw it on cable news. The Trump White House did such a poor job of briefing the Federal agencies charged with enforcing the policy that airports across the country were caught completely off guard, and there was widespread confusion and chaos about how to carry it out. That is what happens when you don't embrace a process that is thoughtful. You get confusion, you get chaos, and you usually get bad policy. The mindless approach to governing by Republicans continued this week. On Monday, President Trump announced that, for every new regulation passed, two regulations must be repealed. That is it. No details on what kind of regulations would be repealed, or why they would be repealed. This is a blind shotgun and arbitrary approach to our Nation's laws. We shouldn't be dumbing down the way we govern. The American people deserve better from their leaders in Congress, and I think they deserve better from their leaders in the White House. Now, when this legislation came before the Rules Committee the other night, there were plenty of questions. The hearing went on for a long time. Lots of the questions came from my Republican friends. And I will tell you, the chairman's answers were not always that enlightening. I think maybe some more hearings would have helped. But in response to some of these objections, namely, did the bill undergo any review by a committee, one of my Republican friends--and it may have been the gentleman from Colorado--said: We don't have time. We don't have time for hearings. We have so many regulations that we want to repeal. Don't have the time for a hearing? Don't have the time to understand what we are doing? I thought that was part of our job. We were supposed to deliberate. We were supposed to read the bill. We were supposed to understand the impact of the actions that we may or may not take in this Congress. That is our job. The American people have given us the responsibility to take the time to do our job right and to carefully consider the laws we pass. To say that we don't have time for hearings and deliberation--never mind, we don't have time to allow an open process where people might want to offer amendments--is ridiculous. It is shameful. And I will tell my Republican friends, stand up to your leadership on this. This is not the way this House should be run. So as we consider the repeal of the NICS rule, we should remember that Congress has failed to take any meaningful action on gun violence at all. We have massacres on a regular basis in this country. All we do is we have a moment of silence. That is our response. We have a high rate of suicides in this country due to gun violence. It is something we ought to talk about. And I think that the NICS rule is a commonsense, responsible gun safety measure that could potentially save the lives of thousands of people in this country. I think Congress has the responsibility to keep our families safe, not remove safeguards that help prevent gun violence. Far too many have lost their lives to preventable gun violence. This rule is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of those suffering from severe mental illness. That is a commonsense idea that I think we all should agree on. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a bipartisan bill to identify individuals ineligible to possess firearms because of severe mental health issues. This rule allows for a reporting method to ensure that the law is implemented effectively. It is intended to save lives. Every year in the United States, more than 21,000 people kill themselves, and mental illness is also an important factor. A gun is used in the majority of these cases. The people listed on NICS are the 75,000 dealing with the most severe mental illnesses. These are people who need help, not access to a dangerous weapon like a gun. I think this rule is a critical step, but we must close the online gun show loopholes, and we must ensure universal background checks. I think we ought to bring to the floor a bill that says that if the FBI and our security agencies have put you on a terrorist watch list and think that you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, then you ought not to be able to go out and buy a gun. But under the way this House is run, we can't even bring those things to the floor for a debate. The Republican leadership and the Republican Rules Committee blocks it so that there can't be real deliberation on the House floor. When people ask me all the time, Why can't you have a debate on this, or why can't you have a vote on it, I have to explain that the House Rules Committee, run by nine Republicans, says no to everything, says no to every idea that they don't absolutely embrace. And that is not the way Congress should be run. Mr. Speaker, even if you disagree with me on the value of this rule, I think it is an important enough issue that there ought to have been a hearing. There ought to have been that opportunity to deliberate and to talk about it and what the impacts are. But no, nothing. We don't have the time. So here we are. Mr. Speaker, the other bill before us is a naked attempt by Republicans to undo anticorruption rules. The rule that they are so upset about would require energy companies on the U.S. stock exchange to disclose payments they make to foreign governments for access to their natural resources. Now, there are reasons for this. It is important that there be transparency. We heard all about the plans to drain the swamp, but President Trump and the Republicans are doing all they can to turn the swamp into a cesspool. Putting aside all of his conflicts of interest that, I think, are on a collision course with corruption, I mean, repealing things like this, is just a bad idea. The Republicans in Congress are trying to roll back regulations like this one that are aimed at increasing transparency and fighting corruption. ExxonMobil heavily lobbied against this rule. And now, with former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson on the cusp of becoming our country's new Secretary of State, Republicans are proposing to kill this anticorruption rule that benefits Big Oil. That is reckless, and it is irresponsible. When this rule was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank bill in 2010, the Big Oil lobbies strongly fought against it in court, but Congress fought back to assert America's traditional role as a global leader in fighting corruption. American leadership delivered results. The European Union promptly moved to enact nearly identical legislation, as did Canada with support of its global mining companies. But now, Big Oil is back seeking repeal of the rule so their payments can be kept secret from the American people. They claim they will be at a competitive disadvantage to foreigners, or they will have to reveal commercially sensitive information. But with Europe and Canada in the same disclosure system, the playing field is now level and the companies already filing have suffered no commercial harm, nor revealed vital secrets. The fact is, this won't cost a single American job, and the only thing oil companies will need to do differently is report their numbers. Aside from Big Oil, those most eager to repeal this rule are autocrats in places like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela--with oil wells, gas fields, or copper mines--who want to keep the money secret from their citizens. Why should we do their bidding? Why should we be in league with them? On top of that, this rule is our most affordable and effective way to fight corruption abroad. We cannot afford to betray our own principles and severely undercut our allies in Europe and Canada. It would cost countless lives over the long run and endanger our security. We need to put American interests first, ahead of the special interests, ahead of the corporate interests, and retain that important rule. Obviously, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the repeal of these two rules, but you got to do what you got to do. But I urge you to vote ``no'' on this rule. And I ask you to vote ``no'' because it should be a principle vote. This place is becoming so closed up, so restrictive, that this is not a deliberative body anymore. We are not talking about things anymore. It is basically whatever the leadership wants, whatever Donald Trump wants, you bring to the floor, rubber stamp it, and that is it. I don't care what political party you are in, nobody who got elected by the people of this country should stand for that kind of process. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With regard to the NICS bill, I have a very different version of history than the gentleman does, including one that represents a bipartisan compromise with the Bush White House. So I have a very, very different recollection of history than he does on that. And on the other bill, it is all about corruption, and it is all about giving Big Oil what they want. At the end of the day, the two interests that are most happy with the repeal of this rule are Big Oil and Russia. And if that is where we believe that we ought to be using our energy to help then go ahead and vote to repeal it. But again, I think that this process speaks for itself. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and, if they do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund President Trump's immoral, unconstitutional, and discriminatory executive order banning Syrian refugees and suspending immigration from certain countries. President Trump's executive order flies in the face of our Nation's values. It compromises our national security by providing terrorist groups with a recruiting tool. This executive order needs to be overturned, and, if we defeat the previous question, we will bring up legislation to do just that. 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Colorado if he has additional speakers or is that the speaker we were waiting for?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, as my distinguished colleague, Ms. Lofgren, stated, we want to defeat the previous question because we are horrified, quite frankly, by the impact that President Trump's executive orders on immigration have had on a lot of good, decent people, many of whom have already been vetted. We have students who have been held up who have student visas, we have dual citizens who have been caught up in this mess, and we have people coming to get human rights prizes. I could go on and on and on, but we need to correct this. We are better than this. I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than circling the wagons to try to defend the indefensible, they ought to join with us and defeat the previous question so that we can actually do the right thing and overturn this narrowminded, misguided, and discriminatory policy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Does the gentleman have any other speakers?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am not sure where to begin, because I have heard so many fascinating things here today. The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said we are here today to enunciate the rules. I don't know what there is to enunciate. The only thing to enunciate is this is a closed rule. It is yet another closed rule. There is no opportunity to have any real deliberation, no real discussion. On top of that, there were no hearings on any of this stuff. No matter what your position is, I have to be honest with you, listening to the gentleman, Mr. Massie, just speak, I think it would have been nice if the Judiciary Committee could have actually had a hearing on this and maybe delved into some of the issues that the gentleman raised. When people say that there is no due process, I would remind them that, under the rule, impacted beneficiaries are notified that this determination is being considered and they are provided a process to challenge that determination. Should the Social Security Administration determine that that recipient is able to safely use or possess guns, rights are restored and the person's name is removed from NICS. That is what it says. Now, if there is a way to improve this, I am all for improving it; but by passing this measure here today, you prevent the agencies that are impacted here from ever being able to revisit the issue unless Congress deemed it appropriate. So we are not trying to fix anything here. Basically, what we are doing is the bidding of the National Rifle Association to eliminate anything aimed at protecting people from gun violence in this country. The gentleman from Colorado talked about the fact that his constituents want the right to protect their rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, my constituents want that, too, but they have a right to not have to be victims of gun violence. They have a right to protect their loved ones who may use a weapon against themselves or their family members. But again, we can have this argument on whether or not we should do more--and I believe we should--to protect people in this country from gun violence, but that discussion ought to have happened first in the Judiciary Committee, at a minimum, not in the Rules Committee. I am on the Rules Committee. I admire the intellect of everybody on the Rules Committee, but our expertise is not on judiciary matters. Similarly, on the other rule that is being repealed, the Financial Services Committee should have deliberated on that. I think there are some serious issues raised by repealing that rule, issues that I think go to the heart of corruption not only here in the United States, but around the world. When the chairman of the Rules Committee got up and gave his description that somehow the U.S. oil companies are only being singled out, it makes my case why we should have had a hearing. What he just said, in my opinion, does not reflect reality. The fact of the matter is, I looked at section 1504 of Dodd-Frank. It doesn't just require all extractive companies in the U.S. It says that all extractive companies, U.S. and foreign, listed on the U.S. exchanges are to publicly disclose the payments they make to governments for oil, gas, and mining resources. And then, on top of that--and I said this earlier--is that other countries have followed suit. Canada and the European Union and Norway have all passed similar laws. It is not just the United States being singled out. That is just wrong. Maybe, if we had a hearing in the committee of jurisdiction, that would have been clear, and this wouldn't be a point of contention. The fact of the matter is, it is a simple reporting requirement. It places no limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to or how much or for what. It has absolutely no regulatory effect on any aspect of their business operations. There is absolutely no benefit to nullifying this commonsense law unless your objective is to make it easier for corrupt elites to steal money. The rule has no regulatory impact on business operation and does not define illegal or improper payments. It is a simple reporting requirement. There is a problem with corruption, especially in places like Russia. Now, I know with the new administration, Russia is now in, and we are all supposed to say nice things about Russia. But Russia has a terrible record on human rights, and Russia has a terrible record when it comes to corruption, and we know that. We ought to not just cave to everything that Russia wants, and Russia and Big Oil want this repealed. So I would say to my colleagues that we can argue about the merits of all of this, and that is fine, but I go back to my original point. This is the rule, and the Speaker of the House talked about the importance of regular order. I have heard my colleagues talk about the importance of regular order. We don't have regular order. You are all out of order. We end up coming to the floor with legislation that is always under restrictive processes, and most of the time now, in this new Congress, completely closed rules. That doesn't just disadvantage Democratic lawmakers who may have some ideas or may want to raise some issues, it disadvantages Republicans who may want to come to the floor with thoughtful ideas. I urge my colleagues to absolutely vote ``no'' on this rule because, again, we are getting into this habit where it is closed, closed, closed, closed, closed, and it undermines the integrity of this House of Representatives. It really is shameful. Finally, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a debate and a vote on overturning President Trump's awful, discriminatory executive orders on immigration. It jeopardizes our national security. It was carelessly implemented, carelessly put together. It is shameful. It is unconscionable that we are confronted with the mess that we are confronted with now. I know it is uncomfortable to talk about issues that impact the new President who is of your party, but this is absolutely the right thing to do. And if you want to vote no on these things, vote no on them, but allow us to have the debate and allow us to have the vote. I urge ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my Republican friends to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's appalling and discriminatory refugee ban on women like Samira Asgari, a scientist from Iran who was set to begin a project to study tuberculosis at Harvard Medical School, and was stopped from boarding her flight to the United States. Let us have a vote, let us have a little democracy, in the people's House.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I ask the gentlewoman from Wyoming if she has additional speakers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, says this bill has nothing to do with taking away a woman's right to choose. I would beg to differ. I think it has everything to do with taking away a woman's right to choose. But this is the rule. I was hoping that maybe he would address the fact that, again, three thoughtful amendments were brought before the Committee on Rules yesterday by Democrats. They were all germane. They all comply with the House rules. I was hoping he would explain why they were all denied, especially since the bill before us didn't go through regular order; it didn't go through a committee process to be brought to the floor. This was just kind of plopped into the Committee on Rules, and no amendments were made in order. That is not the way a deliberative body should be run. There are disagreements on this issue, but don't be afraid of allowing opposing viewpoints to be heard on this House floor. But apparently he didn't want to talk about that. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 23 faith-based organizations and communities urging Members to reject H.R. 7; a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union urging Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 7; a letter from 44 women's health, religious, and other advocacy organizations strongly opposed to H.R. 7; and a letter from the American Association of University Women urging Members to oppose H.R. 7. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 28, 2014 Dear Representative: As leaders of faith-based organizations and communities, we urge you to reject H.R. 7, a bill introduced as the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' which would harm a woman's health, economic security, and religious liberty by making coverage of abortion inaccessible in both public and private health plans. Enclosed is a statement of shared principles that compel us, together with 20 of our partner organizations from the faith community, to speak out against legislation like H.R. 7, which seeks to impose a narrowly-defined view of one religious viewpoint on every citizen, threatening the freedom of religion afforded to every individual by the U.S. Constitution. H.R. 7 is sponsored in the House by Rep. Chris Smith (NJ- 4). This bill would raise taxes on women and families, as well as small businesses, who access or offer abortion coverage as part of a comprehensive insurance plan. It would do so by denying women and families a premium assistance tax credit if they choose a plan in the health insurance marketplace that includes abortion, a proposal soundly rejected by Congress in the 2010 health reform debate. This bill would also deny small employers a Small Business Tax Credit for offering their workers comprehensive coverage that includes abortion. Further, as amended in committee, this bill would withhold abortion coverage from women enrolled in a multistate, private insurance plan. Taken together, these provisions would jeopardize coverage of abortion in the full private insurance market, risking coverage that many women and families have today; more than 80 percent of private health plans currently cover abortion care. Also among its provisions, H.R. 7 would make permanent dangerous restrictions that withhold abortion coverage from women who access coverage or care through federal programs, such as women enrolled in Medicaid, federal employees, Native American women, and others. It would also permanently withhold abortion coverage from low-income women living in the District of Columbia, a federal ban that goes against the wishes of DC elected officials and voters. These provisions would disproportionately harm women struggling to make ends meet, risking their economic security, health and well-being, and ability to make personal decisions in accordance with their own conscience and religious or moral beliefs. Please see the enclosed statement outlining shared principles of faith that compel us and our partners to speak out against this harmful proposal. As communities and organizations that represent diverse constituencies of faith, we stand united in opposition to H.R. 7 given the danger it poses to women and their families by jeopardizing affordable and accessible insurance coverage of abortion. We urge you to reject H.R. 7 when it reaches the House floor for a vote. Sincerely, Nancy Kaufman, CEO, National Council of Jewish Women. Rev. Harry Knox, President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Jon O'Brien, President, Catholics for Choice. Interfaith Statement Opposing Restrictions on Women's Health Care Options The undersigned religious, religiously affiliated, and faith-centered organizations and communities represent millions of people of faith committed to women's health and reproductive choices. We are deeply troubled by legislative efforts designed to restrict women's access to comprehensive reproductive health care options, including abortion, contraception, HIV/STD testing, cancer screenings, and other essential health services. We recognize that issues surrounding women's reproductive choices--and those regarding abortion in particular--are complex. Although we come from diverse faith traditions, we all agree that proposals aimed at restricting access to reproductive healthcare would have devastating consequences for women and their families, particularly low-income women. We call on Congress and the President to reject these intolerable measures. As people of faith, the following common principles compel us to speak out together against these proposals: Striving for social justice and equal rights to health care: All too often, legislation is proposed that would create significant barriers to women's access to reproductive health options and make it harder for women to make their own reproductive choices based on their individual beliefs and consciences. We are especially concerned about efforts to de- fund the Title X Family Planning program and those organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, that serve as a key part of our social safety net. Title X health centers and clinics are on the public health front lines, serving low- income individuals and other vulnerable populations. These centers help men and women of limited means prevent unintended pregnancies; they promote prevention of, and treatment for HIV and other STDs; they offer life-saving cancer screenings; and they provide crucial medically- accurate information about sexual health. Title X providers ensure that women who want to have children get the information and care they need to promote a healthy pregnancy. As faith-centered organizations, we are committed to the most marginalized and the most vulnerable of our society, especially those with limited financial means or those who live in areas with limited access to services. Reducing health care options for some, based on their economic strata or geographic location, is profoundly unjust. Respecting women's moral agency: We affirm women as moral agents who have the capacity, right, and responsibility to make their own decisions about sexuality, reproduction, and their families. Legislation that eliminates health coverage for and limits the availability of reproductive health care services through funding restrictions would severely limit a woman's ability to make decisions about her own health care and about how best to care for her family, guided by her own conscience, her personal circumstances, and her own moral or faith tradition. Valuing compassion and the obligation to protect every woman's health and life: Restrictions on women's health care options endanger women's lives. In particular, we oppose proposals that would allow hospitals and individual health workers to refuse to provide abortion services to a woman, even when such care is necessary to save her life. As people of faith, we strongly believe that a health worker's right to refuse to provide certain services must not infringe on a woman's right to access the health care she needs. Above all, that refusal must not endanger her life. Health professionals and the organizations that support them have an obligation to ensure access to necessary services, whether directly or by referral to an accessible alternative health care provider. Safeguarding religious liberty: We believe that one person's religious viewpoint must not be imposed on others. Different faiths, and even groups within a single faith community, hold varying views and opinions. Time and again, our nation has answered this diversity of opinions by upholding the founding principle of religious freedom. Reproductive freedoms are integrally bound with religious freedoms--a connection recognized by the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Women have a right to make reproductive health choices based on their own faith tradition, free from constraints imposed by those seeking to legislate one religious viewpoint or another. We oppose legislation that would erode Americans' constitutionally protected right to religious freedom. As people of faith, we believe in compassion, justice, and the dignity of all women. We understand that those who would restrict women's access to comprehensive reproductive health care are often motivated by their religious beliefs and seek to impose their views on others. However, freedom of choice means that every person is valued as a moral decision-maker, free to make personal decisions about their reproductive lives based on their own religious beliefs and consciences. We cannot presume to tell others how best to inform and listen to their own consciences as they make decisions about whether and when to have children or how best to care for their families. Today, and every day, we stand up as people of faith for women's health and reproductive choices--and we urge our government to do the same. Signed: Anti-Defamation League; B'nai B'rith International; Catholics for Choice; Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Women's Caucus; Global Faith and Justice Project, Horizons Foundation; Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Council on Urban Affairs; Jewish Women International; Metropolitan Community Churches; Muslims for Progressive Values. National Council of Jewish Women; Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and Jewish Reconstructionist Communities; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Religious Institute; Soulforce; The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association; Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, part of the reason for that is because women are having more access to good health care. Part of the reason why that number is getting lower is because of organizations like Planned Parenthood, which provide clinics and counseling and contraception to young women so that we can actually avoid more people being in the situation where they have to confront the issue of abortion. And yet my colleagues' next salvo is going to be going after Planned Parenthood. The abortion rate in this country is going down. The underlying bill is not about making sure that taxpayer money doesn't go to fund abortion. That is what the Hyde amendment does. The Affordable Care Act, by the way, makes it clear that no portion of the premium tax credits may be used to pay for the portion of comprehensive health coverage that is purchased in the marketplace that relates to abortion services. That is not what this is about. This is basically the first attempt to really go after the basic constitutional right for a woman to be able to choose when it comes to abortion services. That is what this is about. The leadership of this House--indeed, the President of the United States--has made it clear they want to repeal Roe v. Wade. They want to put Justices on the Supreme Court who will repeal that decision. They want to pass legislation that will do everything to be able to deny women that basic right. That is what is going on here. Finally, Madam Speaker, I am asking people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can actually debate and vote on this issue of requiring Presidential candidates and Presidents to release their tax returns. I say to my colleagues in all sincerity, this President's refusal to release his tax returns, all these conflicts of interest that he has, this is a White House on a collision course with corruption. Donald Trump said he wanted to come to Washington to drain the swamp, but by not releasing his tax returns, by allowing all these conflicts of interest to remain, he is bringing the swamp to the White House. Enough. Let us vote for transparency here. Let us vote in a way that the majority of Americans think we ought to do, and that is to require this President to come clean, to show us what his tax returns are, to show us what he is hiding, to show us where his investments are, to show us if there are any dealings with Russia or Putin or whatever. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have that opportunity to be able to debate that issue, because if you don't vote ``no,'' I can guarantee you that the Committee on Rules will never make it in order. The Committee on Rules never makes anything in order that the leadership of this House doesn't put its rubber stamp on. I think that that is unfortunate. As I said before, the Committee on Rules is becoming a place where democracy goes to die. It is about time that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle stand up and say, ``Enough. Let's open this place up.'' Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.