Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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, if the majority is concerned with customer service at the IRS, we should be considering appropriations legislation to fully fund the administration's budget request for the agency. IRS funding has been slashed by nearly $1 billion since 2010, and as a result, the IRS had to cut 12,000 jobs, reduce employee training, and delay technology updates. So while I understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the IRS, it is their demands for steep funding cuts that have led directly to a degradation of customer service during the past several years. Furthermore, the IRS has already developed and has begun to implement a strategy to improve taxpayer services, and here is the deal, Mr. Speaker. If this were really an issue, we could have brought this up at any time. We could come together and try to see whether we can work on bipartisan legislation, but instead, we bring up legislation attacking the IRS during the week that people have to pay their taxes. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this is all about messaging and not about substance. I think that people in this country are really sick and tired of the performance of this Congress--or the lack of performance of this Congress. We have a lot of challenges that we need to confront; we have a lot of problems that we need to solve; and rather than doing this, we ought to be doing the people's business. We ought to be legislating in a serious way and leave these press releases and these messaging bills for the Republican congressional campaign committee. It is beneath, I think, the standards that this Congress should uphold. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of H.R. 4890, under a structured process, and H.R. 3724, under a completely closed process. These two pieces of legislation are part of the House majority's effort this week to micromanage the IRS and undermine its ability to enforce our tax laws. This is not a serious attempt at legislating. These bills are press releases. Let's be honest. They are press releases for my friends in the majority to use on the campaign trail, and they are serving as a distraction from the business the Republican leadership has failed to act upon. Last Friday, House Republicans missed the legally mandated deadline for Congress to enact a budget, and it appears as though we are not going to see a budget resolution on the floor this week--or anytime soon. It is pretty sad that Speaker Ryan, a former Budget Committee chairman himself, can't get the House to pass a budget. In 2011, Speaker Ryan said that failing to enact a budget is a ``historic failure to fulfill one of the most basic responsibilities of governing.'' In 2012, the Speaker went on to say that not passing a budget ``has serious consequences for American families.'' But the extreme budget proposed by the Republican leadership--a budget that would end the Medicare guarantee, gut antipoverty programs, and demand $6.5 trillion in cuts--was not extreme enough for House Republicans, so they can't get a majority within their ranks. This is a failure of the majority to do its job, plain and simple. Demands by a vocal group of conservative Members to abandon a bipartisan agreement reached last year on spending caps has put a budget in jeopardy and the promise of regular order for the appropriations process out of reach. Don't be surprised if all these spending bills get crammed in during a lame duck session after voters have cast their ballots and we have this big monstrosity that comes before the Congress--nobody knows what is in it--and it gets passed. That is the way the business of this House will proceed. I don't think that is what the American people want; and if you want to talk about what makes the American people shake their heads, it is that. Forgive me if I find it ironic that we are here today telling the IRS how to do its job while this Republican majority can't even do its job of passing a budget and fulfilling its most basic responsibility of governing. So if my Republican friends don't want to pass a budget, there are other important things we can do besides these message bills that are going nowhere: Negotiations have stalled on legislation to help Puerto Rico avoid a default. We could do that. A bill to provide aid to families in Flint, Michigan, has not reached the floor for a vote. Clearly, I think everybody in this country was horrified when they learned of the fact that the residents of Flint, Michigan, were being poisoned by the water that was coming out of their faucets. We could do something about that, but we are not. A bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the U.S. Senate has been blocked by the leadership in this House for the past 3 years. We could actually fix our immigration laws rather than just complain about them, but we are not going to do that, I guess, either. I might also suggest to my friends that, if they need bills to consider on the floor, we could respond to the thousands and thousands of constituents from all over the country that have been rallying at the Capitol during the past week as part of the Democracy Spring and Democracy Awakening movements and take up legislation to reform our campaign finance system. Let's do something about getting the money out of politics. Let's remove the influence that special interests have on congressional elections--and all elections--because of our broken campaign finance laws. We could do that, but we are not. We are doing messaging bills that are going nowhere. We could join millions of our constituents and people across the globe in celebrating Earth Day by considering climate change legislation. I know that may be a heavy lift on my Republican friends, because a big chunk of the Republican Conference doesn't even believe that climate change is an issue. We could do tax reform. Let's simplify the Tax Code. Let's remove all these loopholes that allow big corporations to escape paying taxes while regular, hardworking people have to pay taxes. Let's do tax reform. That would be a good thing to do during this week, but we are not going to do that. And perhaps we can maybe debate an AUMF, an Authorization for Use of Military Force, something that I have been urging this place to do for a long, long time now. Yesterday, the Pentagon announced hundreds more U.S. forces will be deployed in Iraq. We are getting sucked into this war even more deeply. I think people are tired of endless wars. Our troops are expected to perform their responsibilities when we send them to places like Iraq and Syria, but why aren't we expected to do our job and actually debate these issues and vote on them? Instead, we are silent; we are indifferent. So we have a lot that we can do. Unfortunately, we are not doing any of those things. This place is becoming a Chamber where trivial issues are debated passionately and important ones not at all. We need to do better, and we need to start coming together and figuring out how to solve some of these problems. H.R. 3724, which is unnecessary at best, prohibits the IRS Commissioner from rehiring any former employee that was terminated for misconduct, even though there are already processes in place to ensure employees with significant performance or conduct problems are not rehired. This legislation is not even necessary. H.R. 4890 prevents the Treasury Department from paying bonuses to IRS employees until the Secretary submits to Congress a customer service strategy that has been approved by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Again, an added layer of bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter sent to all Members of Congress from The National Treasury Employees Union, which is opposed to H.R. 4890 and a number of the other bills that we are debating here today. The National Treasury Employees Union, April 12, 2016. Dear Representative: As President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), representing over 150,000 federal employees in 31 agencies, including the men and women at the IRS, I am writing to express opposition to several bills scheduled to be considered by the House Committee on Ways and Means on April 13. NTEU believes all of these bills would weaken IRS' ability to carry out their taxpayer service and enforcement missions, and undermine efforts to retain dedicated and experienced employees. H.R. 4885, the ``IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) Act of 2016,'' would require IRS collected user fees to be deposited in the general fund of the U.S. Treasury and would prevent the IRS from spending the user fees ``unless provided by an appropriations act.'' NTEU strongly opposes eliminating IRS' ability to use the user fees that it collects, as provided by law. The IRS charges user fees for various services: to assist taxpayers in complying with their tax liabilities; to clarify the application of the tax code to particular circumstances; and to ensure the quality of paid preparers of tax returns, among others. While user fees have historically been used, in large part, to fund traditional taxpayer service activities, recent budget cuts in excess of $900 million since Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 have forced the IRS to reallocate a greater portion of these user fees to implement a number of significant legislative mandates, nearly all of which came with no additional funding. These include the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FACTA), and the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act. While proponents of this legislation claim the bill is simply an attempt to ensure proper congressional oversight of the IRS, in reality these measures are designed to undermine and weaken the IRS's ability to enforce enacted laws. While NTEU takes no position as to whether any particular tax statutory provisions remain or are repealed, NTEU believes it is important to remember that the IRS, and its personnel, are charged with implementing each and every tax law passed by Congress, including the ACA. Therefore, it is imperative that the IRS be provided with the resources necessary to carry out its responsibilities under the law, and to retain the flexibility to allocate user fee revenues as necessary to do so. Prohibiting the IRS from accessing the roughly $400 million in user fees it collects each year is effectively an immediate cut of $400 million to its budget, and will simply force the IRS to divert resources from other critical taxpayer service and enforcement programs to carry out its statutory mandates. NTEU also urges you to oppose H.R. 1206, the ``No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act'' which would prohibit the hiring of additional IRS employees until the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that no employee of the IRS has a seriously delinquent tax debt. While NTEU believes that each and every IRS employee should pay their taxes in full and on time, we have serious concerns about how the bill defines a seriously delinquent tax debt, and believe basing IRS' ability to hire additional personnel on such an uncertain standard is unjustified, and will only further undermine its ability to meet its taxpayer service and enforcement missions. Under H.R. 1206, a tax debt is considered ``seriously delinquent'' by the filing of a notice of a federal tax lien (NFTL). Unfortunately, using notice of a lien as an indication a debt is seriously delinquent is inappropriate since it is not a final determination of tax liability. Section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code establishes that a lien can be filed immediately upon the assessment of tax. In many instances, the IRS may file an NFTL to simply secure the government's future potential interest and establish its priority as a possible creditor in competition with other creditors. Therefore, the filing of the NFTL is not a true indication that a tax debt is ``seriously delinquent.'' In addition, it is unclear why this legislation is even necessary. The bill specifically singles out the tax status of employees at the IRS who have an overall tax compliance rate of over 99%, the highest in the federal government, and a much higher compliance rate than the general public. Furthermore, for those employees at the IRS that do have tax debts, the existing Federal Payment Levy Program already allows the IRS to levy federal salaries to recover federal tax debts. We also believe restricting the IRS' ability to hire qualified applicants based upon an uncertain tax status standard of its employees is misguided, and will simply further impede its ability to provide quality services to American taxpayers. The IRS workforce has been reduced by more than 15,000 employees over the past five years, including many front-line customer service and enforcement personnel. Therefore, it is critical that the IRS have the ability to hire additional personnel to provide the services taxpayers expect and to implement the laws passed by Congress. Finally, NTEU urges you to oppose H.R. 4890 which would prohibit the IRS from paying performance awards to its employees until the Secretary of the Treasury develops and implements a comprehensive customer service strategy. NTEU believes this legislation is unnecessary, and will only serve to undermine IRS efforts to retain experienced employees that provide many of the critical taxpayer services. In fact, the IRS has already recently provided a detailed and comprehensive strategy to improve taxpayer services, and in particular, the phone level of service, as part of its FY 2017 budget request. However, implementation of this strategy will require a commitment by Congress to provide the IRS with the necessary resources and staffing. If members are serious about helping the IRS meet its mission of providing taxpayers with top quality service in a timely manner, Congress will fund the Administration's FY 2017 IRS budget request. Furthermore, this measure is unfairly punitive to hard- working front-line employees who are not responsible for developing or implementing agency-wide policies and strategies, and who have already experienced significant pay hardships in recent years--stemming from the three-year pay freeze and furlough days, followed by three years of minuscule pay increases, and performance awards below one percent of their salaries. Like all federal agencies and effective employers, the IRS must be able to properly compensate its workforce, particularly at a time of a healthy job market, and to distinguish and reward higher performing employees. For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose these bills during committee consideration on Wednesday, April 13. Please contact Matt Socicnat of my staff if you have any questions. Sincerely, Anthony M. Reardon, National President.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have no speakers because everybody is so interested in this legislation that I think they would prefer to stay in their offices. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Mr. Van Hollen's bill that would restrict American companies' use of so-called tax inversions to shrink their tax obligations by hiding money in foreign countries. The bill would direct the money toward repairing our crumbling infrastructure. That is exactly the type of legislation we ought to be debating here: something that is meaningful to the American people and to get American corporations that are trying to not pay their fair share to pay their fair share and to invest in repairing our crumbling infrastructure, whether it be water infrastructure that we see in such disrepair in places like Flint, Michigan, or our roads and bridges. Where I come from in Massachusetts, we have bridges that are older than most of your States, and they need repair. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Drip, drip, drip, Mr. Speaker. That is the sound of U.S. escalation in Syria and Iraq. Yesterday, the Pentagon announced that the U.S. will send 217 additional troops to Iraq, pushing the official number of U.S. troops there to more than 4,000. Mainly Army Special Forces, they will be embedded with Iraqi brigades and battalions. They will be stationed close to the front lines. They will include trainers and maintenance crews for the new deployment of Apache helicopters. More U.S. commandos could also head to Syria, bolstering the roughly 50 Special Operations Forces advising and training rebel forces on the ground. Just when is the House going to debate and vote on an authorization for deploying U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria? When is the House going to debate these escalations that add more firepower and put more U.S. troops close to the front lines? Our troops carry out their constitutional duties. When will Congress act and carry out its constitutional responsibility? The American people are tired of endless wars. Putting these wars on remote control, with no debate and no votes, is shameful.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi. In 2014, Saudi Arabian authorities sentenced Raif to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for his liberal writings and support for secularism. Today is Raif's 1,425th day in prison. He has been publicly flogged 50 times, and his wife and children, fearful for their safety, have had to abandon their country for Canada. But Raif is not a criminal. He is a champion of freedom of thought and expression in a kingdom whose rulers fear both. This week President Obama will travel to Saudi Arabia to meet with leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council. When the President sees King Salman, he should urge him to pardon Raif and allow him to join his wife and three children in Canada. I seek the full support of Congress and the Obama administration in urging the Saudi Arabian Government to free Raif and all other prisoners of conscience like him, as befits any government with a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on March 21 through 22, 2016, I accompanied President Obama and several of my colleagues in the U.S. Congress to Cuba as part of the ongoing effort to advance U.S.-Cuba relations. As a result, I was absent for roll call vote 135 on the Women Airforce Service Pilot Arlington Inurnment Restoration Act, H.R. 4336. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation that will reinstate the inurnment eligibility for the brave and honorable women who made up the Women Airforce Pilot Service. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on roll call vote 135. Additionally, I was absent for roll call votes 130 through 134. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on roll call 130, no on roll call 131, no on roll call 132, yes on roll call 133, and yes on roll call 134.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible achievements of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, the 2016 recipient of the National Academy of Engineering's prestigious Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education. WPI is being recognized this year by the National Academy of Engineering for ``The WPI Plan,'' the university's revolutionary project-based approach to education and for the leadership and contributions of four faculty leaders who continue the development and growth of opportunities offered by the WPI Plan. The Gordon Prize, an annual award recognizing new modalities and experiments in education that develop effective engineering leaders, will be presented to WPI on April 15, 2016, for a ``project-based engineering curriculum developing leadership, innovative problem solving, interdisciplinary collaboration, and global competencies,'' and will be shared by Diran Apelian, Alcoa-Howmet Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director of WPI's Metal Processing Institute; Arthur Heinricher, Dean of Undergraduate Studies; Richard Vaz, Dean of Interdisciplinary and Global Studies; and Kristin Wobbe, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies. WPI's focus is for students to apply theory to practice to achieve impact upon the great problems of our day. The faculty members who have been singled out for this award are outstanding at driving innovation in the WPI curriculum and inspiring greatness from students at the university and from their colleagues across the campus. Founded in 1865, WPI has been a pioneer in project-based education since 1970 when, building upon its core philosophy of balancing theory and practice in education, the university adopted a revolutionary new undergraduate program known as the WPI Plan. The new approach replaced the traditional, rigidly prescribed engineering curriculum with a flexible and academically challenging program aimed at helping students learn by synthesizing classroom experience in projects that involve real world problems. In 1974, WPI launched a global component to its project-based curriculum and now sends approximately 70 percent of its students to more than 45 project centers around the world. At these centers, students work in teams to focus on issues such as energy, food, health, and urban sustainability. The Global Projects Program offers students the opportunity to gain hands-on experience in tackling real problems, develop an understanding of other cultures, and see how their lives and work can make a meaningful impact. During my time in Congress, I've had the opportunity to meet with WPI students, faculty, and staff, and continue to be impressed by the incredible research being done at this world-class university based in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts. Each year I have the privilege of learning from WPI students who attend the Washington, D.C. project center, and I am confident that they enter the workforce well-prepared to help solve some of our nation's biggest challenges and influence the development of policy to move our country forward. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating WPI and its outstanding faculty members. To be recognized by the National Academy of Engineering and Bernard Gordon is a tremendous honor, and the WPI community should be so proud of this incredible achievement.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their eloquent statements here today. I think that they have reinforced the point that these nutrition programs work. SNAP works. It has one of the lowest error rates of any Federal program--less than a 4 percent error rate. That includes underpayments, which means that beneficiaries don't get what they are entitled to. It is a program that allows families to put food on the table. We need to be supporting these programs. We need to be coming up with a holistic plan to end hunger. We need to raise the minimum wage so that people who work, like the majority of able-bodied people do who are on SNAP, don't have to live in poverty. We can do so much better. I would just say to my Republican colleagues that, rather than doubling down on the cruelness with some of the proposals that have been brought forth before this House, you ought to work in a bipartisan way to actually lift people out of poverty so as to give people the hope and the ability to lead better lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to come together and find a way to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight our important Federal nutrition programs, and I rise today to remind my colleagues that we have a hunger problem in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, there is not a single congressional district in this country that is hunger free. Every community--whether urban, suburban, or rural--faces hunger. One in seven Americans experience hunger, including 16 million children. We are the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world. It is shameful that even one child goes to bed hungry. In every community across the country, there are dedicated, passionate local antihunger organizations that do incredible work to provide food assistance and support those struggling with hunger, from food banks to food pantries, to faith-based organizations, to community centers, to hospitals, and on and on and on. Charities do important, wonderful work, but they cannot do it alone. The demand is simply too high. Charities need a strong partner in the Federal Government if we are ever going to end hunger. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which used to be known as food stamps, is our Nation's premier antihunger program. It is effective and it is efficient, with an error rate of less than 4 percent, which includes both overpayments and underpayments. By the way, underpayments are when a recipient receives less than they are eligible for, and that happens often. Find me a Pentagon spending program with such a low error rate. The fact of the matter is SNAP is one of the most successful--if not the most successful--Federal programs that we have. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy eating, and breastfeeding support to more than 8 million low-income women and children at nutritional risk. WIC gives infants and young children the healthy, nutritious start that they need for critical early development and lifelong learning. It is an incredibly vital program. The National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs and the Summer Food Service Program provide nutritious foods for millions of children and teens in educational and community settings. These important programs ensure that our young people are ready to learn and that they can succeed. The Meals on Wheels program provides home-delivered meals to millions of homebound seniors. Not only does Meals on Wheels improve senior nutrition, it also enables seniors to live independently longer while receiving daily check-in visits from volunteers. These are just a few of the vital Federal antihunger programs that are the backbone of our fight to end hunger once and for all in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I am coming to this floor today is I am deeply worried that they are coming under attack by the Republican majority in this House. Unfortunately, it is fashionable right now to demonize Americans living in poverty and to belittle their struggles. We hear that all too often on this House floor. We hear that all too often in this Presidential campaign that is going on. The fact of the matter is it is hard work to be poor in America. It is not easy. Yet millions of families are struggling, trying to raise their kids and living on a paycheck that doesn't provide enough to put food on the table. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I spent a night at a homeless shelter in Worcester, Massachusetts, called the Interfaith Hospitality Network. It is a family homeless shelter. As you know, there are not enough shelters that accommodate entire families. Usually families get split up. But what I wasn't prepared for when I spent the night at this shelter was that every one of these families had at least one adult that was working. They were working in a job. They all had unique situations that put them in a very difficult situation. But the fact of the matter is they were working. They were earning just enough that a lot of their benefits were reduced, but they were not earning enough to be able to put a down payment on an apartment and afford rent. These are parents that love their kids every bit as much as I love my kids and my colleagues love their kids. They want to be good parents, but they are struggling. They are looking for a hand up, not a handout. They are looking for a little bit of assistance so they can get back on their feet. The bottom line is that their plight is not unique. I will tell my colleagues that their plight does not fall into a neat stereotype. Too often when people here in this Chamber talk about the homeless or the hungry, they talk about people who are addicted to drugs, or they talk about people who don't work or who don't want to work. That is not the reality. That is not the face of poverty in this country. It is much more complicated than that. And yet, to justify deep cuts in programs to actually help people get back on their feet, we hear the false narrative repeated over and over and over again, the demonization of these people who are struggling in poverty. The rhetoric that we hear on the floor all too often is hurtful, and it is sometimes hateful. It is seeping into the discourse in this Congress, and it is seeping into some of the decisionmaking that is going on by the current leadership in this Congress. It seems like just now Republican leaders are finally coming around to the idea that they need to talk about poverty. We heard the Speaker say that he wants a national conversation about poverty. But I have got to tell you I am a little worried, because while we need this conversation and while we need to come up with solutions, I have this sinking feeling that something else is going on, that this so-called conversation on poverty is really kind of a masquerade for cutting deeply into programs that will help put food and nutrition on people's tables and provide people the shelter that they need when they are struggling. I worry that this congressional task force that the Speaker announced, when I look at it, is made up of Members, all of whom have supported block-granting SNAP. What block-granting means is that States can do almost whatever the heck they want to do with the SNAP benefit. They don't necessarily have to use it to provide people food. They can use it for other things; and, therefore, it puts that benefit at risk, especially during difficult economic times. But every one of the people who is on this task force has voted for Republican budgets that support block-granting. Every one of the people on this so-called poverty task force voted to cut SNAP by $40 billion during the last farm bill--$40 billion. Now, they would say: Oh, we are just trying to trim the program and make it more efficient. I would just say to my colleagues that the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal per day--$1.40. I bet most of my colleagues who are calling for deep cuts in SNAP have no idea what the benefit is. They have no idea how inadequate the benefit is. In fact, it is so inadequate that most families who are on SNAP end up having to rely on food banks, having to rely on churches, synagogues, and mosques at the end of the month to be able to put food on their table. It is $1.40 per person per meal per day. That is the average benefit. Yet my colleagues, those who are on this so-called poverty task force, almost unanimously, on the other side of the aisle, voted to cut the program by $40 billion. I would ask my colleagues, what are you thinking? What are you thinking? We have an obligation to be there for the most vulnerable in this country. That is what government is supposed to be for. Donald Trump doesn't need government. He is a zillionaire. He doesn't have to worry about where his next meal is going to come from. Yet there are millions of people, millions of families in this country who do. They are looking for a little compassion. They are not looking for a handout. They are looking for a hand up so they can get their lives in order and they can progress. Mr. Speaker, we need to do better. I will just say one other thing, and then I am going to yield to my colleague from Virginia. There is another kind of nasty discussion going on by my Republican colleagues. They have a new proposal to drug-test SNAP recipients. The fact of the matter is this proposal has no basis in reality. It is nothing more than a mean-spirited attack on poor people to fire up their rightwing base. It is insulting. It is insulting. We have seen drug test laws in Florida and Georgia struck down as unconstitutional and end up wasting taxpayer dollars to identify very few drug users. In fact, those receiving public assistance test positive for illicit drugs at a lower rate than the general population--at a lower rate than the general population. It doesn't fit into the rightwing narrative of who comprises those who live in poverty in America, but it is the fact. It is the fact. Why aren't Republicans in this bill calling for drug testing for wealthy CEOs and oil company executives who receive taxpayer subsidies? Why aren't they calling for Members of Congress to undergo drug tests? After all, our salaries are paid by the taxpayers in this country. Why don't you call for all Members of Congress to undergo drug tests? Maybe that might explain why we do some of the things we do here in this Congress. But, instead, again, they only pick on one sector of the population-- poor people. They are the ones who are being blamed for the economy. They are the ones who are being demonized, and they are the ones who are being belittled. It is beneath this Chamber and this House to engage in that kind of discussion. We need to be making real, meaningful progress to end hunger and poverty in this country. First and foremost, we need to protect and strengthen our important Federal nutrition and antihunger programs. We need bold action that will help people rather than make hunger and poverty worse. That is why I continue to call for a White House conference on food, nutrition, and hunger to develop a holistic plan to end hunger in America, because I think we can do better. I think we need to get all of our Federal agencies and our State agencies to work better together and to connect the dots so that we can deal with this so-called cliff that so many people struggling to get out of poverty hit when they start to make a little bit of money. We need to figure out a holistic plan with benchmarks that will actually end hunger. We have a lot of programs, quite frankly, that deal with different aspects of hunger, but I am not sure we have a plan that will actually end it. Here is the deal. Hunger is a political condition. It is solvable. We have everything to solve it except the political will. One of the things we should be doing is developing that political will and not going down the road of demonizing some of the most vulnerable people in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his leadership, and I thank him for pointing out the links between good nutrition and good health. We actually will save money in the long run if we provide our people, our young people in particular, nutritious food. We can prevent diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure. If people aren't moved by the human aspect of feeding the hungry and all they care about is the bottom line, they ought to join with us to make sure that these nutrition programs are adequately funded. In addition, you can't learn in school if you are hungry. A breakfast and a lunch to a young child who is hungry is every bit as essential to that child's ability to learn as is a textbook. We need to understand that. We need to stop nickel-and-diming these nutrition programs and understand that every dollar we invest, every penny we invest, pays us back in ways that can't even be quantified, quite frankly. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a leader on this issue, a woman who is on the Appropriations Committee, who, again, has been a champion for many, many years on this issue of combating hunger in America.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week during our district work period, I spent the night at the Interfaith Hospitality Network, a family homeless shelter in Worcester, Massachusetts. This was my second time spending a night there in recent years. It was a wonderful opportunity to hear firsthand the stories of families who are facing tough times and to see the incredible support provided by groups like IHN. In today's media environment, where every development in the Presidential campaign gets a breaking news banner, it is easy to lose sight of the real issues impacting real families, and homelessness is one of those real issues. In 2015, more than 500,000 Americans were homeless on any given night. Of that number, more than 200,000 were people and families and nearly 50,000 were veterans. Even in Massachusetts, which is one of the richest States in the Nation, homelessness continues to be a challenge in many of our communities. In recent years, State budget cuts have led to a record number of homeless children in Massachusetts, and the overall uptick in homelessness has led to overcrowding in shelters, with thousands of families being turned away. In the richest country on the planet, it is simply astonishing that anyone is homeless, but the fact is this continues to be a persistent problem. Fortunately, there are amazing organizations like the Interfaith Hospitality Network that are making a difference. IHN works in partnership with the faith community to provide shelter and assistance to families with children who are homeless. Their primary goals are to assist families by increasing their income and to help them secure permanent housing while providing critical support services necessary for them to succeed. It is a community bed shelter that provides private bedrooms and shared quality living areas for six families at a time who are homeless, but don't qualify for State-funded shelters. One of the points that the people I met made very eloquently was that sometimes life is very complicated and sometimes things don't work out as you expect them to. Many of the families that I met during my stay included at least one working parent, but they had fallen into the gap where they earned too little to make ends meet, but too much to qualify for other housing assistance programs. Some of the residents included college-educated parents with families that fell on hard times. Maybe a parent is sick or a child is sick or a parent got laid off from a job. Those families are not there because they made poor choices. There were a series of events that led to this. One thing parents at the shelter have in common is that they love their kids more than anything and they are working tirelessly to get back on their feet. The families at IHN are not charged rent and work with a caseworker to budget and save money for their own apartments. The caseworker also helps families access necessary health care or counseling, learn job skills, enroll in job training or educational classes, and assists them with other life issues. Mr. Speaker, IHN is a very special place. It is a home. It is comfortable. It is safe. Families prepare and eat dinner together. Children do their homework together, color in coloring books, and play games. IHN provides a sense of normalcy during these times of turmoil and uncertainty for these families. With each visit to the IHN shelter in Worcester, I am inspired to see that within our community there are so many wonderful people who care about their neighbors who are going through difficult times and who want to get back on their feet. The volunteers and staff are incredible people. Places like IHN represent the best of our community. There is a real need for places like this. Too often in this Chamber I have heard colleagues demonize and disparage America's poorest families, but those who are homeless don't fit into a stereotype. Every family faces different challenges. It is hard work to be poor in America. The families I met are working hard for a better life for their kids. We should be helping them get back on their feet, not kicking them while they are down. Certainly we should not be indifferent to their struggles. To help more of these families get ahead, we must do more at the national level to strengthen the social safety net and to better address homelessness, food insecurity, poverty, and many other issues which deserve to be front and center. Looking at the big picture, we need to be talking about how we can make sure that work pays enough so that all working families can afford rent and a place to live and be able to put food on the table for their kids. We might start by increasing, at long last, the Federal minimum wage so that it is a livable wage. If you work in this country, you ought not to be poor, and you certainly ought not to be homeless. Mr. Speaker, in the richest country on the planet, I know we can do more to solve homelessness. Spending the night at the Interfaith Hospitality Network was a learning experience. I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same in their districts. Those of us who serve in Congress are blessed that we don't have to worry about whether or not we will have a roof over our heads on any given night, but there are many families, too many families all throughout this country who do. We need to do a better job of listening to their stories, of trying to lend a helping hand so that they can get out of their difficult situation and move on to a better life. I urge my colleagues to listen to what I said today and to do what I did and spend a night in a shelter in their own district.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) to discuss this proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a resolution that would require the Republican majority to stop its partisan games and finally hold hearings on the President's budget proposal. I don't know why this is so controversial. We ought to have a hearing, and we ought to talk about various ideas on how to deal with our budget. The President of the United States is entitled to have a hearing up here in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues again not to follow suit of the Senate, which is, again, blocking any hearings on a new Supreme Court nominee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 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 remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying again to my colleagues that they should defeat this rule, which is a restrictive rule. They should vote against the previous question so we can actually bring forward the resolution that would allow for there to be a hearing on the President's budget proposal, and we should defeat the underlying bill. We should defeat the underlying bill because it is a giveaway to big corporations and big special interests. It is a bill that seems like it was written in the Republican congressional campaign committee to make big contributors happy. It does nothing to protect the well-being and the interests of average Americans, of small businesses, and of people who do not have a lot of wealth. For those reasons, we ought to reject the underlying bill, we ought to have a debate on the President's budget proposal, and we ought to have a debate on whatever the Republicans come up with on their budget proposal. Speaker Ryan said that this would be the year of ideas, but it seems that any idea that isn't the idea of a small group of very, very rightwing Republicans is not welcome to be talked about, never mind deliberated on, in this Congress. We need to listen to all ideas, and that includes what the President has proposed. By the way, this is a President who, notwithstanding all of the attempts by my Republican friends to try to frustrate all of his legislative efforts, has a record of accomplishment nonetheless, and one that I think we Democrats are very, very proud of. But the fact of the matter is he is the President. He was elected not once, but he was elected twice. The American people elected him twice. He is our President for another year, whether my friends like it other not. He ought to be given the respect--and not just him, but the Presidency ought to be given the respect--to not play these kinds of political games when it comes to the budget. I hope that the previous question will be defeated so that we can bring this amendment to the floor for a vote. Again, I urge my colleagues, we have a lot to do. Let's stop bringing press releases to the floor for votes, and let's start doing business that will actually help the American people. This has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately but important ones not at all. We need to change that. There is a reason why Congress is so low in the public opinion polls. What is happening today is an example of that. 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record an editorial that appeared in the New York Times, entitled, ``Republican Budget Tantrum.'' The editorial concludes with this paragraph saying: ``The President's budget request is a detailed and worthy entry in the contest of ideas. Its aim is to move the Nation forward. If Republicans had compelling ideas and a similar commitment to progress, they would engage with the proposals in the budget. But they don't. So they won't.'' [From the New York Times, Feb. 9, 2016] Republican Budget Tantrum (By The Editorial Board) By law, dating back to 1921, the president of the United States must submit an annual budget request to Congress. On Tuesday, President Obama submitted his eighth and final budget. And like all presidential budgets, it is a statement of values and priorities, a blueprint for turning ideas into policies, a map of where the president wants to lead the country. This week, even before the president's budget was released, the Republican chairmen of the budget committees announced they would not even hold hearings with the White House budget director to discuss the proposal. Their decision is more than a break with tradition. It is a new low in Republican efforts to show disdain for Mr. Obama, which disrespects the presidency and, in the process, suffocates debate and impairs governing. Mr. Obama's budget proposes to spend $4 trillion in the 2017 fiscal year (slightly more than for 2016). That total would cover recurring expenses, including Medicare and Social Security, as well as new initiatives to fight terrorism, poverty and climate change, while fostering health, education and environmental protection. If Republicans find those efforts objectionable--as their refusal to even discuss them indicates--they owe it to their constituents and other Americans to say why. Would they prefer to renege on Social Security benefits? Do they think $11 billion to fight ISIS, as the budget proposes, is too much? Is $4.3 billion to deter Russian aggression against NATO allies a bad idea? Does $19 billion for cybersecurity to protect government records, critical infrastructure and user privacy seem frivolous? And is $1.2 billion to help states pay for safe drinking water or $292 million to send more preschoolers to Head Start really unaffordable? Republicans have objected that the president's budget does not do enough to tackle the nation's borrowing. But according to the White House's estimate, the proposal would reduce deficits by $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years. That would be sufficient to hold deficits below 3 percent of the economy, a level that is widely considered manageable and even desirable, because a wealthy and growing nation can afford to borrow for projects that would be financially burdensome if paid for all at once. If Republicans have a plan to pay for the necessary work of government while eliminating deficits entirely, they should present it. The problem is that Republicans do not have viable alternatives. The budget proposes a $10-a-barrel tax on crude oil to help pay for $320 billion in new spending over 10 years on clean-energy transportation projects. Congressional Republicans, unable to break free of their no-new-taxes-ever stance, have derided the oil tax. But what is their plan to pay for projects to modernize transportation and promote green technology in the absence of a new tax? The budget would also raise $272 billion over the next decade by closing tax loopholes that let high-income owners of limited-liability companies and other so-called pass- through businesses avoid investment taxes that apply to all other investors. Most of the money would be used to strengthen Medicare's finances. What is the Republican plan to strengthen Medicare? The president's budget request is a detailed and worthy entry in the contest of ideas. Its aim is to move the nation forward. If Republicans had compelling ideas and a similar commitment to progress, they would engage with the proposals in the budget. But they don't. So they won't.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we are reading in the press that the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, is now punting on the Republican budget because apparently there is not enough red meat in there to satisfy the Tea Party--or the Freedom Caucus or whatever they call themselves this particular week--which is very, very disturbing. But I think it is important that the Republicans do their job, just like the President did his job. And while you are waiting to do your job, I think you should maybe have a hearing on the President's budget so that maybe some of these ideas, my friends might be able to react to and maybe even find some agreement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).