Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for the customary 30 minutes. I also want to thank him for his work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Congress has shirked its responsibility when it came to permanently fixing the sustainable growth rate formula. Since its inception, our Nation's doctors and hospitals were held hostage to a misguided funding formula that was included as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I voted against the Balanced Budget Act back then when I was a new Member of Congress. It was plain to me that the Medicare cuts and proposed financing included in that bill were simply impossible to sustain. I am glad that 18 years later Congress is finally doing the right thing and repealing the sustainable growth rate formula and replacing it with a payment system based on value. It is past time that we repeal this misguided formula that has wreaked havoc throughout our healthcare system. Year after year after year, Congress, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, was forced to temporarily patch this formula. And year after year after year, Congress did the bare minimum, providing a temporary fix without actually addressing the real problem and permanently repealing the formula. Today, Congress is finally doing the right thing. That alone is worth supporting. But this bill does more than just repeal the sustainable growth rate formula. Instead, it provides a clearly defined schedule of payment adjustments that will give physicians and healthcare providers the stability they need while ensuring quality and value in the services patients require. In addition, H.R. 2 also provides critical funding through September 2017 for our Nation's community health centers, funding that was initially provided under the Affordable Care Act, and it also provides support for the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. I have already started to hear from hospitals in my district about why this bill is good for them and good for their patients. UMass Memorial Medical Center, in my hometown of Worcester, is one of the Nation's most distinguished academic healthcare systems and is the safety net hospital for all of central Massachusetts. The folks there are pleased to see the delay in additional cuts to safety net hospitals and the delay in the implementation of the two-midnight rule. Now, this bill is not perfect--nothing around here is ever perfect-- but this is the result of long and careful bipartisan negotiation. Even though there are many very positive aspects of this bill, there are some provisions that are more problematic, and I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention some of them. Most troubling is the inclusion of the Hyde amendment and its application to the funding for the community health centers. It is important to clarify that this language is not a permanent extension or codification of the Hyde amendment. It only applies to the funding for community health centers and expires when that funding expires. It does not affect non-Federal funds. In fact, it is the same language that has been included in annual appropriations bills for nearly three decades. Let me be clear: I do not support the Hyde amendment. However, the language in this bill mirrors both President Obama's executive order and the language included in the annual appropriations bills. And I wish the CHIP extension was for 4 years rather than 2. But in this environment, I think that having a 2-year extension is a good thing, is an accomplishment, is a step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, this is an important accomplishment, and I want to thank both Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi for their work in reaching this compromise, a deal that will finally enable this House to move away from annual doc-fix patches and toward providing stability and certainty for Medicare physicians and patients. I am encouraged by the process taken to reach this agreement. For a Congress that I might say accurately has been called ``broken,'' ``hopeless,'' ``helpless''--a Congress plagued by gridlock and extreme partisanship--this bill represents what I hope will be a renewed commitment by my friends in the majority to work across the aisle with Democrats to address some of our country's most pressing issues. It is, and has always been, the way Congress passes important, substantive, and even historic legislation. This place can work when we work together. Just look at what this House has done over the past few weeks. We responsibly kept the Department of Homeland Security open, and now we are on the verge of passing an incredibly vital bipartisan bill to repeal the sustainable growth rate, fund community health centers, and reauthorize CHIP. I hope this bipartisan approach is contagious. I hope this is not the exception but becomes the rule. Every Member represents the same number of constituents, and every voice in this House needs and deserves to be heard. Today--thanks to the leadership of Leader Pelosi and Speaker Boehner and so many others--we are doing something that we can feel good about, something more than a campaign slogan, something that is more than red meat for the political base. This is something that will help seniors, kids, and low-income families. It deserves our support. Before I reserve my time, Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, which begins with the following: ``The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 2 because it would reform the flawed Medicare physician payment system to incentivize quality and value'' and ``would make reforms that could help slow health care cost growth, and would extend other important programs such as health care coverage for children.'' Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 2--medicare access and chip reauthorization act (Rep. Burgess, R-Texas, and 10 cosponsors) The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 2 because it would reform the flawed Medicare physician payment system to incentivize quality and value (a proposal called for in the President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget), would make reforms that could help slow health care cost growth, and would extend other important programs such as health care coverage for children. Medicare payments to physicians are determined under a formula, commonly referred to as the ``sustainable growth rate'' (SGR). This formula has called for reductions in physician payment rates since 2002, which the Congress has overridden 17 times. Under the SGR, physician payment rates would be reduced by about 21 percent on April 1, 2015. A cut of this magnitude could reduce access to physicians for Medicare beneficiaries throughout the country. H.R. 2 would replace this system with one that offers predictability and accelerates participation in alternative payment models that encourage quality and efficiency. The proposal would advance the Administration's goal of moving the Nation's health care delivery system toward one that achieves better care, smarter spending, and healthier people through the expansion of new health care payment models, which could contribute to slowing long-term health care cost growth. The Administration also supports the legislation's inclusion of a continuation of policies and funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The President's Budget includes a four-year extension of this program, which has provided meaningful health coverage to over eight million children; extending CHIP would ensure continued, comprehensive, affordable coverage for these children. H.R. 2 also includes other important proposals in the President's Budget, such as an extension of the Home Visiting Program and additional funding for the Community Health Center (CHC) Fund, although the legislation includes restrictions on the use of the CHC Fund which would be unnecessary given Executive Order 13535. The Administration supports the legislation's provision to make permanent the Qualifying Individual program, which pays the Medicare Part B premiums for certain low-income Medicare beneficiaries. The legislation would pay for costs above what is needed to hold Medicare payments to physicians fixed at their current level. The savings would come from sensible reforms, which are expected to cover a larger share of the bill's costs over the long run. These include cost-saving changes to Medicare provider payments as well as increases in the income-related premium for certain high-income Medicare beneficiaries, who represent about five percent of those covered by Medicare. A similar proposal was included in the President's Budget to help improve the financial stability of the Medicare program by reducing the Federal subsidy of Medicare costs for those who need the subsidy the least. The bill also would, starting in 2020, prohibit Medicare Supplemental Insurance (Medigap) policies from covering the Part B deductible (currently $147) for new beneficiaries. This would encourage more efficient health care choices, lowering Medicare costs and Medigap premiums.

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. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank former State Senator Stephen M. Brewer for his 26 years of service in the state Legislature and to congratulate him on being recognized as Citizen of the Year by the Mount Wachusett Community College Foundation. Senator Brewer retired last year after 26 years of service in the state Legislature. Most recently, he served as Chair of the powerful Senate Ways and Means Committee. Senator Brewer is a giant; someone who looked out not only for his constituents and his community but also for Massachusetts. For 26 years Senator Brewer was a champion for Central Massachusetts. While I know his wife Valerie and daughters April and Audrey are happy to have him home, it's safe to say that we will miss his leadership in the State House. I can think of no one finer to receive this year's Harold E. Drake Citizen of the Year award for his service to the Commonwealth and to the constituents he represented over nearly three decades of public service.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. I would argue that the problem of hunger in America is actually increasing our deficit and our debt; but I would also argue, if you want to find ways to balance the budget, maybe go after some of those corporate tax breaks, instead of going after poor people.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the last 8 years have been very difficult. We are recovering from the single greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. This recovery hasn't been easy, and it has forced us to make difficult decisions. Working on budget priorities and wrestling with spending cuts have been difficult, to say the least. Our economy is beginning to turn around, thanks in large part to an increase in hiring and the success of the Affordable Care Act; yet we still must wrestle with the Nation's budget. It is true, as my Republican friends say, that tough choices have to be made. Why is it that every time House Republicans try to put our fiscal house in order, they ask those among us who can least afford it to make the most sacrifices? Mr. Speaker, we should not balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working families. They didn't cause the financial crisis, and they shouldn't be the ones forced to get us out of this mess. There is a lot to dislike in the Republican budget, from repealing the Affordable Care Act to ending Medicare as we know it, to slashing Pell grants. Quite frankly, it is awful. I want to focus on what the Republican budget does to SNAP, the Nation's premier antihunger program. Once again, the Republican budget would turn SNAP into a block grant, resulting in sharp cuts of $125 billion. On top of that, the Republican budget requires a cut of at least another $1 billion--maybe more--from SNAP. Mr. Speaker, SNAP is one of the only remaining basic protections for the poor. For many of the poorest Americans, SNAP is the only form of income assistance that they receive. The numbers don't lie, but the stories are far more powerful. Just listen to the people who rely on SNAP to make ends meet. Thousands of people sent messages to Congress written on paper plates, pleading with us not to cut SNAP. One woman wrote: SNAP means that, as a single mother, I was able to finish college, feed my family, and find a career where I am able to advocate for a program that I know works. Another person wrote: SNAP means dignity. SNAP matters to me because no senior should have to choose between buying food or paying for their medication. When I was a child, my father left, and the only reason we could afford food was because of food stamps. I never got a chance to say thank you, so thank you. For the life of me, I can't figure out why House Republicans are hell-bent on arbitrarily cutting a program that feeds hungry kids, seniors, and working families. These SNAP cuts are deep and hurtful. We have already seen how the farm bill cuts $8.6 billion, how those cuts are wreaking havoc among the hungry. Imagine what a cut of $125 billion-plus would do. Republicans claim that SNAP spending is out of control; yet the Congressional Budget Office shows that SNAP spending is going down as the economy recovers and people go back to work. Last night, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to strike these SNAP cuts from the Republican budget. The Republicans blocked my amendment while, at the same time, increasing spending for the Pentagon by over $90 billion, without even paying for it. Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents; and what the Republicans are doing, in my opinion, is immoral. Penalizing working families--and, yes, the majority of people on SNAP who can work do work--penalizing these families by taking away food in the guise of fiscal prudence is just wrong. Cutting SNAP, while increasing unchecked spending for the Pentagon, is hypocritical. Let's be clear. There is a cost to hunger in America. Hungry kids don't learn in school. Senior citizens who take their medication on an empty stomach end up in the emergency room. Workers who miss meals are less productive at work. Cutting SNAP, a program that puts food on the table for hungry families, is just a rotten thing to do. Shame on anybody in this House who votes for a budget that increases hunger in America.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, with the release of yesterday's budget, it is official: Republicans have declared war on poor working families in this country. I am deeply disappointed, but I can't say that I am all that surprised. Yesterday's House budget once again slashes safety net programs that provide critical assistance to low- and middle-income families while offering big tax breaks to the superwealthy. I have seen this movie before. I didn't like it the first time, and I sure don't like it now. Following in the footsteps of the recent Ryan budgets, Chairman Price's budget guts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the Nation's premier antihunger program. Like Republican budgets of past years, this year's budget converts SNAP into a block grant for States. Mr. Speaker, this would end SNAP as we know it. Previous estimates of the impact of block granting SNAP show that it will result in about $130 billion in cuts to the program. A cut of that magnitude to SNAP would have serious harmful consequences to the 46 million Americans who relied on SNAP last year to put food on their tables. This is the same budget that includes a number of other devastating funding cuts to programs that support children, families, and seniors. The Republican budget would end the Medicare guarantees, block grant Medicaid, and repeal the Affordable Care Act, which has helped 16.4 million Americans gain affordable, high-quality health insurance. The Republican budget also includes reconciliation instructions to the Agriculture Committee, requiring additional cuts to programs within the committee's jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't support last year's farm bill because it included an $8.6 billion cut to SNAP, but the Agriculture Committee finished its work on a reauthorization bill. It is done. We should not be reopening the farm bill in this budget process. It is bad enough that SNAP has been cut by nearly $20 billion in recent years, with cuts coming in both the farm bill and with the expiration of the ARRA provisions that resulted in an across-the-board cut for all SNAP beneficiaries. Every single one of those who were on SNAP received a cut. We certainly should not be making hunger worse by cutting our premier antihunger program even further. Mr. Speaker, Republicans' fixation with attacking SNAP just doesn't make sense. SNAP is one of the most effective and efficient of all Federal programs. Its error rate is at an all-time low, and that includes underpayments as well as overpayments. And in recent years, USDA has successfully cracked down on trafficking of SNAP benefits. The purpose of SNAP is to feed hungry people, which it does. SNAP is a program that works. Without SNAP, hunger would be much worse in this country. We know from recent CBO estimates that SNAP spending and caseloads have already begun to decline and will continue to do so as our economy continues to recover from the Great Recession. We also know that SNAP is not contributing to our long-term deficit. According to CBO, its share of the economy will continue to decline. Mr. Speaker, we should not be balancing the Federal budget on the backs of the working poor, period. Cutting food assistance and making hunger worse in this country will not solve our fiscal challenges. SNAP is not the problem. For Republicans, cuts to programs for low-income Americans might rally their base, but it won't solve our budget challenges. Poor and working families did not cause our fiscal problems. But time and time again, programs that help them survive tough times and provide them with opportunities to get out of poverty are always targeted for drastic cuts. And what is especially troubling to me is that the poorest and most vulnerable Americans continue to be the target of false and often mean- spirited rhetoric in this Chamber. It is time for that to stop. Instead of cutting SNAP, we should be strengthening the program. We should be increasing the benefits so it enables struggling individuals and families to afford more healthy foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables. The current SNAP benefit is already woefully inadequate, about $1.40 per person per meal, and many families run out of food 3 weeks into the month because the benefit level already is so low. We also should be working to address one of the biggest flaws in our social safety net, the so-called food stamp cliff, where someone gets a job and loses their benefits but still earns so little that they end up worse off and are back to struggling to put food on their table. Mr. Speaker, we know that budgets are not just about priorities. They are moral documents that represent a vision for this country. The vision laid out by Republicans in yesterday's budget is deeply troubling. We should be striving to make the lives of every American better. We should be striving to end hunger now. Unfortunately, the Republican budget does neither of those things. Instead, it makes hunger worse in this country. And that, to be blunt, is shameful.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, for the second time in a 6-month period, we are considering legislation specifically designed to delay implementation of EPA regulations and prevent the EPA from using the best available scientific data. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the EPA, and they don't believe in sound science--they have made that very clear during the time that they have the majority--but this so-called Secret Science Reform Act is a dangerous attack on the EPA's ability to use the best available science to protect public health and our environment. Peer reviewed scientific research from our world class universities informs EPA rulemaking. To limit access to this research--and open the doors to industry-manipulated data--is just plain wrong. I have cosponsored an amendment offered by my good friend Joe Kennedy to allow the EPA to continue relying upon peer reviewed scientific data. Boy, what a radical idea. This commonsense amendment will ensure the EPA has access to the valuable research necessary to make sound decisions about our public health and environment. Mr. Chairman, there isn't ``secret science,'' just science that my Republican colleagues do not like. The contempt for science demonstrated by the Republican majority in this House is troublesome. Putting profits of a particular industry ahead of the safety and well- being of our citizens by rigging the data is dangerous. People might wonder: Why are we debating this bill here today? Well, I would suggest you follow the money, follow where the political campaign contributions are going. The notion that we, in this House, would disregard sound science and instead open the doors for profitmaking industries to come in and dictate what the rules and regulations are with regard to the safety and well-being of our citizens is just plain dangerous. I urge my colleagues, at the very least, support the Kennedy amendment and defeat the underlying legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, later this morning, I will be joined by my Republican colleague Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins of Kansas at D.C. Central Kitchen to officially relaunch the House Hunger Caucus. I couldn't be happier that we are continuing this important bipartisan caucus in the 114th Congress. I am thrilled to have her partnership in this caucus, and I look forward to working with her. Mr. Speaker, several years ago, my good friend and former Republican colleague from Missouri Jo Ann Emerson and I founded the House Hunger Caucus as a forum for Members to discuss, advance, engage, and work on issues related to domestic and international hunger and food insecurity. Over the years, the House Hunger Caucus has hosted a number of briefings on topics ranging from introductions to the major domestic and international hunger programs, to food deserts in rural and urban America, to global agriculture and farmer-to-farmer initiatives, to international school feeding and child nutrition programs, just to name a few. The caucus doesn't just look at existing programs. It also gets involved in emergency responses as they are unfolding. In 2011, during one of the worst droughts in recent memory, the House Hunger Caucus held timely briefings on the U.S. response to the famine in the Horn of Africa. Members and staff were able to hear directly from those on the ground providing assistance to deal with this unprecedented crisis. One of the most important objectives of the House Hunger Caucus is to foster better communication among antihunger advocates by bringing together stakeholders from Federal agencies, State and local governments, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, academia, and business to discuss long-term strategies for ending hunger. The caucus also serves as a vehicle for antihunger organizations to communicate directly to Congress about hunger and food insecurity issues. One of my top priorities for the House Hunger Caucus this year is to make sure we hear directly from those who have experienced hunger and poverty firsthand. We need to make sure that their voices are heard in the discussions here in Washington. One of the greatest assets of the House Hunger Caucus is that it is bipartisan--Republicans and Democrats. It is a way for Members to come together to work to end hunger. Mr. Speaker, there is not a congressional district in the United States of America that is hunger-free, not a single one. According to the USDA, more than 17.5 million American households were food insecure in 2013, meaning that their access to adequate food was limited by a lack of money or other resources; 5.6 percent of households were considered to have very low food security. In other words, those households were hungry. Hunger disproportionately affects the most vulnerable among us: children, seniors, and the disabled. Last year, 16 million children, or one in five, experienced hunger, and increasingly, veterans and military families are experiencing hunger. On the international side, about 805 million people in the world, or one in nine, suffer from hunger, according to the most recent U.N. reports. This is a decrease of 100 million over the past decade and 209 million since the early 1990s. The U.S. can be proud of its leadership in reducing global hunger and addressing the root causes of food insecurity. Through partnerships with other nations, international organizations, our own farmers, NGOs, and private sector communities, we are advancing agricultural development; increasing child nutrition; reducing malnutrition among infants and children; empowering small farmers around the globe, especially women; and providing nutritious meals in school settings. While the journey is long, we now have a proven and coordinated set of programs that effectively address global hunger. Mr. Speaker, as we reestablish the House Hunger Caucus, I can't think of a better location to launch it at than D.C. Central Kitchen, a unique antihunger organization that prepares 5,000 meals a day for more than 80 local nonprofit partners, helping those going through tough times. One of D.C. Central Kitchen's greatest strengths is its culinary jobs training program, where men and women who have faced the most difficult of situations--homelessness, addiction, or incarceration--participate in a rigorous job training program to prepare for culinary careers. As part of our kickoff this week, the House Hunger Caucus will host a briefing for House staff entitled ``Domestic Hunger 101'' tomorrow at 1 p.m. The briefing will be given by CRS experts and is intended to present a broad overview of the major domestic Federal antihunger programs. I look forward to continuing this important work of the House Hunger Caucus with the gentlewoman from Kansas, Congresswoman Jenkins. I encourage my House colleagues to join the House Hunger Caucus. As Members, we don't have to agree on everything to agree on something, and ending hunger should be something we all can agree on.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, we agree with the rule, and we agree with the underlying bill. If the gentleman would like more time, I am happy to yield to him because I always enjoy hearing him speak in the Rules Committee, and I think our colleagues could benefit from his speaking on the House floor. But I don't know what else to add except we are all in agreement, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. 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, we support the rule, and we support the underlying bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, we support the rule and the underlying bill. I want to thank everybody involved. This is a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman for his comments. We support the rule and the underlying bill, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in 2013, I participated in my first ``Monte's March'' to raise money for the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. Along with my friend local radio host Monte Bel Monte and several others, we walked 26 miles in 1 day, from Northampton to Greenfield, Massachusetts. Along the way, we stopped at the Amherst Survival Center where low- income people can go to receive food, clothing, medical advice, and a number of other services to help them through hard times. The executive director handed me a stack of paper plates. On the plates, people who used the Amherst Survival Center had written how hunger had impacted their lives. Inspired by this simple yet powerful message, last Thursday, I launched #fillupyourplate on my Web site at mcgovern.house.gov. It is a place where people can tell me what SNAP, or food stamps, means to them or how hunger has impacted their lives. Responses are posted on my Web site to create a wall of virtual paper plates. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House Agriculture Committee, which I am proud to serve on, held the first hearing in its top-to-bottom review of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. SNAP is the Nation's preeminent antihunger program that provides critical food assistance to more than 46 million Americans. Last year, 16 million children--or 1 in 5 American children--relied on SNAP. Unfortunately, every indication is that Republicans will try to cut this critical safety net program yet again. Mr. Speaker, I fully support rigorous oversight of Federal programs, but we shouldn't single SNAP out for aggressive or unnecessary scrutiny. It already has one of the lowest error rates among all Federal programs, and CBO projections show that SNAP caseloads and spending are expected to fall as our economy continues to improve. One of the reasons why I started the #fillupyourplate campaign was to make sure that the voices of those who use SNAP, who are struggling to make ends meet, are heard in the discussions here in Washington. All too often, the real stories of those who are struggling get drowned out by false rhetoric and partisan talking points. Mr. Speaker, so far, I have received more than 100 virtual paper plates. I want to read just a few of the messages. From Michelle, she wrote: ``SNAP means that many junior ranking members' families will not go hungry while their military spouses are away defending this Nation.'' From Patricia: ``I am a single mother of two. I currently work at Dunkin' Donuts. If my SNAP benefits got cut, I would not be able to pay my rent because I would be spending all of my paychecks on food for my children. I lived in a homeless shelter for a year before coming to my apartment in October of 2014. ``If my SNAP benefits are cut, I will be back in a shelter. I do not plan on being on SNAP benefits forever. I would like to finish my degree and get a job that will support my household without any assistance, but for now, I need help.'' From Cherise: ``It means my children won't go to bed hungry and can function better in school because they have food in their bellies. It also lets me buy more healthy and fresh foods I wouldn't have access to if I had to pay out of pocket. I am grateful for this program. There is no joy in watching children struggle over something so easily prevented.'' From Sabine: ``SNAP to my family means I don't have to choose between paying the lights or making sure I feed my son breakfast in the morning. Having my SNAP benefits takes a huge load off my $243 take- home check from work a week. With SNAP, my son is guaranteed food in his tummy.'' From David: ``It meant my family was still able to eat while I was between jobs. My wife had to quit her job to stay home and take care of our special-needs daughter. A month after the birth of our second daughter, I lost my job and went almost a year before finding a job that paid enough to provide for our family. ``At one time, I was holding four part-time jobs at the same time. I never thought I would have to rely on government assistance but, now, don't know how we would have gotten by without it.'' Mr. Speaker, I am committed to making sure the voices of those who rely on SNAP are heard in the conversation here in Washington, and I am committed to end hunger now. I would remind my colleagues that those who are on SNAP are real people who have real families. They are facing difficult times that they hope will soon pass. Rather than cutting their food benefit or making them jump through more hoops, as some in this Chamber have advocated, we ought to support them. Too often, the focus of this Congress is on ways to help the well-off become even more well-off, but we must not forget those who are struggling. They are our constituents. They are our neighbors. They are our brothers and sisters. I encourage people to visit my Web site, www.mcgovern.house.gov, to share what SNAP means to them.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work of the founder of Kylee's Kare Kits for Kidz, Inc., Kylee McCumber. Currently a 7th grader at Sky View Middle School in Leominster, Massachusetts, Kylee is an exceptional young activist who began this non-profit organization at the age of 10 to help food insecure children in her school. In 2012, Kylee recognized that there were children going hungry on the weekends because they didn't have enough food to eat. Kylee started out with a goal to help 10 children per week by providing them with a ``kare kit'' of non-perishable food items to take home over the weekend. Today, Kylee, along with the help of her family and fellow classmates have been providing ``kare kits'' of non-perishable food items to over 200 students every Friday. Last fall, as part of the Unilever Project Sunlight program, Kylee traveled to Mumbai, India to film a commercial to raise awareness about child hunger. In the commercial Kylee states, ``The enemy is hunger-- not the hungry.'' When asked why she does what she does, she simply states ``It is better to give than receive and I receive so much more than what I give. It is so important to be grateful for all we have and pay it forward when we can.'' The work that Kylee is doing to end hunger is truly inspirational. She is a leader and role model. I am proud to represent Kylee, and I thank Kylee for her extraordinary service to the City of Leominster. I know that all of my colleagues in the House will join me in paying tribute to this remarkable young woman.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will bring up an amendment that will allow for there to be a clean vote on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. No controversial anti-immigrant riders, just the bill that a bipartisan group of Members and the Appropriations Committees agreed on in an up or down vote. 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, while I have great respect for my friend on the Rules Committee, and I sometimes get frustrated by the Senate as well, the fact of the matter is, at least in the Senate, they are voting on a lot more amendments than we are in the House. We don't have an open process here. We have one of the most closed processes, if not the most closed process, in history. That is where a lot of the frustration comes from. On these tax provisions, I think there is broad bipartisan support on the policy. I support, I think, mostly all of them. If we worked in a bipartisan way to make sure they were paid for, I think you would get a unanimous vote here in the House. But for some reason, this notion of working in a bipartisan way is something that my friends on the other side of the aisle just refuse to do. It is their way or the highway. It is one political message vote after another, after another, after another. I think people are getting sick of it. I go back to the headline in the National Journal Daily: ``So Far, a Congress About Nothing.'' The reason why it is about nothing is that this Chamber is not working. There is no bipartisanship here when it comes to legislation; there is no give and take. Routinely, we are being forced to vote up or down on bills that, quite frankly, with a few tweaks and some improvements, would pass. And the bills that we are talking about here I think would pass overwhelmingly if we just open up the process a little bit, a little give-and-take. Let's also be clear, we are not providing anybody with any certainty about anything. The Senate leaders of the relevant committees that would take up this tax legislation have said clearly they are not going to take it up, not any time soon. So it is not urgent that we be debating and doing these bills here today. What is urgent is the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. For the life of me, I don't understand why the Republican leadership can't override the views of a handful of extremists in their party who are insisting on maintaining these anti-immigration riders, holding the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill hostage, and thereby jeopardizing the security of the people of the United States of America. We have 5 legislative days left to deal with this, and we are leaving tomorrow for a break. Again, we go home and tell our constituents when they ask, ``What have you accomplished?'' the answer is, ``Nothing.'' We have done nothing. Yes, we have had debates, we have had votes, but on things that are going nowhere. Not only because the President has threatened vetoes on most of the legislation, but because the House Republicans are saying: The stuff you are sending over to us is too extreme. What have we done? We voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 57th or the 58th time, another waste of taxpayer money going nowhere. We voted on the Keystone bill twice, closed rules, and voted on a bill to basically deny women essential reproductive rights that was so over the top and so extreme that the Republican leadership had to pull it and substitute it with something else. So that has been the total amount of work that has been done here. I don't know how my Republican friends go home and brag about, or even talk about, what we have been doing here when it has amounted to nothing. Let's do something. Let's defeat the previous question. Allow me to bring up an amendment that would allow for a clean vote on a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. We can come together in a bipartisan way, pass it overwhelmingly in the House, pass it overwhelmingly in the Senate. You will all be invited down to the White House when the President signs it into law. We all can agree on it and show our constituents, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we can work together and we can get something done, that we are not a Congress just about nothing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to a few of the points that the gentleman has made in his speech on the floor here. First of all, about the process--these are closed rules that we are dealing with here today. Yes, while it has been traditional to give tax provisions closed rules, there were Members who actually brought amendments to the House Rules Committee to help pay for some of these that I think might have been able to earn bipartisan support because I think there are some Members on your side of the aisle who would like these paid for and do not want to add to the deficit, but they were not made in order in the Rules Committee. There may be other ideas on how to pay for this so we can truly have a bipartisan vote on this and not add to the deficit, but we will not have that opportunity because of the rule. Again, Mr. Speaker, these provisions that we are talking about would add $93 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Yes, maybe Republicans and Democrats in the past have extended these without pay- fors, but that doesn't make it right. It just means we both added to the deficit. Maybe we ought to get serious about Pay-As-You-Go. My friends on the other side of the aisle insist that emergency unemployment benefits have to be paid for, but when it comes to any kind of tax cut, they don't believe anything has to be paid for, so we should have a more open process on this. My friend talks about certainty, that all we are trying to do is give people certainty, but that is not the case. It is not the case because the President has said that he would threaten to veto these bills if they weren't paid for. It is what Republican leaders in the Senate have said. Roy Blunt, our former colleague in the House, made it very clear. He said: As long as the Finance Committee in the Senate feels there is an opportunity for overall tax reform, I think you are going to not see a quick response to individual bills coming over here. We may deal with them later on down the aisle, but there is no sense that the Senate is going to act on this any time soon. When we talk about providing people certainty, that is not what we are doing here. This is about just kind of going through the motions for the sake of going through the motions. Finally, on the Department of Homeland Security bill, yes, the House acted and attached all these radical anti-immigrant riders to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, told reporters on Tuesday: I think it is clear we cannot go forward in the Senate, so the next move, obviously, is up to the House. Today is Thursday. Tomorrow we leave for a break, and it doesn't seem like Republican leaders feel the same sense of urgency that we do over here that we need to get this business completed. Republicans are obviously refusing to admit the reality of this kind of dangerous anti-immigrant grandstanding. In fact, when reporters asked House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy whether the House would take up a new DHS funding bill, he said, ``Why do we have to?'' Let me respond to the majority leader. The reason why we have to is because our primary job here is to protect the people of the United States of America. By letting this bill lapse, we are failing in our responsibility. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I urge my colleagues to read the National Journal Daily today and pay close attention to this headline, ``So Far, a Congress About Nothing.'' And that is basically what we are doing here today. The tax provisions that we are talking about here today, the Republicans over in the Senate are saying that they don't intend to bring any of these before the relevant committees or bring them to the floor. They are trying to work on a more long-term comprehensive tax reform bill, as we should be here. So we can't blame the Democrats for that. It is the Republicans in the Senate who have said they aren't going to take this up. So then the question arises, why are we doing this? Why aren't we doing something that is more urgent and more pressing, like passing a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill? And let's be clear about what the problem is. There is a bipartisan bill that Democrats and Republicans agree on on funding the Department of Homeland Security. What some of the more extreme elements in the House of Representatives on the Republican side have done is they have loaded it up with all kinds of anti-immigration provisions. They have decided that that is where they want the debate on immigration, so all of a sudden, this bill has been loaded up with extraneous issues that don't belong on this bill. Quite frankly, we think that that is wrong, and Democrats in the Senate think it is wrong. What we are saying is actually bring before both bodies a clean bill. What is so wrong with that? If you don't like what the President is doing on immigration, bring up a separate bill or sue him again because that seems to be what my Republican friends like to do all the time, but don't hold up a Department of Homeland Security bill for a political battle on an issue, quite frankly, that does not belong on an appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, again, there are only 16 days left until the funding of the Department of Homeland Security expires. It is 16 days, but 5 legislative days only. If it expires, it would shut down many of the crucial operations that keep our country safe. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow for consideration of a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. With such serious consequences, it is time to put politics aside in order to strengthen our homeland and protect American families. To discuss our proposal, I will yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.