Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a recent article in ``Generations Now,'' a publication from the American Society on Aging, titled ``Food is Medicine'' and authored by several experts in both nutrition and aging services. The article makes the case for better leveraging the expertise and broad reach of community-based food programs through the Federal Older Americans Act Nutrition Program to combat hunger, prevent malnutrition, and reduce diet-related chronic disease among older Americans. Seniors all across the country and from all walks of life trust and rely on Older American Act programs' nutritious meals and community connections. These programs continue to innovate and bring people together. My home State of Massachusetts is highlighted for its efforts to encourage more locally grown foods and for partnering with local schools to promote intergenerational meals among participants. Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the article in the Record. Food Is Medicine--The Older Americans Act Nutrition Program and Community Network Are Vital To Deliver It (By Shirley Chao, Judy Simon, Laura Borth, Lydia McGrath, Jaime Gahche, Mary Beth Arensberg, and Johanna Dwyer) By 2050, the majority of older Americans will have at least one chronic disease or condition, many of which are diet- related with important health and economic implications. Diet-related chronic diseases are among the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S., intensifying the interest in food is medicine (FIM) interventions. Malnutrition and increasing food insecurity are also concerns for older adults. New data from the 2022 National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants report that up to 20 percent of Older Americans Act nutrition program (OAANP) participants are at high risk for malnutrition, as defined by unintended loss of weight and poor appetite and a majority of OAA participants report at least one chronic disease. Yet, lack of infrastructure linking community-based food programs to clinical and other supportive services often makes it difficult for older adults to obtain the care they need in the place they live--the community. Older adults have the highest rate of dietary supplement use and may turn to condition-specific dietary supplements of unproven efficacy to help prevent or treat disease, potentially delaying more effective care and increasing risks of polypharmacy-related adverse reactions. Congress recently required inclusion of reducing malnutrition as part of the OAA Title III Nutrition Services Program's purpose and the Administration on Community Living (ACL), which administers OAA programs, has required OAA state and area plans to include addressing malnutrition. Malnutrition's causes are many and include inadequate intake, disease, or a combination of these and other factors. It occurs in those who are under- as well as overweight. The OAANP helps to combat older adult malnutrition. Indeed, the U.S. Community Services Preventive Task Force recommends ``home-delivered and congregate meal services for older adults living independently (i.e., not residents of senior living or retirement community centers) based on sufficient evidence of effectiveness showing reductions in malnutrition.'' For home-delivered meal services, CPSTF found sufficient evidence of effectiveness for increasing energy intake and improving health-related quality of life and well- being. The OAA's national network of community nutrition programs is vital for ensuring that older adults receive the nutrition-related supportive services and information necessary to better deal with their health conditions. Further, the OAANP provides a strong foundation to support FIM for older adults in the community setting and it aligns with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) FIM principles. OAANP Exemplifies FIM and Aligns with HHS FIM Principles The most expedient approach to building a viable and accountable community-based services infrastructure for FIM is to leverage the OAANP's broad expertise and network. The OAANP reaches and serves Americans in all locales and from all socio-economic and racial/ethnic backgrounds. The OAANP has the technical knowledge and federal/state administrative experience with local programs to ensure that federal and state monies are spent in both a cost-effective and accountable manner. In addition, through serving nearly 1 million meals a day and regularly forging links with clinical providers to combat malnutrition/diet-related diseases, the OAANP's capability is invaluable for guiding FIM services in collaboration with the private sector including foundations, universities and research institutions, employers and others. Greater prevalence of diet-related chronic disease and increasing food insecurity--including in U.S. households with older adults--were driving factors leading to the 2022 White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and the resulting National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition and Health. Interest in and actions related to the FIM approach continue to grow in the U.S., with support from a variety of private and public sector funding streams including several new Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiatives. The HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion's framing language describes FIM as encompassing a broad range of approaches that ``promote optimal health and healing and reduce disease burden by providing nutritious food--in conjunction with human services, education, and policy change--through collaboration at the nexus of healthcare and community.'' It identifies five FIM principles. The OAANP shares these goals and offers the benefit of federally required oversight and quality assurance. Specifically, the OAANP provides a framework to support these principles in community dwelling older adults in the following ways: (1) Recognizes that nourishment is essential for good health, well-being, and resilience: Nutrition is a fundamental health issue for older adults because poor nutrition--particularly protein calorie malnutrition--can lead to poorer health outcomes and risks for other health conditions including frailty and disability as well as increased healthcare costs. ACL requires OAA state plans to include addressing malnutrition, based on the OAA intent for the nutrition program to reduce hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition; promote socialization; and enhance well-being through improved access to nutrition and other disease prevention/health promotion services. The National Survey of Older Americans Act participants indicates that 70 percent or more of OAANP participants have reported eating healthier foods because of the program and over 80 percent report that OAANP meals help them remain independently in the community. A programmatic evaluation found congregate meal program participants had less likelihood of a hospital/nursing care facility admission or an emergency department visit. A recent U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging report detailed the ``OAA Nutrition Program has increased access to healthy and affordable food for older adults, helping to combat hunger, foster social connectedness, promote healthy aging, and prevent adverse health outcomes.'' (2) Facilitates easy access to healthy food across the health continuum in the community: While the OAANP may often be overlooked as a critical food access recourse, it plays a significant role in providing nutritious meals to community-based older adults. In 2019, the OAANP delivered 223 million meals to 2.4 million older adults through 5,000 community providers across the country. While many are familiar with hospitals referring patients to ``meals on wheels'' after hospital discharge to help with recuperation, the OAANP is modernizing its approaches to meet the needs of current and future older adult populations with a particular focus on underserved communities. For example, by offering online nutrition education, food truck meals and pop-up meal sites in under-resourced areas, culturally appropriate meals, and restaurant partnerships, OAANP innovations help reduce barriers to accessing OAANP nutritious meals and other services. (3) Cultivates understanding of the relationship between nutrition and health: The OAANP services not only include meals but also nutrition education, nutrition assessment and screening, and additional supports like supplemental foods. Further, appropriate social services and healthcare referrals are offered based on person-centered needs. OAANP providers have solid foundations with registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) as staff who can ensure nutrition quality, food safety, and provide nutrition education. In some settings, and when funds and nutrition care pathways are in place, RDNs also provide medical nutrition therapy (MNT) directly to OAA participants. In addition, OAANP providers work closely with other medical professionals, hospital discharge staff, and community care coordinators during care transitions. The OAANP draws on objective, evidence-based nutrition research and information from multiple federal agencies including the National Institutes of Health Institute of Aging and Office of Dietary Supplements, the Food and Drug Administration, USDA, the Veterans Administration, the ACL Nutrition and Aging Resource Center, as well as from other organizations. (4) Unites partners with diverse assets to build sustained and integrated solutions: The OAANP operates across all states. Its strength lies in its ability to provide critical services that address numerous issues faced by older adults, including malnutrition, food insecurity, chronic disease, and social isolation. The OAANP is positioned to act as a vital link connecting older adults with help from other organizations, such as health clinics, food banks, and USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) and Commodity Supplemental Food Program. For example, the Massachusetts OAANP was identified as the Commonwealth's largest provider of nutrition and health services according to a FIM community inventory. The OAANP encourages the use of locally grown foods and arrangements with schools and other facilities serving meals to children to promote intergenerational meals. It also serves as a lead agency in developing protocols to procure qualified providers and hold vendors accountable to ensure nutrition and food safety standards are followed. (5) Invests in the capacity of under-resourced communities The OAANP focuses on underserved communities including persons with the greatest social and economic needs, those who are lower income, live in rural areas, and/or are members of minority communities. It also has the capability of expanding service delivery models to support state/community waivers and FIM initiatives. OAANP Fits Well in the Strategic Framework for a National Plan on Aging The U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Healthy Aging and Age-Friendly Communities recently released Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plan, Aging in the United States: A Strategic Framework for a National Plan on Aging. It raised awareness of key aging issues and also outlined goals for supporting older adult health and well- being. Nutrition is included as one of the healthcare/ supportive services older adults need to improve ``health and well-being across the lifespan'', ``age well in the community'', and ``advance their quality of life.'' Further, nutrition is among the important services listed as helping older adults remain in their ``desired homes in the community.'' The OAA is specifically identified in that document as a ``major vehicle for the organization and delivery of social and nutrition services.'' As states move to develop and implement their own OAA and multi-sector aging plans, policymakers and stakeholders will benefit from engaging with the OAANP and its experienced staff, to maximize the health and well-being of older Americans. Conclusions The OAANP is holistic in scope and national in scale and is experienced in providing FIM-aligned interventions to older adults in the community. Building on its proficiency in collaborating and linking with community-level programs/ providers and its existing framework for standards, monitoring, and enforcement, local providers can help ensure an accountable and scalable community services infrastructure for broader and widely impactful FIM initiatives. The OAANP also has data, evaluation, and research expertise that could benefit FIM studies with older adults. Finally, policymakers can look to the OAANP as a valuable partner for helping develop and implement federal and state plans and legislation that support older adults in aging well and for helping communities employ successful nutrition and health initiatives now and into the future.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Older Americans Act Nutrition Programs play an integral role in our efforts to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, we have 3 weeks left to ensure that our government doesn't shut down. Instead of working with Democrats to keep the government open, what we have here is an awful, cynical, partisan continuing resolution that has exactly zero chance of becoming law. Hell, as I said earlier, it may not even pass the Republican-controlled Congress. It is like Republicans won't even try to get the job done. They have passed 4 appropriations bills out of 12. That is it, and they want a trophy for that. I mean, it is pathetic how little work has been done in this House. Again, they have sent a grand total of four appropriations bills to the Senate, although listening to them last night at the Rules Committee, you would think they had completed all their work and everything is wonderful. Imagine thinking 30 percent was a passing grade. It is pathetic. At the end of the day, the Republican majority has failed the American people, and the Republican majority has failed the American people miserably. They want to condition keeping our government open on a Project 2025 pipe dream to disenfranchise millions of Americans at the ballot box. Let me be clear, the SAVE Act is not about targeting undocumented immigrants. It is about suppressing the vote of millions of American citizens. Again, I point out what happened in the last election. The person who shall not be named by name lost but didn't want to accept the loss and instructed people to go out there and to submit fraudulent electors to try to stoke all these conspiracy theories. Multiple people are now under indictment for trying to overturn the legitimate results of the last election. The threat to our democracy, the threat to our election integrity, is the Republicans. My friends are willing to rip $12 billion away from our sick veterans all to play political games. What is wrong with them, Mr. Speaker? They are pursuing poorly written, bad bills that are soft on China when we could be doing the real work, teaming up across the aisle to strengthen our national security. It is a joke. It is a joke. It is embarrassing. All they bring to the table is destruction, disruption, dysfunction, and the dystopian Project 2025. Every measure before us today is a bad deal. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can help our veterans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, we have to do better. If the government shuts down because of their dysfunction, real people in this country get hurt. We need to come together and get our work done. Enough of this partisan garbage. 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 thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this entire Republican majority has been one gigantic, complete, total failure, a complete mess from day one with the majority in charge. It is an embarrassment. We have 8 weeks left in the 118th Congress to do our legislative work, and instead of doing something to make life better for anyone or, hell, even the bare minimum, by stopping a government shutdown, we are considering a no-good stopgap resolution that extends funding into 2025. My colleagues have to love this: The gentleman from New York is on the floor today trying to convince everyone to vote for the bill when Republicans cannot even convince their own Members to vote for it. Seriously, every minute I look at my phone, I see another Republican defecting. Mr. Speaker, the Republican manager is wasting his time debating me. He needs to be debating his Republican friends who are coming out against the bill in droves. Clearly, the majority doesn't have the votes for this awful plan, so why are we wasting time here in this House on a bill that has no chance whatsoever of ever becoming law? Mr. Speaker, this is embarrassing for the Republican side of the aisle. It is mid-September. Republicans said the majority would get all 12 separate appropriation bills done before we left for the August break. That is yet another broken promise, among a long list from Speaker Johnson, to add onto all the broken promises from Speaker McCarthy before him. House Republicans are once again showing their deep disrespect for the veteran community by proposing a 6-month CR that shortchanges the VA Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund by $12 billion. That is morally reprehensible and just plain cruel. These are our veterans who we are talking about. How the hell can Republicans turn their backs on our veterans? To be clear, this is the Republican playbook: a big promise, and it gets broken. Republicans promised we will have a robust, effective appropriations process, and it gets broken. Republicans promised to continue supporting our veterans, and it gets broken. Now we are headed into another potential shutdown, all because Members on the other side of the aisle want to play political games. To make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have jammed the SAVE Act onto the CR because why not mix up government funding with more ridiculous conspiracy theories about voter fraud? I know why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to bring this bill to the floor. Republicans are worried the majority won't win in November without pushing conspiracy theories. Mr. Speaker, let's set something straight: Noncitizens cannot vote in Federal elections. Let me repeat that: Noncitizens cannot vote in Federal elections. If they vote, it is illegal. It is a crime. Guess what? They have done studies. Even conservative institutes say there is no evidence that noncitizens voted illegally in large enough numbers to shift the outcome of any election. We all know what this is about. It is not about voter fraud. This is part of their Project 2025 plan to undermine the vote count and take total control of the government. Mr. Speaker, the majority wants power whether Republicans win or lose at the ballot box, and so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim voter fraud, whatever happens, the facts be damned. Do Republicans really want to talk about the threat of voter fraud? Let me remind the American people: The only ones committing voter fraud in an attempt to overthrow an election are Republicans. We have seen this movie before. Following Trump's loss in the 2020 election, he and his cronies allegedly conspired to overturn the will of the American people by submitting fake electors to falsely certify that Trump won the election. He didn't win the election. He lost the election. What did those efforts get them: Dozens of people across four States have been indicted over this election fraud scheme. Republicans want to talk about the threat of voter fraud. Give me a break. Republicans are the threat. This horrible CR will never become law the way it is structured. We are really just here wasting more time after House Republicans failed to do what they should have done months ago. This rule before us today would also bring to the floor five bills that Republicans claim will target China, five bills that are actually weak on China, five ineffective bills that don't get the job done and don't represent a real attempt to actually address some of the very serious concerns we have about the PRC. Mr. Speaker, I have been a critic of China's human rights record for decades, longer than some of my colleagues have been in Congress. Hell, I was sanctioned by the Chinese Government in July. I can't travel to China. My wife can't travel to China. My son can't travel to China. My daughter can't travel to China. I can't even converse with any Chinese officials. I have written strong, effective bills that would hold the PRC accountable, and so they don't like me. They sanction me, and I wear that sanction as a badge of honor. Let me be clear: These bills that the gentleman referred to are not about taking a strong stance against China. They are poorly written, weak bills that don't get the job done. It is like they are written for a press release. I am sorry. That is because they are meant for a press release and not about serious legislating. Believe it or not, we can strengthen our national security. We can stand up to China on human rights, and we can support our veterans and make sure they get the care that they need. We can fund the government. We can do all of that and more if we work together. That is what people want. They want us to behave like adults. Sadly, Republican leadership is more interested in sound bites and FOX News headlines heading into November than they are about governing. I say they would rather put politics ahead of progress but, Mr. Speaker, Project 2025 isn't just politics. It is weird. It is shameful. It is deeply dystopian. It is dangerous stuff. Americans are tired of this garbage, and I think they are about to make some very different choices starting November. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is unbelievable. All we heard last night and all we are hearing now on the House floor from the other side is that it is the Senate's fault. That is the reason why House Republicans aren't doing their job and that is why they are pushing this misguided CR is because of Senate Democrats. We heard that again today. Guess what: Even Republican Senators hate this CR plan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include a link to an article in the Record from NewsNation titled, ``House GOP government funding plan gets chilly reception from Senate Republicans.''

Mr. McGOVERN. The link is: https://www.newsnationnow.com/the-hill/ house-gop-government-funding-plan-gets-chilly-reception-from-senate- republicans/ Mr. Speaker, their own Republican colleagues are worried that this ``measure requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote could complicate the stopgap funding bill's path,'' and that this ``comes dangerously close to risking a shutdown.'' Here is an idea: If Republicans are so serious about the CR, maybe they should have done some work to shore up support within their own party. However, let me just talk about how Republicans feel about this CR. Tom Massie on the Rules Committee tweeted: ``I am voting Hell No on the `continuing resolution and the other matter act' this week. I don't care which bright shiny object is attached to it, or which fake fight we start and won't finish.'' The gentleman from New York decided to talk about national security. Here is another news flash for the gentleman: The top Republican national security expert in the House, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mike Rogers, says he is a ``no'' on the CR. He says it is bad for the Pentagon. He hopes other HASC members will vote ``no'' too. That is your top guy on national security. He is voting ``no.'' It is reported from Melanie Zanona that ``Representative Cory Mills says he has informed the whip team that he is a no on the 6-month CR plus SAVE Act. Also says there are `quite a few' other Republicans who are against it who haven't said so publicly yet.'' Matt Rosendale tweets: ``1 year later, the same old theatrics by the D.C. cartel. I have never voted for a CR, and I never intend to.'' John Bresnahan reports that Representative Jim Banks is a ``no'' on the CR. Jordain Carney reports that Representative Burchett says he is currently a ``no'' on the CR plus SAVE plan. He says there are many, many others that want to vote no. Marjorie Taylor Greene is a no on everything, so she is no on this, as well. I have to be honest with the gentleman, your problem isn't House Democrats or Senate Democrats; your problem is House Republicans. You can't even get consensus amongst your own Members of your own party. This is ridiculous that we are here debating this rule to bring up a CR that is going nowhere fast. Last night in the Rules Committee, Representative Massie said: ``This SAVE Act isn't going to save anything.'' Representative Massie, as everybody knows, is a prominent leader in the Republican caucus. He says, and particularly because ``it ain't never going to become law. It's a false promise to get all the Republicans half pregnant. Then you're going to get fully pregnant by the end of September when you vote for this CR. . . . '' That is not going to have--``I hate to break it to you, and I'm not telling you anything special. I hate to break it to the Republicans, you ain't getting the SAVE Act.'' Then he concludes by saying: But ``This is political theater,'' folks. I have to tell you, it is bad political theater, and it is pathetic. Here we are at this late day approaching a government shutdown and we get this garbage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My God, the Republicans must be really afraid of losing the November election if the conspiracy theories are already starting up this early. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Cato Institute titled: ``Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at a press conference on the SAVE Act, the Speaker of the House said: ``We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in Federal elections, but it has not been something that is easily provable. We don't have that number.'' Mr. Speaker, this body legislates based on facts, not on intuition or conspiracy theories. Maybe it is time for House Republicans to get serious about their jobs and stop making laws based off their absurd conspiracy theories. Again, I say to the gentleman after that little rant that maybe he needs to be talking to his Republican Members, who all have basically said that the inclusion of the SAVE Act on this horrific CR is basically a gimmick. It is a gimmick to get people to look someplace else and not look at the fact that Republicans are not doing their job. If we want to talk about an insult to our men and women in uniform, then I hope that they will join with me in defeating the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to include $12 billion that our Nation's veterans need for their healthcare, $12 billion that the House Republicans decided, intentionally, to leave out of their partisan continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, with this unserious and unacceptable continuing resolution, Republicans are not only risking disaster assistance and domestic investments, but they are also shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing their care. An additional $12 billion is needed before the new year to maintain medical care for veterans. That is just a fact. The House Republican bill does not include a single dollar of the $12 billion needed, shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing the medical services they need and have earned. Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve our support. It is our responsibility to provide the care that they have earned. This inadequate continuing resolution does not meet the moment, which is why I am giving my Republican colleagues the chance now to do the right thing and include the funding for our veterans in this continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there were lots of things that were left out of this CR, and the Republicans came up with a manager's amendment to try to address that, but they left out the $12 billion for our veterans. They left out $12 billion for our veterans. I don't understand that. There is no explanation for that. It is so wrong. To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Oh, my God. I don't even know where to begin, to be honest with you. There is just so much there. First of all, let me read from a letter that the Secretary of Defense sent to all of us here in Congress. He said: ``A 6-month CR would set us significantly behind in meeting our pacing challenge highlighted in our National Defense Strategy, the People's Republic of China. The PRC is the only global competitor with both the intent and capability to change the international order. The PRC does not operate under CRs. Our ability to execute our strategy is contingent upon our ability to innovate and modernize to meet this challenge, which cannot happen under a CR. Asking the Department to compete with the PRC, let alone manage conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, while under a lengthy CR, ties our hands behind our back while expecting us to be agile and to accelerate progress.'' That is what the Secretary of Defense sent to Congress. Republicans are here with a bunch of fake anti-China bills that will never become law, but what they are actually doing is hurting our national security. This approach, their CR, is hurting our national security. It is not just the Secretary of Defense saying that. As I said earlier, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has said it, and that is why he is opposing the Republican CR, so let's get that straight. The other thing is, on the SAVE Act, it is true that a military ID alone is not sufficient to meet the criteria of the SAVE Act. Is that how we thank the men and women who serve our country? In fact, many Americans don't have the kind of identification required to be able to comply with the SAVE Act, but that is even beside the point because, as Republican after Republican has said, this is a gimmick. This is going nowhere. This is just a sound bite during an election. This is not real. This is all theater. That is not me saying it. It is Republican after Republican saying that. In terms of helping our veterans, let me tell you, Republicans keep talking about the $112 billion in the bill for VA care, but guess what? These dollars were already provided in last year's bill. Both VA and OMB say that these dollars are insufficient and that they need an additional $12 billion or our veterans' care will be affected. That is what has been said to Republicans and Democrats over and over again. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides zero additional dedicated funding for vets with toxic exposures. Zero. I don't understand why, when you are trying to fix some of the omissions in the manager's amendment that was put in in the Rules Committee, this could not have been added. These are our veterans. These are people who have served our country. These are people who have been exposed to toxic chemicals who are battling with all kinds of illnesses and diseases. The least we can do is make sure the funding is there so they can get adequate healthcare. This bill provides none of that $12 billion. I don't understand what my Republican friends are thinking. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this August, I conducted my annual farm tour, visiting 11 of the nearly 1,900 farms in my district. The farmers at Amherst Nurseries, Kitchen Garden Farm, Diemand Farm, Apex Orchards, Tip Top Orchard, Rattle Root Farm, Gove Farm, Pineo Family Farm, Community Harvest Project, Town Line Dairy, and Riddle Brook Farm produced everything from fresh fruits and vegetables to pasture-raised eggs and meats and cut flowers. Some are multigenerational family farms while others are new operations with beginning farmers. Each farm approaches land stewardship with creativity and resilience and helps build community by supporting local food systems. I am amazed by the determination of our farmers to ensure that they can provide for people in need. Mr. Speaker, our family farmers are committed to food security. They are making healthy food available and accessible, and we have a lot to learn from them about bolstering regional food systems. We need to do everything we can to support them so we can help them end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret having to rise in opposition to this bill, but I feel that I need to, and I want to be clear as to why. I think this bill as it is currently written, quite frankly, is not ready for prime time, and I am urging my colleagues, particularly those who care about effectively taking on China to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, for the record, I am not new to this issue. In fact, I welcome the fact that we are finally here on the House floor talking about not only the abysmal human rights violations committed by the People's Republic of China but their unsavory and unscrupulous business practices that could threaten patient privacy and even our national security. Frankly, it is about damn time. I have been sounding the alarm for years now asking Democrats and Republicans to hold China accountable. I have worked with Presidents of both parties on this issue, including Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Along with our colleagues, Representative Chris Smith and Senator Marco Rubio, I wrote, and President Biden signed into law the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act to hold the PRC accountable for their genocide in Xinjiang and to prevent the import of goods made with forced labor into the United States. Together, Chairman McCaul and I wrote the Resolve Tibet Act to hold the PRC accountable for their misinformation on Tibet, which was also just signed into law by President Biden a few months ago. I passed into law the bipartisan Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act to deny PRC officials entry into the United States if they are responsible for the oppression of the people of Tibet. In 2019, I also authored legislation to prevent the export of crowd control equipment that was being used to go after peaceful protestors in Hong Kong, and President Trump signed that into law. I am one of the few Members of Congress who was actually sanctioned by China. I am banned from going to China by the PRC. I can't meet with any Chinese Government officials because of my vocal advocacy for human rights and human dignity in that country. They clearly do not like me, but I wear their sanctions as a badge of honor. All of this is to say that my record on this issue takes a back seat to nobody. That is why I deeply regret that we are bringing this particular bill to the floor. This is a lost opportunity to do something meaningful about an important and serious issue, an issue that frankly deserves a lot more thought and attention than this. First of all, this bill lists out specific companies that it claims are exploiting the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry on behalf of the Chinese Government. To be totally frank, some of them might be, but to be also totally frank, some of them might not be, and I can't get a clear answer from anyone on how the Select Committee came up with these names. What was the process? Were these companies brought in for questioning? Again, no solid answers to why these companies and not others. If we are going to name companies, then there ought to be a clear, transparent process that is implemented the same for all companies. I am even told this by our regulatory agencies who, by the way, do not like the idea of naming companies by name in legislation because they think it gives the heads-up to bad companies who will try to evade this legislation as written by changing their name and reincorporating as something else in the Cayman Islands. So I think we need to give some thought as to whether this is the best way to hold these companies to account. The most ironic thing about this approach is this is how they do things in China: The PRC politicians decide they don't like you, so they blackball you. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? That is not how we do things in the United States of America. We ought to have due process of law here. We ought to have a transparent, inclusive process that involves all the relevant agencies that applies to all companies. We have an intelligence community, we have law enforcement agencies, we have an interagency entity list, and we have a Department of Defense 1260H list to determine what companies are engaged in bad behavior on behalf of the PRC. Some of the companies listed in this bill are not on any lists at all, so it is up to us to guess why they are on here. Now, I have no idea who wrote this text or why these companies and not others, but this is not the right way to legislate. This is being jammed through because I guess it is China week and God forbid we wait a couple of more weeks and get this right, but we want to get this thing done. However, this is not the way we should be doing things around here. What is even worse is that this bill is being brought up under suspension. People know that there are genuine concerns about this bill, and yet it is being brought up under suspension. We have no opportunity to amend it or to make improvements. There is no process through the Rules Committee, no amendments, nothing. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that I really, really believe we can get to ``yes'' on a bill to hold bad companies accountable and to protect the American people. I think we could get ``yes'' to a bill that would not only have my support but the support of everybody in this Chamber. This is just take it or leave it, and I think the best thing for all of us to do is to leave it and go back to the drawing board and to come up with something better that we can get to the floor in the next several days or in the next couple of weeks. I have spent my entire career standing up to the Chinese Communist Party and to the PRC, and I have the battle scars to prove it. Yes, I do have a company in my district that is actually named in this bill, but that is not the only reason why I am here. I am here because I care about these issues. I have cared about these issues for a long time. Yes, I did my due diligence on the company in my district and asked why they were included. That is not a radical question, it is not a tough question, and nobody can really tell me. I got a different answer every time I asked. Not in a classified setting and not in an unclassified setting can anybody still give me a straight answer. In fact, I have been given multiple conflicting reasons. This should be easy. This company is on a list because they are doing X, Y, and Z, and we have the proof. I have never heard that. Maybe some of the concerns apply to some of these companies. I have no idea, and nobody, including the people who wrote this bill, could give me a clear answer on the basic question of why some entities are named and others are not. Then, once they are named in this bill, the five companies that are named, I am told that it is literally impossible for them to get off the list. If one of these five companies does not belong on the list, then too bad, Congress doesn't like you, and that is that. Let me be crystal clear. If a thorough interagency review concludes that any of these named companies, including the one in my district, are engaged in behavior that endangers our national security or violates people's privacy, then I will be the first in line to say: Shut them down. However, without that process, again, this is how they do things in China. It shouldn't be how we do things in the United States. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote, and I pledge that if this bill is defeated or if my friends pull it, I will proudly work to come up with a better bill that will actually get the job done and not create a slippery slope that we should not be going down. We have other standing committees that should have been involved in drafting this bill, quite frankly, that have expertise on these matters: Foreign Affairs, Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Homeland Security, and Intelligence. They should have been consulted and at the table here. It should have been more than the Select Committee and the Oversight and Accountability Committee. Let's do this in a better way. Let's create a fully vetted list that goes through an interagency process, not a flawed bill that has major enforcement problems that I believe will actually hurt us in opposing PRC's activities. Let's pull this bill or defeat this bill, and let's get this right. We have an opportunity to get it right. Let's get it right, and we will get it to the floor in a matter of days. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. First of all, WuXi AppTec and WuXi Biologics are two separate entities. Again, I was hoping to get some more clarity, and this is what puzzles me as to why WuXi Biologics is on this list. I was told at one point that they were on the list because the Department of Commerce had them on the unverified list. I actually had a conversation with the Department of Commerce to try to understand all these different lists, and they told me that it is not uncommon for companies to be on the unverified list, especially in the aftermath of COVID because it was hard to do the investigations. However, then they sent me a statement in which WuXi Biologics was removed from the unverified list. Then I said: Well, they must be on another list. They said that they had this thing called the entity list. I asked them, I said that they must be on the entity list if they are named in this bill. The entity list is made up of foreign individuals, companies, and organizations deemed a national security concern subjecting them to export restrictions and licensing requirements for certain technologies and goods, so they must be on that list. The Commerce Department said: No, they are not on that list. I said: Okay, they are not on the unverified list, and they are not on the entity list. Is there any other list out there? Well, there is another one out there. It is the DOD section 1260H list. Are they on that list? I am told: No, they are not on that list either. The section 1260H list is made up of Chinese military companies operating directly or indirectly in the United States in accordance with the statutory requirement of section 1260H of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. They are not on any of those lists. They are not on any of those lists. Then here is the deal: If they don't belong in the underlying legislation, then there is no way to get off the list. There is no way for them to get off the list. I was told, with all due respect by the ranking member, and I have checked with our Senate colleagues and with Commerce, that those that are named cannot get off the list. All I am simply saying is that--maybe I am missing something here--we ought to have an interagency review and thorough investigation before we start implementing these kinds of sanctions. Again, this is what they do in China. This is not what we are supposed to do in the United States. Due process actually matters here. The truth should matter here. Again, some of these companies absolutely may belong on this list, but I am just simply saying that I have questions that have not been answered either in a classified or unclassified setting, and they have certainly not been satisfied by members of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very strange debate. Again, are we all comfortable moving forward in a way that doesn't require any thoughtful or interagency investigation or process? You know, a process with integrity, by the way, will result in any of the bad actors getting on the list. That is what an interagency process is supposed to be about. Our friends still haven't really told me the criteria they use to get people on their blacklist, except the gentleman from Ohio just said if I want to say that you are bad, then you are on the list. That is not the way we do things in the United States. I hope we never will do that in the United States. That is the way they do things in China. Again, as I stated before, WuXi Biologics is distinct from WuXi AppTec, but during China week, anything with a Chinese name is somehow suspect and somehow bad. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from InsideHealthPolicy, ``Cutting Foreign Ties Could Lead To Drug Supply Chain Disruptions, Industry Warns.'' [From InsideHealthPolicy, May 21, 2024] Cutting Foreign Ties Could Lead to Drug Supply Chain Disruptions, Industry Warns (By Maaisha Osman) As House committees advance bills that would bar American companies from working with some foreign-owned biotechnology companies in the future, industry experts warn ending pharmaceutical relationships with China could lead to drug shortages and supply chain disruptions. Darius Lakdawalla, director of research at University of Southern California Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, said at the U.S. Pharma and Biotech Summit Thursday (May 16) that cutting ties with foreign companies could worsen supply chain issues in the United States. ``I think the Chinese issue, there's no question that that's going to increase the risk of shortages and supply chain disruption, how could it not do those things?'' Lakdawalla said. ``And that's a particularly problematic issue in a moment when there's a lot of political pressure against the pharmaceutical industry (and) the last thing we need to see now is consumers (being) unable to fill their prescriptions at the pharmacy because of shortages.'' Biogen's CEO, Chris Viehbacher, highlighted during the Thursday summit that drug company CEOs traditionally did not need to consider geopolitical issues, but this is now beginning to change. ``You know, amongst the CEOs we are suddenly saying, `Hey, we haven't needed to think about geopolitics in years,' '' Viehbacher said. ``When I was CEO of Sanofi, those were the peak years of globalization, we could move products and people and capital all around the world and not even think about borders, and that's clearly changing.'' Other executives also expressed discomfort with thinking about their business in national security terms. ``When we think about the BIOSECURE Act, I think Chris Viehbacher said it best which is, if it's in the form of a national security threat, that is one place that industry does not want to get in into,'' Harmeet Dhillon, head of public policy at Glaxo Smith Kline, said, referring to the legislation moving forward in the House. ``We want to let that be handled by the appropriate experts from a policy and political perspective.'' Viehbacher also noted that national security concerns are driven by mistrust between the East and West and the bipartisan support for the bill underscores the seriousness of these concerns. ``East-West divide has created a mistrust and that is driving a number of the national security concerns,'' he said. ``This is a bill that has extremely strong bipartisan support and if you can get Democrats and Republicans to agree on anything, that something must be serious.'' If passed by the House and Senate and signed into law, the BIOSECURE Act would prohibit federal agencies from contracting or procuring equipment or services from ``biotechnology companies of concern.'' This includes any company that is ``subject to the jurisdiction, direction, control, or operates on behalf of the government of a foreign adversary'' and poses a biotechnology security risk. Adversaries include China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. The most recent version of the bill in the House extends the deadline for U.S. companies to terminate their collaborations with specific Chinese entities until 2032. Additionally, it includes WuXi Biologics, a subsidiary of the targeted pharmaceutical company WuXi Apptec, on the list of companies of concerns. The New York Times reported that WuXi is involved in manufacturing about 25% of drugs sold in the United States. The leukemia treatment Imbruvica, for example, is sold by Janssen Biotech and AbbVie, but WuXi makes its active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). ``The reality is that a company like WuXi has been an extremely cost-effective and capable supplier to our industry,'' Viehbacher said at the Thursday summit. ``It's not even going to be that easy to replace that capability either in the United States or in other countries.'' ``It is a big market, but I think we're going to have to imagine a border there that we haven't had to think about in the past,'' Viehbacher added. At a STAT event in November, industry experts said that domestic manufacturing can very easily become ``a feel-good strategy,'' but onshoring a drug's API wouldn't solve the drug shortage crisis. ``We need to be very strategic on what we onshore,'' Marta Wosinska, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center on Health Policy, said. For example, Wosinska cautioned that the United States shouldn't onshore an API manufacturer for a drug where all the upstream manufacturing still comes from China. ``That wouldn't solve the problem,'' she said. Wosinska also noted that domestic drug manufacturing does not necessarily mean higher quality. She pointed out that historically drug shortages were primarily caused by manufacturing quality problem in U.S.-based facilities. Meanwhile, FDA drug center chief Patrizia Cavazzoni said at an Alliance for Stronger FDA webinar May 6 the agency is focused on enhancing the resilience of the manufacturing supply chain and does not want manufacturers to stop production because of issues identified during inspections. ``When investigators understand the context of a facility and what is being manufactured there, we strongly encourage manufacturers not to stop manufacturing or halt operations as a result of inspections,'' Cavazzoni said. ``Even during inspections, we sometimes see manufacturers say they will hold off and shut down a line because of what they are hearing during the inspections.'' As a part of FDA's initiative to modernize inspections, the agency is testing a program aimed at improving communication among investigators, the drug shortage team and the compliance team. This enhanced communication would occur continuously, spanning before, during, and after inspections. The goal is to provide investigators with contextual understanding of the facility's manufacturing activities. ``We really want manufacturers to call our drug shortage surveillance team immediately because we want to start problem-solving with manufacturers as soon as possible during the inspection to put in place mitigation approaches that will prevent outright stoppages of manufacturing essential drugs, as we have witnessed over the past year,'' Cavazzoni said.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I point that out because we have to be very careful on how we proceed, to make sure we are going after truly bad actors so we don't disrupt the supply chain in which we see a disruption in pharmaceuticals, which means higher prices and less availability. That is something that ought to be talked about. It would be nice if the Energy and Commerce Committee were part of this discussion because I think that is relevant. Again, I have no problem with holding anybody accountable. I would just like a process that has integrity. With due respect to the gentleman who just spoke, your word doesn't cut it. I want a little bit more verification that, in fact, what we are doing is right. If the verification is there, I am with you. We can get there. We can do this in a better way, one that upholds our values and one that holds these companies accountable, and we can go in a way that would have broad bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to respond to the gentleman from Michigan, I didn't say I had done my due diligence and that there is no connection. I said they are two separate entities. I said we should have a process in place that has integrity that everyone has confidence in to do the due diligence to make sure, in fact, that the companies that are being named do, in fact, deserve to be named. Experts, by the way, in my State tell me that we do not have enough domestic capacity to pick up the slack if the named companies were barred from doing business with the U.S. today. Clearly, we need to increase our domestic drug production capacity and quality. The Federal Government should incentivize domestic biotech companies to manufacture products like active pharmaceutical ingredients and key starting materials to help ensure the security of our supply chains. We could better support workforce development by providing funding for regional training centers and efforts to diversify the workforce. These are just some suggestions based on the feedback that I have received. The bottom line is we need to make some changes to improve capacity at home. As we are going after the bad actors, let's also figure out how to increase capacity at home. All I am saying is--let me repeat--if any or all of these companies deserve to be sanctioned, I am there. I just want a process that has integrity and that is worthy of this institution. It seems to me it is not that difficult to get there, but I guess in the effort to try to comply with China week and to get a press release out, we are naming companies without really any thorough and thoughtful process. I have to say, I object to that. I worry that it is a slippery slope that will be replicated in other instances. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I should point out for the record that WuXi Biologics did a third-party audit, which indicates that they don't contain any biogenetic information. Again, all I am asking for here is a process that is above question. I do think there is something to be said to make sure that we get it right. This idea that we may not get it right and it is too bad for a company, it is too bad for the people who work there, it is too bad for the supply chain, and we will see prescription drugs go up for no reason just because we are lazy and we don't want to do a full audit, I am sorry. Democrats and Republicans should agree that process matters. Again, we are not China. We are the United States of America. We do things in a transparent and open way. I don't think it is unreasonable to be here saying we ought to have a thorough process that these companies are subjected to and that all others are. If any of these companies or any others are deemed to be in collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party or PRC or whoever else you don't like, and there is sharing of sensitive information or behaving in a way that is unscrupulous and in violation of our laws, then we should hold them accountable. There is no question about that. It is about this bill and about the lack of process and the lack of transparency. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.