Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I begin today with a story. Once upon a time in Congress, House Republicans put forward their top agenda, a package of bills so crucial, so urgent, that teeing them up for consideration was one of the very first things we did on the floor of this Congress-- after, of course, Kevin McCarthy's 15 votes for Speaker. Tucked into this package was a little bill about supporting the police, H. Con. Res. 5, a simple, nonbinding resolution, really, that didn't do much. It was purely symbolic, but it did express support for our Nation's police, all of our Nation's police. But something mysterious happened, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will join me in trying to solve that mystery today. Instead of bringing their bill up right away, Republicans waited, and they waited, and they waited. They waited until this week, and they brought up a bill, but something changed. See, in the original bill, the language read that Congress expresses support for the Nation's law enforcement agencies. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, ``Nation's,'' ``Nation's.'' It was about all of our police. In their new bill, the one that we are considering today, they only express support for local enforcement officers. Here is the new bill, Mr. Speaker. We see the word ``local,'' ``local''--nothing about our Nation's law enforcement officers, just ``local.'' Huh. That is weird. What a strange change. It is National Police Week, but they took out all of our national police agencies. Democrats searched and searched and searched for a reason. We looked high and low in the Rules Committee, but we couldn't find an answer. Not a single person, not one Republican, Mr. Speaker, has been able to articulate to us who made that change, when it was made, or, most importantly, why it was made. No one was able to explain to us why Republicans edited their bill from saying ``any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement agencies'' to any ``efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.'' Here is the important thing, and call it the moral of the story, if you will. The change was not without consequence because what the GOP did was cut out every officer at the FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Protective Service, and Secret Service. They cut out every officer at the United States Capitol Police. They cut out the police who are standing outside these Chamber doors right now, keeping us safe. They cut out all the police who rushed to this building to keep all of my GOP friends safe on January 6, 2021. Apparently, our Republican colleagues think National Police Week shouldn't include our national police. I wish I could say that this was an unsolved mystery, I really do, but the answer is obvious, Mr. Speaker. The new Republican position is that they only support some police. The new Republican position as of 2 weeks ago is that they want to defund police. They voted to cut COPS grants, fire 400 local police officers, defund the FBI, and cut grant funding for State and local law enforcement agencies. The new Republican position, as put forward by their frontrunner for President, is that we ought to pardon the convicted criminals, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis who beat cops, crushed them in doors, and hit them with fire extinguishers on January 6. The new Republican position is to give George Santos due process before he is kicked out but to deport legal immigrants who haven't even been charged with a crime. Here is what I see today, Mr. Speaker. It seems like Republicans back the blue until they realize that laws apply to them, too. That gets me to my final point because an important change is happening here today, and I want law enforcement officers across this country to take note. I know many of them are watching because it is police week, National Police Week, and here is what I want them to know: Democrats want to keep communities safe. Democrats want to address gun violence in our schools, an issue I hear from police officers about all the time. Democrats want to invest in programs that keep our communities safe, programs that get to the root causes of crime. Democrats want to make sure police aren't put in situations they aren't trained to handle. Democrats have passed bills that protect our communities and support our police, bills to help cops with PTSD and to invest in small police departments. Republicans want to wrap their arms around the police while they cut funding. Make sure we don't forget this, Mr. Speaker: 21 Republicans voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police-- 21. Republicans changed their bill to deliberately exclude America's national police agencies from National Police Week, which dishonors and disrespects the Capitol Police officers who protect our Capitol Building. Republicans are using our law enforcement officers like political pawns. They are putting politics over public safety. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican friends have lost their way on law enforcement today, and it is clear who is in charge. It is not Speaker McCarthy. It is the most extreme of the extreme, and once again, the American people lose. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota if she could respond to a question that we couldn't get an answer to in the Rules Committee last night as to why Republicans did not bring up their original bill, H. Con. Res. 5, the one that they made in order with their opening day rules package. I don't know whether she can explain it to me. I am happy to yield her some time to do that. The silence is deafening, Mr. Speaker, because the question that we asked in the Rules Committee last night that nobody could answer is, in their original bill we honored our entire Nation's law enforcement, including the Capitol Police, who protected us on January 6. However, the bill they bring up today changed all that and basically narrowed it down to local police but took out any recognition of our Capitol Police or any of our Federal law enforcement officers. The gentlewoman will not answer the question. Nobody in the Rules Committee would answer the question. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania who just spoke, who was talking about defunding the police, I will tell you, when I was the chairman of the Rules Committee, we didn't bring any resolutions to the floor to defund the police. Two weeks ago, my Republican friends voted to cut money for local law enforcement and for our Federal law enforcement agencies. They are the ones who voted to defund the police. Just don't believe me; you can Google it. Check it out. Two weeks ago, their bill that they brought to the floor will cut law enforcement agencies. Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. Again, the idea that my Republican friends made a conscious decision to remove the Capitol Police from a resolution honoring our Nation's police is beyond the pale. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the Department of Justice regarding the cuts proposed within the Republicans' debt limit bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. My Republican friends are actively cutting funding from Federal law enforcement that work to protect us every day. Their plan would also cut funding for nearly 400 local law enforcement positions. I mean, Republicans cannot be serious about supporting law enforcement when they are actively using their majority to defund them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Indiana began her remarks by talking about National Police Week, but the resolution doesn't honor our national police. The Republicans made a conscious decision to remove the Capitol Police, FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Protective Service, and the Secret Service. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana to help me understand why the Republicans changed the wording of their resolution. I am happy to yield her any time. Mr. Speaker, again, the gentlewoman from Minnesota says we are playing word games. No, we are not. The only people playing word games are my Republican friends. They introduced a bill that honored all of our police, and then they changed it. They made a conscious decision to change it because I think they are afraid of the extreme of the extreme of their base that somehow don't want to admit that anything bad happened here on January 6, and they are afraid if they honor the Capitol Police that somehow their extreme base would be offended. That is just sick, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 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, Social Security and Medicare are vital to many of our constituents' economic health security, and yet many of my Republican friends across the aisle have called for major cuts to these critical programs. Once again, I am offering my friends the opportunity to reassure the American people, not just with rhetoric but with their votes, that they will not cut these vital programs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to the gentleman, again, the only people who in this Chamber voted to defund the police are my Republican friends. Two weeks ago, you all voted for a bill to cut money for local law enforcement, every one of you. Let's talk about the police that you are not honoring here today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a CNN story about two FBI agents who were shot and killed last week, and yet they have been taken off the list of law enforcement officials that we are honoring.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the names of the law enforcement officers who died as a result of the Capitol riots: U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, D.C. Police Officer Jeffrey Smith, D.C. Police Officer Gunther Hashida, D.C. Police Officer Kyle DeFreytag.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to also include in the Record a CNN story about the 21 Republicans who voted ``no'' on a bill to award Congressional Gold Medals for the January 6 police officers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York whatever time he needs, but I guess he left the floor. I would like somebody to explain to me why Republicans decided to change the wording of the bill that they introduced at the opening day session of Congress to exclude all of our Federal police officers and exclude our Capitol Police. I don't quite understand why they did that except I think they are afraid of their base, the extreme element of their base who basically do not want to honor them. I find that really disturbing. Again, talking about defunding the police, the only people in this Chamber who voted to cut money for the police are on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman who just spoke neglected to say is he only wants to honor some of our police officers. They made a conscious decision to, quite frankly, remove our national police, our Capitol Police, from the resolution that they were originally included in. He said don't believe us. Well, the words are here. This is their original bill: ``H. Con. Res. 5, Expressing support for the Nation's law enforcement agencies and condemning any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement agencies.'' Their new bill was changed to just say ``local law enforcement.'' They made a conscious decision to do that. The gentleman keeps on quoting, and there is an old saying that the only thing that really matters around here is votes. Everything else is B.S. We can play this game of quotes versus votes, but the bottom line is the votes are what matter and what matters the most. My friends on the other side of the aisle 2 weeks ago brought a bill that they all voted for that cut money for law enforcement at every level. They voted for that. That is their record. I hope my friends will appreciate that. As we honor our Nation's police officers, as we should, I have to say it is disappointing that we are only honoring some, that a conscious, deliberate decision was made to exclude others. I find that really, really disturbing, and, quite frankly, we tried to fix it last night in the Rules Committee. We tried to fix it in the Judiciary Committee, and all the Republicans voted it down. I urge people to look at the votes. The votes are what matters. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman runs out, I will just say you can yell all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle, including the gentleman, voted to cut money for local law enforcement Mr. Speaker, what they did is they voted to cut a million dollars per State in Federal money for our local law enforcement. They would fire, lay off, 400 local police officers. That is what would happen if their bill that they voted on 2 weeks ago became law. It could cut COPS grants. It would cut other DOJ funding for our local police. The gentleman who just had a meltdown on the floor, screaming and yelling, comes on the floor all the time to talk about our border. I mean, my Republican friends made a conscious decision to remove Customs and Border Protection from the bill honoring our law enforcement. I would like somebody to answer why. They removed the Capitol Police. They removed the FBI. They also removed CBP. Mr. Speaker, their bill, according to the Department of Justice, if it became a law, the reduction in support for our police and Federal law enforcement would result in a reduction in our operations equivalent to the following: 154,000 pounds of cocaine not seized, 859 pounds of fentanyl and 1,948 pounds of heroin not seized, 17,148 pounds of methamphetamine not seized, $9 million in currency not seized, 561 criminals not arrested, 57,594 apprehensions not made, and 361 people not rescued. The gentleman says he is being fiscally responsible, and that is why they voted for these cuts? Enough. Again, can somebody please explain to me from the party that voted to defund the police why the omission, why were the words of the Republican bill changed to omit all of these other brave men and women who are protecting people all across this country and the Capitol Police who protect us every single day? By the way, the gentleman who just spoke was among those who voted not to give a Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police. Thank goodness 400 Members, Democrats and Republicans, disagreed with him. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from MSNBC titled: ``The list of Republicans open to `defunding' the FBI keeps growing.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I am concerned because, on the one hand, my Republican colleagues say they support the police. On the other hand, their own Members are calling on Congress to defund Federal law enforcement. They want to defund the FBI. They want to defund ATF. They want to defund DOJ. I guess it just shows that Republicans support only some of the police. In fact, there is a Member on the other side of the aisle who is selling ``Defund the FBI'' T-shirts on her web page. Mr. Speaker, I have asked over and over and over again why the Republican bill was changed to exclude a whole bunch of law enforcement officers on the Federal level, including the Capitol Police. As those who are watching this debate saw, every time I wanted to yield to get an answer, there was silence. Nobody can explain why this happened. Nobody will help us solve this mystery as to why they decided not to honor a whole bunch of our brave men and women who protect us in so many ways all across this country. It is baffling to me that this is where we are. I began by telling a story, and let me end with telling a story. Mr. Speaker, I was here on January 6. I was in the Speaker's chair on January 6. I was the last person off the House floor. I saw everybody who was here in this Chamber, including some of my colleagues on the Republican side, cowering behind Capitol Police officers because they were afraid for their lives. It was a terrible, terrible day. Luckily, nobody here was injured, none of us, none of the Members of Congress or our staff. The Capitol Police protected us that day. I mean, we owe them our lives. Today, as we honor our national police, my Republican friends thought it was appropriate to remove them from the list of people being honored. I find that disgraceful. I can't even imagine what the thinking was to make that kind of decision. It is so insulting and so offensive to the people who protected us that day and protect us each and every day. I don't understand that. I can't get a response, but we know what is going on here. We know that they removed the Capitol Police and that they removed some of these Federal law enforcement agencies because they were afraid they were going to lose votes on their side, that some of their Members would not vote to honor all of our law enforcement officials. Let that sink in for a minute. This should have been a day of unity. This should have been a truly bipartisan endeavor to get us legislation to the floor that everybody could support, that we could all say thank you to our police. But, no, it is politicized. They get up here and start quoting people on defund the police, but they don't tell anybody that they voted to defund the police 2 weeks ago. It is public record. Every one of them did, including the gentleman who was down here screaming. He gets on the floor all the time and talks about the need that we have to better protect our border, yet the people who are charged with protecting our border were removed from the list of people we were honoring. This is not right by any measure. It is not right. I am so disappointed that my Republican friends have decided to politicize this. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect Social Security and Medicare, and I urge them to vote ``no'' on this rule. This is beneath this institution. This is not honoring our police. This is politicizing our police. This is saying to some of our police that we don't value their service. It is saying to the Capitol Police that we don't value their service. How dare anybody on the other side suggest that? How dare you bring a bill to the floor that does just that? This is sickening. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, one of the major reasons people get readmitted to the hospital is what is in their cabinet at home or, more notably, what isn't. A poor diet, combined with conditions like heart disease and diabetes, contributes to a staggering number of hospital readmissions every day. Finally, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is providing greater flexibility for those using and paying for medically tailored meals. For those too sick to cook, these prepared and delivered medically tailored meals often make all the difference. It has been a long road to get here. I have introduced legislation on this, launched the Food is Medicine Working Group, and uplifted organizations across America that prepare these meals. We still need to push for medically tailored meals to be a covered Medicare benefit, but this is great news and one of the many transformative changes stemming from last year's White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. It will make opening the pantry less painful for our neighbors and help end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we are about to debate H.R. 2, a horrible immigration bill that betrays our values, hurts our farmers, and makes it easier to put fentanyl on our streets. We are told it was rewritten in a back room in the Speaker's office. I have yet to see the rewrite. In fact, I haven't even heard a description of what was changed. I will say, for the record, from a process standpoint, this is as bad as it gets. My friends should be ashamed of themselves. But wait. There is even more. I wasn't planning to speak today, but I have to point out the ridiculous hypocrisy of what is going on. Republicans are here on the floor with straight faces acting like unemployment insurance fraud is one of the top problems in America. They ignore billionaires who pay no taxes, but they want us to believe there is an unemployment insurance crime spree, and so here we are. They are going after farmers and veterans. They are going after workers and families that needed help during the pandemic while, at the same time, a sitting member of the House Republican Conference was indicted in Federal court this morning for unemployment fraud. Let me repeat that. We have a Member of this body, a member of this Republican Conference, a key swing vote on their debt ceiling bill, a key swing vote to secure Kevin McCarthy's speakership who, this morning, was in Federal custody for--let me quote this from the indictment: ``Falsely claimed to have been unemployed'' while he was making $120,000 a year. I mean, is this a joke? George Santos allegedly stole almost $25,000 in unemployment benefits. Here is the part that you can't make up. This is too absurd to be true, but it is. Their bill defunds the program that catches people who commit this kind of fraud. I have a letter in front of me from the Department of Labor, which I will insert into the Record, that says, their bill defunds the program that helps them catch fraud. Now, maybe that is why George Santos cosponsored it. Of course he did. If this becomes law, maybe he would have gotten away with it. I think we should rename this the George Anthony Devolder Santos fraudster protection act. What is that old horror movie saying? The call is coming from inside the house. You are going after fraud, but the fraud is coming from inside the Republican Conference. Deal with that. Here is the bottom line: The modern GOP has become the party of corruption and crime. It is all about power for them. They put their own power above the people we represent. Their frontrunner for President is a sexual abuser and has been indicted for his illegal hush money payments to cover up his affair. They won't denounce it. Their key swing vote was in Federal custody for allegedly stealing unemployment benefits and lying to Congress, and they won't kick him out. They want to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, and they want to make it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes. Now they want to pass a bill that would make it easier for George Santos to get away with fraud. Forget honor. Forget principles. Forget integrity. All they care about is power at any cost. It is disgraceful, it is shameful, it is wrong, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's begin. We are dealing with this default on America bill. It is a doozy, even by the measurements that we judge this current majority in Congress. How did we get here? I will tell you how we got here. The process is lousy. It stinks. We heard promise after promise after promise about how great Republicans would be when they were in charge; about how open and transparent and fair things would be here. It is clear now that it was all a bunch of talk, all phony. They never meant any of it. There was no hearing, no markup, no amendments, no nothing. The CBO score came out 5 minutes before the hearing started. The manager's amendment released at 12:45 a.m. The Rules Committee met for 6 hours and then we adjourned until 11:30 p.m. Democrats sat waiting in an empty room for 45 minutes. We were told to come back at 1:45 in the morning. In the midnight seance that the Republicans conducted in the chairman's office, out comes this new language that is supposed to satisfy the extreme rightwing of the extreme rightwing. Basically, some of my Republican colleagues had an objection that the bill didn't screw people fast enough. Get this, after all their talk about how horrible the Inflation Reduction Act was, we find out that some of their Members actually love parts of the Inflation Reduction Act and demanded that we protect it, even if it meant changing the bill at 2 a.m. in the morning. Let me tell everyone else, in case you missed it--because some people go to sleep before 2 a.m.--this all happened at 2 a.m. Shhh. Secret. Speaker McCarthy said himself that you just can't throw something on the floor. Those were his words. But here we are and this bill is being thrown on the floor. Mr. Speaker, 25 of the 32 rules this Congress has done have been completely closed. The Rules Committee has allowed to the floor only 91 amendments so far. When I was in charge, at this point we had allowed to the floor 199 amendments. Mr. Speaker, 92 percent of all Democratic amendments have not been allowed to be debated. Republican Whip Tom Emmer told us yesterday that the bill was closed. It is not getting changed, he said. And then what did they do just a few hours later? They changed it. Mr. Speaker, I asked Chairman Smith last night in the Rules Committee if he liked the way this bill was being brought up. You know what he said to me? I am not in charge. Well, it is his committee. Who is in charge of whether or not they hold a hearing or a markup? Just as a lesson for our new Members who demanded more regular order, this is not it. I would like a single Republican to come down here and defend the process that was used here. I bet they won't because they cannot. Here we are debating this bill, the default on America act. We are happy to have a conversation on our spending priorities. Absolutely. We welcome that conversation. This isn't a conversation. They handed us a ransom note. They say that in order to agree to pay our bills for 1 year, we have to make 10 years of deep cuts that will hurt our constituents. This is a ransom note. Then what happens a year from now? What is next? Do you want our first-born children in exchange for paying the bills on time? Republicans have said that unless we screw regular people, working people, veterans, the environment--I could go right down the list-- unless we do that, Republicans are going to push this economy off a cliff, damaging our credit rating, crashing Wall Street, resulting in all kinds of job loss, and putting us into a recession. That is the choice they are giving us here today. Here is the deal, and this is what is really galling. Republicans are telling us that in order to get our fiscal house in order so we can pay our bills, not a single dollar can be saved at the Pentagon, that billionaires can't pay another cent in taxes. To get our fiscal house in order, we need to nickel-and-dime moms and dads, workers and veterans, and regular people. Billionaires and CEOs received trillions in tax cuts when Republicans were in charge. Trillions. They want to screw the people that I came to Congress to represent--it takes my breath away, Mr. Speaker--regular people, working people, the farmers, and the veterans. They want to kick people off healthcare. They want to cut funding to stop drugs from coming into America. They want to fire teachers, and they want to take food away from women, infants, and children. What is wrong with them, Mr. Speaker? I know my friend, Chairman Cole--and he is my friend--cares deeply about programs like Head Start. In his own State, this bill would cut 3,300 children off of Head Start. These are real kids for God's sake. Don't take my word for it. The National Head Start program says: Make no mistake, the current debt limit and budget legislation under consideration in the House of Representatives will cause irreparable damage to Head Start. It is not mathematically possible to make the cuts that they are talking about without hurting our own constituents. All this so that we can appease the extreme MAGA wing of the Republican Party. The contempt that so many on the other side of the aisle have for people who are poor, who are struggling, who are working hard but having trouble making ends meet because the other side won't even raise the minimum wage, it is stunning. Mr. Speaker, we have a bill loaded up with all these new work requirements and hurdles for people to jump through. It will result in people losing SNAP, losing Meals on Wheels benefits, losing assistance to pay for infants and children. Yet, there has not been a single hearing on this topic. Not one. Mr. Speaker, I asked: Who are these people in real life that you claim don't work who are on SNAP? Who are the people you are talking about? The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the Budget Committee gave me a blank stare. I asked: What is the average SNAP benefit? That is a pretty basic question if you feel strongly about this program. They had no idea. Not a clue. Not even a guess. Mr. Speaker, I asked: What is the average length that someone is on SNAP? They had no idea. This is not about substance or reality, Mr. Speaker. By the way, the average SNAP benefit per person per meal is about $2. The average time somebody is on the benefit is less than a year. This is not about substance or reality. The bottom line is if this is what the American people want, as the Republicans say--many of them kept saying it over and over in the Rules Committee, which I could not believe because I think most people in this country are horrified about what they are trying to do here--if they think that is what the American people want, then they should win the White House and win the Senate. They were supposed to win the House by a huge margin, but that red wave turned into a pink splash. I don't think you are going to be around in the leadership here much longer, quite frankly. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. America pays our bills. This is a ransom note. Republicans want to default on America, and all Democrats are asking for is that you listen to Trump. You know him. He is the guy you are all afraid of. He said: ``I can't imagine anybody ever even thinking of using the debt ceiling as a negotiation wedge. . . . That is a very, very sacred thing. . . . We could never play with it.'' That is the guy whom you are all afraid of. That is what he said. Listen to Speaker McCarthy in 2015: ``When the United States makes promises, it keeps them, which is why the House voted today to avoid the threat of a debt default.'' That was Speaker McCarthy. I guess he forgot. This is a simple, routine part of doing our job, something all of us should be able to get behind. If you want to have a conversation about spending priorities, that is the appropriations process or the budget process, but it is not holding our Nation hostage. It is not a ransom note. Don't default on America, Speaker McCarthy. Do your job. Do what you said we would do: keep America's promises. Don't mess around with the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report by The Balance titled: ``President Trump's Impact on the National Debt.'' [From the balance, Jan. 26, 2022] President Trump's Impact on the National Debt (By Kimberly Amadeo) The national debt increased by almost 36 percent during Trump's tenure. Republican candidate Donald Trump promised during the 2016 presidential campaign that he would eliminate the nation's debt in eight years. Instead, his budget estimates showed that he would actually add at least $8.3 trillion, increasing the U.S. debt to $28.5 trillion by 2025. But the national debt reached that figure much sooner. The national debt stood at $19.9 trillion when President Trump took office in January 2017, and it reached a high of $27 trillion in October 2020. The national debt reached another high of $28 trillion less than two months after President Trump left office. In December 2021, Congress then increased the debt limit by $2.5 trillion, to almost $31.4 trillion, as debt rose again under President Joe Biden. How Did the National Debt Increase? At first it seemed that Trump was lowering the debt. It fell $102 billion in the first six months after he took office. The debt was $19.9 trillion on Jan. 20, the day Trump was inaugurated. It was $19.8 trillion on July 30, thanks to the federal debt ceiling. Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling on Sept. 8, 2017. The debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in U.S. history later that day. Trump signed a bill on Feb. 9, 2018, suspending the debt ceiling until March 1, 2019. The total national debt was at $22 trillion by February 2019. Trump again suspended the debt ceiling in July 2019 until after the 2020 presidential election. The debt hit a record $27 trillion on Oct. 1, 2020 before reaching further peaks in 2021 that caused Congress to act again to raise the debt limit in December. Trump oversaw the fastest increase in the debt of any president, almost 36 percent from 2017 to 2020. Did President Trump Reduce the National Debt? Trump promised two strategies to reduce U.S. debt before taking office: He would increase growth by 4 percent to 6 percent, and he would eliminate wasteful federal spending. Increasing Growth Trump promised while on the campaign trail to grow the economy by 4 percent to 6 percent annuallv to increase tax revenues. Once in office, he lowered his growth estimates to between 2 percent and 3 percent. These more realistic projections are within the 2 percent to 3 percent healthy growth rate. President Trump also promised to achieve between 2 percent and 4 percent growth with tax cuts. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent beginning in 2018. The top individual income tax rate dropped to 37 percent. The TCJA doubled the standard deduction and eliminated personal exemptions. The corporate cuts are permanent, but the individual changes expire at the end of 2025. According to the Laffer curve, tax cuts only stimulate the economy enough to make up for lost revenue when the rates are above 50 percent . It worked during the Reagan administration because the highest tax rate was 70 percent at that time. Eliminating Wasteful Federal Spending Trump's second strategy was to eliminate waste and redundancy in federal spending. He demonstrated this cost- consciousness during his campaign when he used his Twitter account and rallies instead of expensive television ads. Trump was right that there is waste in federal spending. The problem isn't finding it. The problem is in cutting it. Each program has a constituency that lobbies Congress. Eliminating these benefits may lose voters and contributors. Congressional representatives may agree to cut spending in someone else's district, but they resist doing so on their own. More than two-thirds of government spending goes to mandatory obligations made by previous acts of Congress. Social Security benefits cost $1.2 trillion in Fiscal Year 2021. Medicare cost $722 billion, and Medicaid cost $448 billion. The interest on the debt was $378 billion. Military spending must also be cut to lower the debt because it's such a large portion of the budget. But Trump increased military spending in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 to $933 billion. That includes three components: $636 billion base budget for the Department of Defense $69 billion in overseas contingency operations for DoD to fight the Islamic State group $229 billion to fund the other agencies that protect our nation, including the Department of Veterans Affairs ($105 billion), Homeland Security ($50 billion), the State Department ($44 billion), the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy ($20 billion), and the FBI and Cybersecurity for the eDepartment of Justice ($10 billion) Only $595 billion was left to pay for everything else budgeted for FY 2021 after mandatory and military spending. That includes agencies that process Social Security and other benefits. It also includes the necessary functions performed by the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service. We'd have to eliminate it all to make a dent in the $966 billion deficit. You can't reduce the deficit or debt without major cuts to defense and mandated benefits programs. Cutting waste isn't enough. Did Trump's Business Debt Affect His Approach to U.S. Debt? Trump said in an interview with CNBC during his 2016 campaign that he would ``borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.'' But sovereign debt is different from personal debt. It can't be handled the same way. A 2016 Fortune magazine analysis revealed Trump's business was $1.11 billion in debt. That includes $846 million owed on five properties. These include Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, and 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York. It also includes the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., and 555 California Street in San Francisco. But the income generated by these properties easily pays their annual interest payment. Trump's debt is reasonable in the business world. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was 129 percent at the end of 2020. That's the $27.8 trillion U.S. debt as of December 2020, divided by the $21.5 trillion nominal GDP at the end of the second quarter this year. The World Bank compares countries based on their total debt-to-gross domestic product ratio. It considers a country to be in trouble if that ratio is greater than 77 percent. The high U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio didn't discourage investors. America is one of the safest economies in the world and its currency is the world's reserve currency. Investors purchase U.S. Treasurys in a flight to safety even during a U.S. economic crisis. That's one reason why interest rates plunged to historical lows in March 2020 after the coronavirus outbreak. Those falling interest rates meant that America's debt could increase, but interest payments remain stable. The U.S. also has a massive fixed pension expense and health insurance costs. A business can renege on these benefits, ask for bankruptcy, and weather the resulting lawsuits, but a president and Congress can't cut back those costs without losing their jobs at the next election. As such, Trump's experience in handling business debt did not transfer to managing the U.S. debt. How the National Debt Affects You The national debt doesn't affect you directly until it reaches the tipping point. It slows economic growth once the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 77 percent, for an extended period of time. Every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 0.017 percentage points in economic growth, according to a World Bank analysis. The first sign of trouble is when interest rates start to rise significantly. Investors need a higher return to offset the greater perceived risk. They start to doubt that the debt can be paid off. The second sign is that the U.S. dollar loses value. You will notice that as inflation rises, imported goods cost more. Gas and grocery prices rise. Travel to other countries also becomes much more expensive. The cost of providing benefits and paying the interest on the debt will skyrocket as interest rates and inflation rise. That leaves less money for other services. The government will be forced to cut services or raise taxes at that point. This will further slow economic growth. Continued deficit spending will no longer work at that point.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, talk about spending. The national debt increased by almost 36 percent from 2017 to 2020 during Trump's tenure. I say to the gentleman who just spoke--a lot of yelling here. The last time I heard that kind of tone was when he was yelling about the need to have more regular order here. I guess he has forgotten about that. Just because the gentleman yells doesn't mean he is right. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to debunk this talking point that I hear over and over again from my friends. I just heard it right now when we were talking about spending. Let's remember a couple of things. First, when Donald Trump was in charge, $8 trillion was added to the national debt. That is a 39-percent increase. It is one-quarter of the entire debt from all of American history. So, please, give me a break. Second, let's be clear: Inflation is a global problem. Mr. Speaker, if you think that the American Rescue Plan drove up prices in Italy or the U.K., then I have news for you. If you think emergency rescue checks are responsible for inflation in Brazil and Australia, maybe you got your economics degree from Trump University. That is not how things work. Don't take my word for it. Look at the numbers. Actually, look at the research. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Social Security Administration, which states that Republican spending cuts would eliminate field offices, drive up wait times for initial disability and retirement claims processing, lengthen phone wait times, and create backlogs across the board. Social Security Administration, The Commissioner, Baltimore, MD, March 17, 2023. Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member DeLauro: Thank you for your January 19, 2023 letter asking for information to help Members of Congress understand the impacts of capping fiscal year (FY) 2024 discretionary spending at the FY 2022 enacted level, which would be approximately a six percent cut from our FY 2023 enacted funding. Returning SSA to the FY 2022 funding level or, more drastically, cutting funds by 22 percent from the 2023 enacted level, would greatly harm our ability to serve the public as we are already struggling to recover from the effects of the pandemic. We are actively using the funding increase we received in FY 2023 to support our hiring efforts to increase staffing as we work to restore sufficient staffing from our lowest staffing levels in over 25 years, particularly in our field offices, teleservice centers, processing centers, and State disability determination services (DDS). Hiring new staff is necessary to improve major workload challenges that affect the public we serve, including people waiting far too long for a disability decision. Funding cuts of the magnitude described above would take us backwards and hurt our customers. If we return to FY 2022 funding levels in FY 2024, we would: Close field offices and shorten hours we are open to the public, cutting off vital access to face-to-face service delivery. Increase the amount of time individuals wait for a decision on their initial disability claim, leading to an average wait time of 9 months, or up to 30 percent longer than today. Implement a hiring freeze for the agency and the DDS, which means a reduction of over 5,000 employees who are essential to processing retirement claims, making disability decisions, answering the National 800 Number, and issuing new and replacement Social Security cards. Furlough staff for over 4 weeks and lay off approximately 6,000 employees--producing even longer wait times than customers experience today on our National 800 Number and in our field offices, causing delays to decisions on retirement claims and delays in processing Social Security cards and verification of Social Security Numbers for individuals seeking employment. Eliminate overtime pay, reducing our ability to keep pace with claims and other service requests. As noted above, a cut to FY 2022 levels (a six percent cut below current funding) would significantly affect our ability to serve the public and undermine our core mission--producing longer wait times for benefits and to reach SSA representatives, as well as reduced access to in-person service. Congress expressed an expectation for continued modernization of our IT by providing dedicated funding for this purpose. A six percent reduction would support IT funding only for basic operational requirements and would halt our efforts to improve the customer experience, expand our online services, and enhance our systems to improve employee efficiency. We would have to drastically cut IT at a time when we need it to help mitigate other cuts like office hour reductions, a hiring freeze, and layoffs. The impacts would be even more significant with deeper cuts. If we are faced with a cut of more than six percent, it would be catastrophic for the agency and for the people depending on Social Security programs supporting their daily needs. For every $100 million below the 6 percent reduction, we would have to lay off an additional 1,000 people, further undermining services to the public. Every 1,000 staff lay off is the equivalent of closing over 40 field offices. Cuts on this scale would dramatically undermine our ability to function effectively. It would cut in-person access to our field offices, drive up wait times for initial disability and retirement claims processing, lengthen phone wait times, prohibit development of online tools to compensate for the difficulties to reach us by phone and in-person, and create backlogs across the board. It would take years to recover and restore services to levels the public expects. Millions of Americans depend on Social Security programs to provide income support essential to meeting daily needs, and significant budget cuts prohibit us from providing people with access to vital support. The payments and benefits our programs provide are integral to the economic fabric of our Nation. We appreciate the opportunity to explain the harm a return to FY 2022 funding levels or less would cause for the public we serve, as well as our employees. Sincerely, Kilolo Kijakazi, Ph.D., M.S.W., Acting Commissioner.

Mr. McGOVERN. Republicans are trying to make it harder for seniors to access the benefits that they have earned. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, then I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that allows the House to state unequivocally that it is our responsibility to defend and preserve Social Security and Medicare for generations to come and reject any cuts to these vital programs. By the way, these two programs have come under attack by Republican after Republican. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am a little confused after the last speech. Mr. Speaker, with the way the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my friend, has been talking, you might think that President Biden caused inflation all on his own. That is just simply not the case, and everybody here knows that. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the nonpartisan, nonprofit Economic Policy Institute titled: ``Rising Inflation is a Global Problem, U.S. Policy Choices Are Not to Blame.'' [From the Economic Policy Institute, Aug. 4, 2022] Rising Inflation is a Global Problem. U.S. Policy Choices Are Not to Blame (By Josh Bivens, Asha Banerjee, And Mariia Dzholos) key takeaways An international comparison among OECD countries shows that rising inflation is a global phenomenon, not unique to the United States. This fact argues strongly that high inflation in the U.S. has not been driven by any unique American policy--not the American Rescue Plan and other generous fiscal relief during the pandemic recession and recovery nor anything else U.S.- centric. Some have argued that the global rise of inflation means that many countries--including the U.S.--overstimulated their economies and generated excess aggregate demand. But this explanation is not supported by the data. The countries with larger declines in unemployment over the past 18 months have not seen larger inflation spikes. Consumer price data for June 2022 showed another month of rapid inflation, with overall inflation rising 9.1 percent year-over-year and core inflation (which doesn't include volatile energy and food prices) rising by 5.9 percent. This level of inflation has obviously become a major political issue this year. But however this issue resonates politically, as an economic matter a common narrative that blames the Biden administration and its policy choices for causing the inflation is deeply misleading. This is not simply a case for exonerating the Biden administration's choices--how the recent inflationary outbreak is interpreted will have huge consequences for how policymakers respond. A loud chorus of economic analysts and influential policymakers continue highlighting the need for the Federal Reserve to continue raising interest rates sharply to slow growth to ``rein in'' inflation. This approach risks terrible consequences and threatens to cast aside the amazing policy achievement of a full jobs recovery from the pandemic recession. In the COVID-19 recession, the economy lost over 22 million jobs. But by June 2022 (after 28 months), the level of employment in the U.S. matched the last month pre-pandemic (February 2020). Compare this with job growth after the Great Recession of 2008-09, when it took more than six years (75 months) to regain the just under 9 million jobs lost and match pre-recession employment levels. The far faster recovery from the COVID-19 recession was significantly driven by a much more aggressive fiscal policy response. This more aggressive fiscal response is often blamed for the inflation outbreak over the past 18 months. The most persuasive evidence casting doubt on this interpretation is a comparison of inflation between the U.S. and a large set of other rich countries that undertook a wide array of fiscal responses. Despite the different fiscal responses, essentially all of these countries have experienced a rapid acceleration of core inflation. This means that today's inflation is not a uniquely U.S. problem, and therefore not connected to the necessary and effective economic policies that spearheaded the rapid economic recovery we see today. In Figure A, we focus on core inflation (stripping out the prices of energy and food) because that is widely considered a better target for basing decisions about macroeconomic stabilization. Energy and food prices are not just volatile, they are also set on global markets, meaning that their price changes carry very little information about whether the U.S. economy specifically is currently experiencing macroeconomic imbalances. It's also useful to highlight core inflation because much commentary has claimed that inflation in other advanced economies is overwhelmingly about energy and food prices, and far less about core prices. This claim is not supported by the data in Figure A. As Figure A shows, all but one Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country saw an acceleration in core inflation. More significantly, this international comparison tells us that the U.S. is not an outlier in its experience with accelerating core inflation (the one obvious outlier in this data--Turkey--is currently experiencing inflation over 40 percent and is not included in the figure). The U.S. is on the higher side of inflation experiences, but far from the top and not that far above the average (or even the median) for all other OECD countries. The upshot of the figure is clear: A global phenomenon-- accelerating inflation--demands a global explanation, and ``Biden policies'' obviously do not provide that. Some have argued that the global rise in inflation is actually just evidence that the excess demand growth they see as driving inflation is also global. Of course, even this perspective provides some small bit of exoneration for American policymakers: if every advanced country in the entire world made similar policy decisions, then it seems hard to argue that the American approach was an avoidable mistake. But, another cut at the international data casts doubt on a simple story of macroeconomic imbalances driving the global inflation surge. Specifically, countries with larger declines in unemployment over the past 18 months have not seen larger inflation spikes. In Figure B below, the vertical axis is the acceleration of core inflation relative to pre-pandemic trend that we showed previously in Figure A. On the horizontal axis, we subtract the average unemployment rate of March-May 2022 from the average unemployment rate that prevailed in 2018-2019. This can be taken as an indicator of how much unemployment has improved in a country in the recent period relative to pre-pandemic conditions. The higher the number on the horizontal axis, the lower is current unemployment relative to pre-pandemic averages. If one interprets unemployment that is lower today than pre-pandemic times as evidence of strong demand growth, one would expect to see a positive relationship between the improvement in unemployment (horizontal axis) and the acceleration of inflation (vertical axis). But there is no such significant relationship (in fact, there is a weak relationship the other way, with countries with higher unemployment relative to pre- pandemic times seeing higher inflation). This finding should further complicate the claim that the ``macroeconomic overheating'' argument should simply be applied globally. And if there is not strong evidence that today's global inflation is simply driven by excess global demand, the payoff to strongly reining in demand could be quite small, and the damage caused by this quite large. Rather than the specific policies of the Biden administration driving inflation, the roots of today's inflation are a more complicated cocktail of other forces: from the spike in raw material, energy, and commodities prices due in large part to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to lingering supply chain disruptions and distorted consumer demand patterns stemming from the pandemic. These shocks and their unexpectedly large ripple effects are the global explanation for rising inflation. Again, this is not an academic exercise or simply providing political cover for any particular policymaker. Instead, there is real economic danger from misdiagnosing the inflation problem. An engineered, unnecessary recession will only cause more economic pain to those still just recovering from the COVID-19 recession, and will undercut the strong economic recovery underway.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to go grocery shopping, some Americans walk down the block or drive a few miles to the store. But for those living in food apartheids, their experience is different. I call them food apartheids, instead of food deserts, because deserts are naturally formed. There is nothing natural about food apartheid. It is manmade. It happens on purpose, often influenced by systemic racism. Earlier this week, I was in Leominster, Massachusetts, to unveil a new food truck and refrigerated van for the Spanish American Center, a nonprofit with deep roots in the area, to make it easier to bring nutritious and culturally appropriate meals to everyone in the community. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to secure $110,000 in Federal funding for this project. We should continue to increase Federal investments in our local antihunger infrastructure to help those who have a short trip to the grocery store and especially those who do not. We should do all we can to end hunger now.