Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics which states that Speaker McCarthy's radical cuts would meaningfully increase the likelihood of a recession and result in 780,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2024 compared with a clean bill to avoid a default. [From Moody's Analytics] The Debt Limit Drama Heats Up (By Mark Zandi and Bernard Yaros) The political drama over the Treasury debt limit is suddenly heating up. With April tax receipts coming in weaker than expected, at least so far, it appears that the X-date, when the Treasury will run out of the cash needed to pay the government's bills on time, may hit as soon as early June. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's recent unveiling of proposed legislation to increase the limit is thus none too soon. In exchange for increasing the debt limit just enough so that it will not be a problem again until about this time next year, the Speaker wants to significantly cut discretionary spending over the next decade, impose stricter work requirements on healthcare, food and other assistance for low-income households, and roll back much of the Biden's administration's agenda on climate change and student lending. In this note, we assess the macroeconomic consequences of the Speaker's debt limit legislation. The X-date The Treasury debt limit--the maximum amount of debt that the Treasury can issue to the public or to other federal agencies--was hit on January 19, and since then the Treasury has been using ``extraordinary measures'' to come up with the additional cash needed to pay the government's bills. Nailing down precisely when these extraordinary measures will be exhausted, and Treasury will run out of cash and thus be unable to pay everyone on time--the so-called X-date--is difficult. It depends on the timing of highly uncertain tax receipts and government expenditures. Since Moody's Analytics began estimating the X-date early this year, we have thought it to be in mid-August. But April tax receipts are running 35 percent below last year's pace, which is meaningfully weaker than anticipated. And despite weaker tax refunds than anticipated, it appears that the X- date may come as soon as early June. If not, and Treasury is able to squeak by with enough cash, then the X-date looks more likely to be in late July. That is because Treasury will get a cash infusion from non-withheld tax payments around the June 15 estimated tax deadline, and then another tranche of extraordinary measures will become available, providing Treasury with a few more weeks of cash. Investors take notice Regardless, time is running out for lawmakers to act and increase or suspend the debt limit, and global investors are suddenly focusing on the risks posed if they do not act in time. Credit default swaps on Treasury securities--the cost of buying insurance in case Treasury fails to pay its debt on time--have jumped in recent weeks. At close to 100 basis points, CDS spreads on six-month and one-year Treasury securities are already substantially more than in 2011 when that debt limit drama was so unnerving it caused rating agency Standard & Poor's to strip the U.S. of its AAA rating. This may overstate investors' angst as the CDS market for buying insurance in the case of a Treasury default is not actively traded, and it does not take much trading to push up the cost of insurance. A few hedge funds speculating on the CDS could drive up the cost since they are purchasing something akin to a lottery ticket. Moreover, the current spread remains far from signaling that investors are attaching much of a probability on a default. For context, during the European debt crisis in 2011, the CDS spread on the sovereign debt of stressed countries in the periphery of the euro zone, including Greece, topped out at 1,400 basis points. Even the CDS for core euro zone countries such as Germany and France were more than 200 basis points at the time. That said, the run up in Treasury CDS should not be dismissed out of hand. The recent sharp decline in one-month Treasury bill yields also signals mounting investor angst. As it has become clear in recent days that April tax receipts were coming in weak and the X-date may be just a few weeks away, investors have piled into the safety of one-month Treasury securities. Yields have plummeted, from 4.75 percent at the start of April to less than 3.4 percent currently. At the same time, yields on three-month Treasury bills have continued to rise. The difference between one- and three- month Treasury bill yields has never been as wide. Global investors thus appear to be attaching non-zero odds that the debt limit drama will end with a default sometime in June or July. House Republican proposal It is thus none too soon that House Speaker McCarthy unveiled the ``Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023'' on April 19. House Republicans hope the legislation will put political pressure on President Biden to negotiate changes in fiscal policy in exchange for an increase in the debt limit. The president continues to reject these efforts, arguing for a so-called clean debt limit increase--an increase in the debt limit without substantive changes to policy. His position is that increasing the debt limit is necessary to pay the government's bills resulting from past fiscal policy decisions, over which there can be no negotiation. Speaker McCarthy's proposed legislation would increase the debt limit by $1.5 trillion or until March 31, 2024, whichever comes first. In exchange, it would cut government spending by $4.5 trillion over the next decade and implement a number of consequential changes to fiscal policy. The most significant spending cuts would come by setting fiscal 2024 discretionary spending equal to fiscal 2022 spending levels. Annual spending growth would then be capped at 1 percent for the next decade. While not stipulated in the legislation, Republicans would likely work to exclude discretionary spending on defense and veterans' benefits from the cuts, putting the burden of the cuts on nondefense, non-VA discretionary programs. If nondefense discretionary outlays were to bear the full brunt of the proposed budget cuts, they would fall to 2 percent of GDP by fiscal 2033, the lowest since at least the early 1960s. The Speaker's debt limit legislation also works to roll back a number of President Biden's policy initiatives. On energy policy, the legislation would focus on increasing fossil fuel supplies through the enactment of House Republicans' energy package, which aims to boost oil and gas production and mining by cutting down on the time it takes to greenlight energy projects. It would also end tax breaks for clean-energy projects and qualifying electric vehicles included in the Inflation Reduction Act. On student lending, the legislation would prevent a couple of key executive orders by the Biden administration, including the White House's plan to provide up to $20,000 in student loan forgiveness for some borrowers. That hit a roadblock last year when it was met with several legal challenges, and the Supreme Court is expected to decide its fate later this year. An income-driven repayment plan rolled out by the Education Department earlier this year is also in the crosshairs. The Speaker's legislation also imposes restrictions on income support programs, including work requirements on Medicaid recipients who do not have children, an increase in the age limit for work rules under Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food assistance), and a requirement that states report on work outcomes under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. It eliminates much of the additional funding provided to the IRS last year to help increase tax enforcement efforts and improve taxpayer services, and it rescinds unspent COVID-19 relief funds. And the legislation would also require congressional approval before major regulations could take effect. macroeconomic impacts The Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023 would cut into near-term economic growth if passed into law. Compared with a scenario that includes a clean debt limit increase and no other significant changes to fiscal policy under current law, real GDP in the year ending in the fourth quarter of 2024 would be 0.65 percentage point lower. That is, in the Clean Debt Limit scenario, real GDP is expected to grow 2.25 percent in the year compared with 1.6 percent if Speaker McCarthy's legislation becomes law. While the economy skirts recession in both scenarios, recession risks are uncomfortably high, with a consensus of economists and many investors and business executives expecting a downturn beginning late this year or early next. The timing of the government spending cuts in the Limit, Save, Grow Act is thus especially inopportune as it would meaningfully increase the likelihood of such a downturn. Indeed, under the legislation, GDP growth is so weak that employment declines in the first three quarter of 2024, and the unemployment rate rises by more than a percentage point to 4.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2024. Compared with the Clean Debt Limit scenario, by year-end 2024, employment is 780,000 jobs lower, and the unemployment rate is 0.36 percentage point higher. The significant government spending cuts in the Limit, Save, Grow Act are substantial headwinds to near-term economic growth. The cuts reduce nondefense outlays by $120 billion in fiscal 2024 compared with the Clean Debt Limit scenario, equal to about half a percentage point of GDP. The multipliers on this spending--the change in GDP a year after a change in spending--are estimated to be just over 1, as the programs suffering budget cuts are essential government services and tend to benefit lower-income households that quickly spend any support they receive from the government. Adding to the economic headwinds created by the legislation is the considerable uncertainty created by having to address the debt limit again a year from now. Given that 2024 is a presidential election year, that future debt limit drama may well be even more heated than the current one. This is sure to weigh on investor, business and consumer confidence and thus economic activity.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, extortion is not a negotiation. President Biden actually has a budget that will reduce the deficit. It would be better if the Republicans actually came up with a budget, and we could talk about that. We are willing to have a conversation, but we are not willing to be extorted here. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the fact that this bill could monumentally hurt our Nation's heroes. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Paralyzed Veterans of America and a letter from the Veterans of Foreign Wars in opposition to this bill. [From the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Apr. 25, 2023] Congress, Protect All Services and Programs Needed by Paralyzed Veterans and Their Families Washington, D.C.--Today, Paralyzed Veterans of America Executive Director Carl Blake issued a statement in light of the House' consideration later today of the debt limit package (Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023). ``Right now the House of Representatives is preparing to take action on legislation that would couple raising the debt limit with significant cuts in federal spending. PVA has received assurances from some Republican leaders that veterans' funding will not be a target of these cuts, and we appreciate these assurances! But the pending legislation provides no specific protections for veterans with catastrophic disabilities, specifically the services and supports they and their families depend on. Efforts to address the federal deficit must provide concrete protections for veterans, their families, and caregivers, which means explicit direction that the Department of Veterans Affairs' budget will not suffer significant cuts. Although ensuring the VA will have the funding needed to meet its fiscal year 2024 needs is our foremost concern, we urge Congress to remember that veterans with significant disabilities depend upon many other Federal services and supports outside of the VA that protect their disability civil rights, employment support, affordable accessible housing, as well as provide benefits that help their families and caregivers. Our responsibility as a nation is to ensure that those who have already sacrificed so much for our way of life are not forced to do so again.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is clear our veterans are against this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, what we have heard on the floor today is incredible, astounding, unbelievable, unconscionable contempt for the people that we are supposed to be here to fight for. When people tell me that both parties are the same, that both parties are equally bad or believe the same things, watch this debate and then tell me what you think. Democrats have different values than Republicans. They have no problem racking up $2 trillion in debt when it comes to tax giveaways for Wall Street and CEOs. Nobody on the other side is talking about having billionaires pay one cent toward reducing our deficit. Maybe that is why Speaker McCarthy went to Wall Street to announce his plans essentially to screw Main Street. Now they want to demand--and I say demand because this is a ransom note--demand 10 years of cuts unless we stick it to our own constituents, unless we take away food from hungry people, unless we kick people off of healthcare. They didn't win the Senate, they didn't win the White House, and they didn't win a big majority as they wanted in the House. To get what they want, they want to default on America so they can push through their radical MAGA agenda. I have to be honest with you. I was disgusted by the debate in the Rules Committee last night and even what has been said here on the floor today. This is unconscionably bad. This is not who we are. If you want to have a discussion on the debt, let's have that discussion, but this is an extortion. You are saying if we don't agree to all these draconian cuts that are going to hurt people that we fight for every day on this side of the aisle, if we don't do that, you are going to run this economy off a cliff. That is just an all-time high in recklessness and stupidity, Madam Speaker. We cannot accept that. The people we represent are the people who will be impacted by these cuts that I just mentioned by including in the Record all of the letters from the various agencies in our government. Those are our people. Billionaires don't need us, but regular people do. People who are struggling to put food on the table are counting on us to be on their side, not to be making their life more complicated or more difficult. Yet, this represents kind of the antithesis of everything that I believe is right. This is so wrong. It is so wrong. I am not going to sit back and say, oh, well, let the process work its will, and maybe it won't be so bad at the end of the day. This is bad. This is unconscionable. This is not deserving of a vote on the House floor today. People should reject it. I urge my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Reject this. You represent these same people too. They deserve to have you on their side, not working against them. Wall Street, they have enough support. They have enough people rooting for them to succeed. Regular people, people who are struggling in poverty, they need us. They are counting on us. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the previous question, and ``no'' on the underlying resolution. We have to do better than this. This is beneath the dignity of this institution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my good friend from Oklahoma said that we are engaged in theatrics. Well, let me put that to rest. I mean, we are dealing with real numbers. Last night in the Rules Committee, I asked the chairman of Ways and Means and the chairman of the Budget Committee some basic questions about the SNAP program. They had no clue. People who don't have a clue shouldn't be writing legislation to determine policy. They should do the hearings and learn about what the facts are. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following: A letter from the Department of Energy, which states that reductions of this magnitude in this bill would have significant setbacks on U.S. competitiveness to adversarial nations like Russia and China; A letter from the Department of Labor which states that these cuts in this bill would prevent more than 4,000 veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness from receiving critical employment care; A letter from the Department of Education, which states that under these radical cuts, funding for more than 100,000 teaching jobs nationwide would be eliminated, and it would reduce aid for more than 6.6 million Pell Grant recipients; A letter from the Small Business Administration, which states that Republican spending cuts would mean that almost 300,000 fewer small businesses would be able to participate in their entrepreneurial development program; A letter from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which states that 286,000 families will lose rental assistance under the Republicans' proposed budget cuts and thousands more would be at risk for homelessness; A letter from the Department of Homeland Security, which states that the proposed cuts could lead to more illegal drugs entering our country, including 350,000 grams of fentanyl. That is over 200 million fatal doses of fentanyl that Republicans will be responsible for letting into our country. Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the Department of Agriculture detailing how these radical Republican budget cuts would lead to more than a million new mothers losing WIC assistance. The Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC, March 17, 2023. Hon. Rosa L. DeLauro, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative DeLauro: I share the concern expressed in your letter dated January 19, 2023, about potential impacts of proposals that would cap fiscal year (FY) 2024 discretionary spending at the FY 2022 enacted levels. While Congressional Republicans have not released a specific plan, cuts on this scale would have very real and damaging impacts on our families, our communities, our economy, and our competitiveness--undermining a broad range of critical services the American people rely on in their everyday lives. President Biden's FY 2024 Budget, which he released on March 9, details his plans to invest in America, continue to lower costs for families, protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and reduce the deficit. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans have reportedly proposed unprecedented cuts in FY 2024 funding for key services, programs, and protections such as education, public safety, research, nutrition and more. Such action would have serious consequences for Department of Energy programs and initiatives at the Federal, state, Tribal, and local levels, and would jeopardize recent bipartisan gains targeted at improving the lives of everyday Americans. Impacts would be felt across the country and could rise to the level of jeopardizing the Department's ability to do its part in protecting national security interests from energy security and nuclear security threats. Capping funding at this level would also hamper our ability to cut energy costs for families and businesses across the country, reduce the number of everyday Americans that can access tax breaks for clean energy, and reduce the impact of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Specific examples of potential impacts are listed below. Scenario l. Across-the-board cap on FY 2024 discretionary spending at FY 2022 levels. Example impacts are listed below: A reduction to FY 2022 funding levels would delay all National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) major construction projects of at least one year, increasing operational risks and the likelihood of cost increases. The FY 2022 funding level represents a \1/3\ reduction from planned execution in FY 2024. The W93 and W87-1 warhead modernization programs would be delayed at least 1-2 years, with significant risks for the aging U.S. stockpile, DoD plans for delivery system modernization, and U.S. support for the United Kingdom's Replacement Warhead. Hundreds of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy research projects and 2-3 large infrastructure projects at national labs would be cancelled or paused, resulting in up to one thousand (1,000) layoffs within the labs, partner organizations, and the local construction and support workforce across the country. This would negatively impact the ability of the national laboratories to continue to advance cutting edge research. Scenario 2. Across-the-board 22 percent reduction to current enacted funding levels (FY 2023) for FY 2024. Example impacts of this scenario are listed below. Scenario 1 impacts would also be intensified: At a minimum, research at Office of Science national laboratories and universities would be reduced by about $700 million, resulting in substantial reduction of nearly 5,200 scientists, students, and technical staff. Many of the Administration research priorities would receive significantly less funding resulting in curtailed research efforts in the areas of Climate Change; Artificial Intelligence; High Performance Computing; emerging technologies in Quantum Information Science, Microelectronics, and Biotechnology; Fusion Energy; and Isotope Production. At a minimum, Office of Science facility operations funding would be reduced, resulting in only 68 percent of operational funding and a substantial reduction of over 6,000 users of the over 38,000 annual users at the 28 scientific user facilities across the national laboratories. All facilities would have a significant reduction in force of personnel, with loss of critical expertise. A review would be required to determine which facilities to close to maintain adequate operations at the remaining user facilities. Facilities cannot operate safely at this funding level. This action would result in major economic impact to the United States, both in the short-term and in the long- term as the U.S. will be subject to loss of scientific talent and leadership. At a minimum, thousands of low-income households (anywhere from 4,400-8,800) would be deferred from weatherization services, and reductions in state energy programs more broadly would limit efforts to cut energy costs for families and businesses, disproportionately affecting smaller states and US territories. Reductions of this magnitude would have significant setbacks of U.S. geopolitical competitiveness to adversarial nations like Russia and China. This would include the reduction of the Idaho National Laboratory operational status to the minimal allowable for safe and secure support of DOE and national security programs and research. It would also include elimination of all efforts to support the deployment of American nuclear energy technologies as the preferred alternative to Russian and Chinese technologies in countries looking to implement large scale power sources. These are a few examples of the serious impacts of these scenarios on ongoing efforts by the Department in the areas of national security, safety of critical infrastructure, threats to the Nation's competitive edge, and impacts on consumers and industry. Sincerely, Jennifer M. Granholm.

Mr. McGOVERN. These are actual numbers. These are real statistics compiled by real experts. When we talk about the fact that no one needs to worry about what is being debated here, this is why we are worried. This is the impact of what they are trying to do. What they are trying to do will hurt regular people, will hurt veterans, will hurt people who are struggling to put food on the table, will hurt teachers, will hurt the people that we represent. It will hurt children. This is unconscionable, what is going on here. We cannot just sit by while everybody on the other side says: Oh, don't worry, be happy. It will all just work out. No, it won't. We don't share these values of these cuts. We have a separate set of values if my friends think that it is okay to cut these programs and hurt these people. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting to support H. Res. 311 today. We all support our ally Israel and recognize our long-standing alliance on Israel's 75th Anniversary. I cast my vote, however, with some misgivings. There is nothing particularly problematic about this resolution, but there is a problem with what it does not say. I spent a week in Israel in February, and I saw first-hand the momentous crisis facing Israel--a crisis of democracy, a human rights crisis, and an international crisis. Israel's democratic crisis, including deliberate attempts to undermine the Supreme Court and an independent judiciary, has brought hundreds of thousands of ordinary Israeli citizens to take to the streets in protest. The human rights crisis includes the steady deterioration of the basic human rights of Arab Israelis and of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza brought about by deliberate decisions, policies, and actions by Israeli authorities. As a result, there is mounting alarm, criticism, and condemnation of Israel in the international community by governments, NGOs, and civil society. Mr. Speaker, this resolution ignores the reality on the ground. This resolution ignores the damage that the current extremist government is accelerating inside Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza. For the first time that I can remember, a resolution celebrating Israel's anniversary is being brought before the House without mention of congressional support for a two-state solution. I honor Israel's remarkable history on its 75th Anniversary, but unlike this resolution, I cannot be deaf, blind, and mute to the current challenge to Israel's democracy, the suffering of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, the terrorism that continues to fester in the region, and the fragility of any remaining possibility for a negotiated two-state solution. I urge my colleagues, regardless of how they might vote on this resolution, not to abandon a two-state solution and to work together in support of peace, human dignity, and democracy for Israel and the Palestinian people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the world is confronting an unprecedented food security crisis. The World Food Program reports that a record 349 million people across 79 countries face acute food insecurity. The COVID-19 pandemic flattened economies, fractured supply chains, and caused huge spikes in inflation. Then came Russia's invasion of Ukraine, one of the world's most important breadbaskets. During Global Child Nutrition Month, I am not just hopeful that tackling these challenges is possible; I am confident that we can. That is because the U.S. Government, our farmers, and NGOs have responded to the crisis with historic investments, expanding global food, nutrition, and agricultural programs, including Food For Peace, McGovern-Dole, Feed the Future, USAID's nutrition, maternal and child health programs, and the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to turn on the news and become overwhelmed, but the U.S. has not only been ready to provide support to those who are hungry, we have been at the forefront. Each of these proven programs deserves our support, and I call upon my colleagues to increase funding for these programs in the annual appropriations bills. There are lives in the balance. We can end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, our Rules Committee meeting last night was an embarrassment. Republicans went on and on about locker rooms, the same creepy stereotypes they leaned on when they tried to stop gay marriage. They went on and on about fairness, but no mention of the unfairness girls' sports teams face when it comes to unequal resources, unequal pay, and unequal treatment. They went on and on about safety, but no mention of the number one reason America's schools are unsafe: gun violence. Our kids are being slaughtered, for God's sake. Does anybody on the other side even care? Republicans claimed trans people don't even exist, which makes me wonder why they wasted all our time on their creepy obsession with controlling the lives of people they think aren't even real. Republicans now believe Congress--Congress--should be empowered to pick and choose which kids should be allowed to play on the soccer team. You can't make this stuff up. What is next? A bill about who can play together at recess? Republican hypocrisy is breathtaking. Republicans want to ban trans kids from sports, but they won't ban child marriage in States like West Virginia and Tennessee. The same party systematically taking away women's reproductive rights across the country, the same party that won't lift a finger as our kids are massacred in our schools, that takes NRA blood money instead of addressing an actual problem like gun violence, now wants to use protecting girls as their sick excuse for targeting trans kids. Enough is enough. Stop the fearmongering. The truth is that this bill would mean more trans kids, already vulnerable as it is, would be bullied, beaten, and killed. It would deprive trans kids of the opportunity to learn about teamwork, discipline, and sportsmanship. Finally, let me just say that the trans community deserves so much better than this. I hope they know that they have allies in Congress and across the country who care about them and who will fight for them. It shouldn't be a radical idea to respect people for who they are, and it shouldn't be a radical idea to love people for who they are. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop the lies, stop the bigotry, stop the hate. Leave kids alone. I urge a ``no'' vote on this awful, rotten rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, every day across America, millions of seniors take their medicines on an empty stomach. They are hungry, on a fixed income, can't drive--and their fridges, pocketbooks, and wallets are empty. If they are lucky, they have people like Janice Pierce and Maggie Woodward in their corner. Last week, I joined Janice and Maggie to deliver meals to seniors in Oakham, Massachusetts. They are one of thousands of Meals on Wheels chapters in America. Experts tell us that seniors who are hungry are more likely to get sick and be admitted to the hospital. Mr. Speaker, programs like Meals on Wheels aren't nice; they are a necessity. While they do good work, America's seniors shouldn't have to get lucky. Their health outcomes shouldn't be determined by whether heroes like Janice and Maggie live around the corner. Congress needs to strengthen, not cut, programs like Meals on Wheels, as some of my Republican friends are proposing. In the richest country in the history of the world, our seniors deserve no less.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider a rule for H.R. 1, a bill that might as well be called the polluters over people act. It is yet another example of how this majority, instead of helping everyday Americans, is doing the bidding of their deep-pocketed friends. We had another mass shooting yesterday, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of the gun lobby. We had another train derailment this week, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of the polluters. Our planet is on fire, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of Big Oil. Banks are going under, but Republicans want to deregulate more to help their friends on Wall Street. They want to protect kids from what teachers teach in the classroom but not against lead pipes in schools. They say they want to stop inflation but won't go after the billionaire corporations who aren't paying any taxes while they rip people off. Time after time after time, Republicans continue to put politics over people, and it shows. Anyone who spends 2 seconds reading this bill can see that it is a dirty energy, pro-polluter plan that would drag our economy back decades. This bill puts polluters over people. It makes it easier for companies to strip public lands of their resources and harder to hold corporate polluters accountable for the mess they make. It gives more handouts to Big Oil, as if the industry's CEOs and shareholders haven't already raked in enough money with record profits over the last few years. It guts half a century of environmental protections that ensure the air we breathe and the water we drink is clean, and it sets our country back as the rest of the world moves toward a clean energy future. There will be plenty of time for us to talk about all the damage the polluters over people act could do to our country and communities, but let me just highlight a few of the worst. First, it increases the national deficit by half a billion dollars. Considering how much we hear from our colleagues across the aisle about the deficit and the deficit and the deficit, it is fascinating that their most important bill blows a hole in the deficit. So much for their commitment to fiscal discipline. Don't take my word for it, just consult the CBO. It is a little bit ironic on a day that they are asking that there be dramatic cuts in all kinds of programs that help people in this country, they come up with this bill and add close to a half a billion dollars to our deficit. Second, it is a job killer. This bill will kill jobs. Over the last few years, Democrats have invested in building a homegrown, clean energy system so we don't have to rely on foreign cartels like OPEC and greedy Big Oil companies for our energy. Investing in these clean energy projects meant we created millions of clean energy jobs. The polluters over people act would kill these jobs and pull our country off course from our path toward a cleaner, cheaper energy future. Third, it makes it easier to pollute, and it makes it easier for companies to get away with polluting. Just yesterday, a local grandfather in East Palestine, Ohio, detailed the pain caused by the terrible toxic spill there. He said he has ``never cried this much in his life.'' His young granddaughters developed blotches all over their bodies, and their eyes were burning. This bill would mean more billionaire corporations getting away with polluting without being held accountable, more wells with toxic chemicals, more days where windows are shut because the air is not safe to breathe, more kids diagnosed with asthma because the air quality is so poor. The worst part is that the Republicans do not care. Their bill literally puts polluters over the people we are here to serve. It forces American taxpayers to foot the bill for cleanup while billionaire corporations dump their toxic waste on our communities. This is sick. Look at what is happening to our planet, Mr. Speaker. Year after year, the warmest ever recorded; species going extinct at rates not seen in millions of years; sea levels rising and coastal communities feeling the impact; farmers struggling to cope with changing seasons, unprecedented droughts, and crop failures. The answer from my Republican friends is more fossil fuels, more pollution, more drilling, more toxic waste dumped into our communities, more giveaways for Big Oil, and nothing, not a single thing, to lower energy prices. This bill might as well put ExxonMobil and Chevron in charge of our response to climate change. It might as well put Norfolk Southern in charge of chemical safety. It is a terrible bill that will shackle us to dirty fossil fuels for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues seem to want to debate energy policy in China and in Sri Lanka. That may be a fascinating topic, but that is not what we are here debating. We are here debating energy policy in the United States of America. I don't want us to go down the path of more fossil fuels and reliance on more energy sources that are going to contribute to climate change. I want us to lead the world toward a greener and cleaner energy future. I guess the question really here is: Who do you trust? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, their argument is basically: Trust the big oil companies. Give them unfettered access. Give them more money and they will lower your prices. Really? They have the capacity to produce more now, but they are not, and they are gouging people at the pump. Does anybody believe that the CEOs of these big oil companies making record profits give a damn about average people in this country, about your constituents or my constituents? Give me a break. All they care about is profits. That is the question that people have to answer: Who do you trust? Do you trust the big oil companies? I certainly don't after the way they have behaved--not just recently, but over time. They gouge people all the time. The other stuff is fascinating, but we can talk about Sri Lanka at some other time. I would rather talk about the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and states that it is the position of the House of Representatives to reject any cuts to these programs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are the cornerstone of our Nation's social safety net. These vital programs are under threat as my Republican colleagues continue to demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills. Some Republicans have recently claimed that they won't cut Social Security or Medicare benefits. Mr. Speaker, that empty rhetoric has not been reassuring to the American people who continue to fear that these programs will be slashed by my Republican friends. Today, once again, Democrats are giving Republicans a chance to back up their claims with action by providing them with a chance to reassure the American people, not just with their words, but with their votes. Today, they can vote unequivocally that they will not cut these vital programs. Anything short is an empty promise. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint), to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that this building is powered by natural gas. I think it is probably more accurate to say it is powered by hot air. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this bill is a giveaway to the oil companies. The gentleman says he doesn't trust Big Oil, but this is a bill that gives them everything they want--their wish list. Trust the markets? I don't know that the market can clean up a toxic waste dump or the market can clean up an oil spill or the market can monitor clean air. The bottom line is this bill goes after all of those protections and actually endangers the American people. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I hope will read more quotes because I think it is making it clear--which is shocking in the year 2023--he is making the case that climate change doesn't exist going all the way back to Al Gore, who actually was right when he said that climate change was a problem, and selectively taking these quotes from way back when. Does anybody believe that climate change isn't real? Come to Massachusetts. I will introduce you to my farmers who complain about the impacts of climate change on their ability to make a livelihood. Maple syrup producers wonder whether they will be able to get maple syrup out of trees in Massachusetts because of climate change. I could go on and on about the impacts of climate change on our local farmers. Much of this discussion, Mr. Speaker, can be tied back to Republicans' affinity for culture wars. They just claimed a little while ago that President Biden and Democrats were planning to come after Americans' gas stoves. It couldn't be further from the truth. No one is taking your stove. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Vox article titled: ``Five myths about gas stoves, the latest culture war clash.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the way everybody is yelling and screaming over there, you would think that they want to have a debate on ideas, but this rule actually blocks over three-quarters of all the amendments submitted. Democrats offered 95 amendments. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many they made in order? Seven. That is not just an interesting statistic, Mr. Speaker. It means that real and important ideas are completely blocked from even being debated on this House floor on their signature piece of legislation. Many of these amendments would protect public health and safety and our environment. Take, for example, an amendment by Ms. Kamlager-Dove, No. 37, that requires permits prepared under the NEPA process to include an analysis of health and safety impacts. That is it. It seems like a good idea to me. The amendment sponsored by Mrs. Sykes, No. 118, takes into account drinking water quality when approving permits. I don't think clean drinking water ought to be a radical idea, but maybe it is on the Republican side of the aisle. We should debate it. Another amendment submitted by Mrs. Dingell, No. 15, would require the United States to actually reduce its emissions before repealing a section of the law, the greenhouse gas reduction fund, set up to spur clean energy projects and reduce air pollution. I offered three amendments, and they were all blocked. One of them, No. 94, struck language in this bill providing blanket immunity to polluters who violate our country's bedrock environmental laws. Really? Do you think that is objectionable? We can't even debate it here? We can do 7 hours of general debate, but we can't take 10 minutes to discuss whether companies should get a blank check to pollute. Whose side are you on? Back in January, Speaker McCarthy actually promised both sides ``more openness, more opportunity for ideas to win at the end of the day.'' Mr. Speaker, that promise has been broken. This Republican majority knows their bills fail to address real problems, so they continue to block our good ideas from even coming to the floor rather than debating them. They are scared to let Americans hear our ideas, and that tells you everything you need to know. This is important, I think, for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know. My friends across the aisle blocked all six amendments from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the co-chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, Mr. Fitzpatrick, who happens to be a Republican. They blocked all six. Mr. Fitzpatrick's amendments would have opposed drilling in the Delaware River Basin, ensured the act doesn't preempt a State constitution, established an infrastructure and environmental innovation trust fund, preserved the greenhouse gas reduction fund, prohibited energy exploration activities on any protected public land, and added a sense of Congress that U.S. citizens have a right to clean air and clean water. I get it. My friends are pushing this polluters over people bill, but our colleague, a Republican who is the co-chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, was denied all six of these amendments. What are you afraid of? Why don't you debate these? It is unfortunate that those ideas apparently were just too radical to even be debated on the House floor. I truly hope that Mr. Fitzpatrick, after witnessing his own majority block all of his amendments, even the ones the gentleman watered down with a revision, I hope he will not support this rule. Supporting this rule would mean the gentleman would be voting to block his own amendments. In fact, I ask all Republican members of the Problem Solvers Caucus to vote ``no'' on this rule because if you don't, this will be the pattern. Mr. Speaker, I rhetorically ask the Problem Solvers Caucus how they plan to solve any problems if their Republican leadership won't even let them offer their ideas and won't even give them a fair fight on this floor. 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 gentleman from Pennsylvania just said that when we introduced H.R. 1, our H.R. 1 was a closed rule. I would urge him to go back and look at the statistics because our H.R. 1 in the 117th Congress had a structured rule with 56 amendments in order, more than the 36 on this bill. In the previous Congress, our H.R. 1 had even more amendments in order. If the gentleman can't even be kind of factual about that, what else should we wonder whether it is based on fact or not? Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for admitting his error and admitting that he was wrong when he said H.R. 1 was a closed rule we brought up. I think perhaps the gentleman might want to go back and consult some of his research because I think he would also find out that some of the things he said about climate change would be proven factually wrong. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from nearly 100 energy and environment groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, and Oceana.