Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me again thank my friend from Oklahoma for his comments and for him being so accommodating during this day that began really early this morning. Let me also thank the staff of the Rules Committee, Democrats and Republicans, who work incredibly hard. I think this entire Congress and the American people owe them a debt of gratitude. I also want to thank Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger and the staff, both Democratic and Republican, of the Appropriations Committee for all of the incredible work that they have done. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question. The gentleman is right that American consumers need relief right now, and we ought to be having a discussion on how to help alleviate the burden of high energy costs right now. The problem with what my Republican friends are proposing is it purports to provide relief 20 years or 30 years down the road. We need to find mechanisms right now to help lower costs to consumers, and we have to find a way to do it so that whatever we do gets passed on to the consumers and not just absorbed by the oil companies, as we have seen in the past. We also need to get serious about renewable energy and about dealing with the climate crisis. I mean, we should have done it a long time ago. We would probably be having a very different conversation right now. So as we deal with Putin's price hike, let's understand that, you know, there is an immediate issue that what they are proposing doesn't even begin to address and there is the long-term issue. I would rather have a long-term solution that is not so reliant on fossil fuels. What we have in this omnibus bill will help this country, will help everybody, will help every State, will make a real difference in people's lives. It will help our kids in school. It will help the parents of those kids get good jobs. It helps provide additional resources to medical research to try to find cures to life-threatening diseases like cancer. There are so many good things in here. There are obviously things that we all don't agree on or see eye to eye on. The gentleman mentioned the changes that he liked. No surprise that I don't like all of those changes that he liked. He doesn't like some of the things that I like. But that is the way this works, especially when we have to negotiate four corners, which means Democrats and Republicans have to work things out and you have a Senate that--well, I don't want to go there. Anyway, the bottom line is, we ought to get this done. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' on the rule and a ``yes'' on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the Members that things are going exactly according to plan. Everything is beautiful in its own way. In a few moments, I will withdraw this rule. It has been a long day, but we have some important work to do in front of us. I am excited about what we are about to do with the omnibus and the aid to Ukraine. We will finish it today. I feel pretty good. We will reconvene the Rules Committee to report a new rule on the items before us. I expect the new rule to be on the floor pretty quickly. I hope we get bipartisan support for all these important measures. I don't have anything else to say. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 950 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to state what I think we are all feeling here today, and that is that our prayers are with the Ukrainian people during this very perilous time. I want to acknowledge the unity displayed in the yesterday afternoon Rules Committee meeting when Democrats and Republicans came together and with one voice condemned Vladimir Putin's blatant aggression, his brutality, and the horrific actions the Russian state is now taking against the people of Ukraine. It was almost as if there was no distinction between political parties, and I think that is as it should be because Vladimir Putin is not a genius, as some have said, and he is not smart. He is a bully. He is a dictator. I cochair the Human Rights Commission in Congress. We have done countless hearings on his brutality against the Russian people. He jails people he disagrees with, he kills people he disagrees with, and he tortures people he disagrees with. He truly is an international pariah. After this latest action, he will be in the same category as Kim Jong-un in North Korea. So I just want to acknowledge the unity yesterday in the Rules Committee, and I want my Republican friends to know how grateful I was to have us all speak as one, especially during this difficult time. I know it is important not just for the Ukrainian people but in Russia that we are speaking as one because when people start to make excuses for the Russian dictator or start to find ways to praise him, that gets played on Russian TV and exaggerated in a way to indicate that somehow we are not unified here when I believe that we are. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 950, providing for consideration of H.R. 3967, the Honoring Our PACT Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Takano, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and makes in order 28 amendments. Lastly, the rule provides en bloc authority to Chairman Takano and provides one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, today we are here to stand up for our veterans. For a long time now, more and more have been speaking out--pleading--to be taken seriously about the health impacts of the toxic chemicals they dealt with while serving our country. Many encountered water at military bases that were contaminated with toxins, like harmful forever chemicals. They breathed in toxic fumes at burn pits where jet fuel was used to incinerate things like paint, petroleum, and plastic. And they were exposed with radiation when being tasked to clean up after nuclear tests, without being given the proper safety equipment. These were duties we demanded of them. And as a result, many veterans have been left to suffer with severe health challenges like cancers, infertility, and respiratory conditions. Many more have died, and others are just too sick to work. We aren't talking about just a few people here, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about millions and millions of veterans who answered the call to serve. When they asked us to take care of them, for too long, they were just brushed aside not just by Congress but also by the Department of Defense, year after year after year. They were told the science wasn't clear. And they were told that providing the medical care that they needed and that they earned was just too high. Maybe some bureaucrat somewhere viewed denying veterans' disability claims as an exercise in frugality. Maybe drowning them in paperwork and setting an unreasonably high bar to get benefits just became the norm. I don't know. But that finally ends here and now, Mr. Speaker. The legislation included in this rule will cut the burdensome red tape. It will streamline the VA's review process, and it will get veterans exposed to toxins the care that they so badly need. H.R. 3967 tasks the VA with providing standardized trainings to better handle these claims, and it requires them to conduct outreach and provide resources to veterans exposed to deadly chemicals. Thanks to this bill, no longer will the burden to prove toxic exposure be placed on veterans themselves. And it is about damn time, Mr. Speaker. If this bill becomes law, it will help an estimated 1.4 million veterans by fiscal year 2031. That is something that we should all be proud of. The Honoring our PACT Act recognizes that just thanking our veterans for their service isn't enough. We must back up those words with action. Some may suggest that we should just maintain the status quo or make the scope of this bill much, much smaller. Let me remind them that Congress made the choice to spend trillions of dollars over the last 20 years on sending our servicemembers into harm's way. Those decisions came at a cost of more than $6 trillion. That is trillion with a T. How in the world, Mr. Speaker, can anyone justify spending trillions of dollars on sending servicemembers to fight abroad just to nickel and dime them on healthcare costs once they return home? That is unconscionable. Taking care of toxic-exposed veterans is a cost of war, period. If anyone here has reservations about paying it, they should think long and hard before calling for our servicemembers to fight in another conflict halfway around the world. Our veterans put their lives on the line for us. They made sacrifices that are hard to even imagine. They fought to protect us, and they shouldn't have to then fight their country for the benefits that they have earned. Let's take care of our veterans. Let's pass this bill and the underlying legislation. And let's honor our veterans with more than just words. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. I just want to say that he is right. We could probably pass the very short bill that the Republicans have put forward, H.R. 6659, and send it to the President. But our bill, which is actually more than 80 pages, goes into much more depth and covers a lot more. Republicans want to do just a little bit. We want to actually solve the challenges that so many of our veterans face. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, which states that President Biden would basically sign the bill we are discussing here today into law. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3967--Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act--Rep. Takano, D-California and 100 cosponsors The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3967, which would expand veterans' access to health care and benefits to address the health effects of harmful environmental exposures that occurred during military service. The President believes that our Nation has only one truly sacred obligation: to properly prepare and equip our service members when we send them into harm's way and to care for them and their families when they return home. Far too often, military service comes with a cost, and we owe it to our veterans and their families to address these consequences comprehensively. Unfortunately, it has taken decades to understand the deleterious effects of environmental exposures--leaving too many without access to the benefits and services they need. H.R. 3967 would make changes to the definitions for who is eligible for VA health care based on presumed toxic exposure during military service, including from bum pits, radiation, or other environmental conditions. H.R. 3967 would also make changes to the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA's) process for determining presumptive service connection and mandate several research studies related to military related environmental exposures. It would also establish new registries related to exposures, which would provide new data on the long-term impacts from environmental exposures. H.R. 3697 also would allow a Federal cause of action related to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and establish training requirements for health providers, and require an outreach plan to educate veterans about their eligibility for benefits and services related to toxic exposure. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to enact this legislation and ensuring it is effectively implemented. We must address the toxic legacy of environmental exposures sustained by veterans during their military service and fulfill our sacred obligation to our veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. We must also ensure that VA has the resources it needs to implement this legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN. We have an opportunity today to move a bill forward that will pass the House, even if many Republicans will not vote for it; send it to the Senate; get them to act on it; and send to the President a bill for him to sign that will actually do the job and be more than just a press release. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we begin on a note of basically saying that it was wonderful that we were all united in standing up to Vladimir Putin and speaking with one voice. I think we need to kind of amend that at this point. Let me just say that we need to stand with the people of Ukraine. We need to stand with President Zelensky, who has had the guts to stand up to Vladimir Putin, but also to the former President who tried to extort him and who withheld essential defensive military aid in exchange for trying to get from him some manufactured dirt on the President's son. Let's be a little bit careful about what charges we are throwing around here. Again, I am sorry that my Republican colleagues are feeling the need to come here and play partisan politics in the middle of a global crisis, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Yet, for all their criticism on how this administration is handling the crisis in Ukraine, they have been all over the map on what they would do differently. They talk about energy independence, yet they are the ones who have consistently voted against and opposed green and renewable energy here at home, which is the fastest way to achieve real energy independence. I include in the Record a February 23 Washington Post opinion piece entitled ``Republicans say Biden is `weak' on Ukraine. What would they do differently?'' By the way, just a spoiler alert, the answer is: They have no idea. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2022] Opinion: Republicans Say Biden is `Weak' on Ukraine. What Would They Do Differently? (By Paul Waldman) There was a time in American history when foreign crises were considered a moment for unity. We said ``politics stops at the water's edge,'' meaning that partisanship had to be put aside so the country could show the world a united front, and both parties usually agreed. The public acted that way, too. Presidents' approval ratings would rise whenever we found ourselves in any sort of conflict with a foreign adversary; this was called the ``rally 'round the flag effect,'' and it occurred even when things went badly. For instance, President Jimmy Carter's approval ratings shot up by almost 30 points after Americans were taken hostage in Tehran. But no more. Even the most straightforward of foreign policy challenges become yet another opportunity for the opposition to say the president is a failure and a villain, which is what Republicans are doing now as we confront Russian leader Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. But that doesn't mean the Republican Party can decide what it believes. One of Donald Trump's legacies is that in some GOP quarters, Putin is now regarded as akin to a hero. That starts with Trump himself, who reacted to the invasion by calling Putin's aggression ``genius,'' ``smart,'' and ``savvy.'' Meanwhile, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has been so relentless in passing on the Kremlin's perspective that Russian state TV regularly airs clips from his show. That exacerbates the profoundly unsettled nature of contemporary foreign policy thinking in the GOP. The right has struggled to find a singular voice over the past 15 years or so, once the thrill of the Global War on Terror ran aground in the disaster of the Iraq War. In the 2016 presidential primaries, Republican candidates struggled over whether and how to call the war a mistake, and where that would leave the party's traditional hawkishness. Then Trump took over, with less a foreign policy doctrine than a shifting collection of impulses, including a distrust of ambitious adventures and an obsequiousness toward Putin that can be described only as pathetic. So how should a Republican hawk respond to the current crisis? The answer is clear: Just make it about President Biden. The GOP critique is both blessedly free of substance and plays right into the anxieties about manhood that determine approximately 75 percent of everything Republicans do these days. So whether you're a Putin fanboy or a cold warrior, you can agree that the real problem here is weakness. Why is this crisis happening? Because Biden is weak. What should America do now? Not be weak, because Biden is weak. Is your favorite baseball team going to win the pennant this year? They would, if Biden wasn't so weak. ``Biden weakness invited Russian aggression, Republicans say,'' reads a Fox News headline. Biden is ``the weakest president that America has ever had,'' says former Trump administration ambassador to United Nations Nikki Haley. ``No one fears this pathetic old geezer'' says the National Review. The House Republican Conference tweeted a picture of Biden, with the caption ``This is what weakness on the world stage looks like.'' Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the third-ranking Republican in the House, tweeted, ``Biden is unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. He has consistently given into Putin's demands and shown nothing but weakness.'' Though some Republicans say the sanctions at the center of Biden's strategy should have started earlier, you'll have a hard time finding one who can specify in any detail what Biden's ``weakness'' toward Russia has consisted of to this point, nor what a ``strong'' president would be doing instead. Mounting a ground invasion to take Moscow? Launching nuclear weapons? What? If the answer is ``What Biden is doing, but, you know, more,'' that's not very persuasive. But as far as they're concerned, ``strength'' isn't something presidents demonstrate with their actions; it's more of an ineffable quality that Republican presidents possess by definition while Democratic presidents lack. Consider Trump. Short of literally getting down on his hands and knees to shine Putin's shoes, there's almost no way you could imagine Trump having been weaker toward Putin than he actually was. Trump continually praised the Russian dictator, dismissed his misdeeds and went out of his way to denigrate NATO--just as Putin would want. It culminated in the utterly disgraceful display at the 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump was asked about Russian interference in the 2016 election and declared he was taking Putin's word over the analysis of U.S. intelligence agencies, because ``President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.'' It was so embarrassing that even Republicans were shocked; then-Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said Trump ``made us look like a pushover.'' Sen. John McCain called it ``one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.'' Nevertheless, today Republicans claim that when it came to Russia, Trump was a paragon of strength. And however this crisis ends, they will insist that everything would have worked out far better if only Biden were stronger. Whatever that means. To be clear, everyone has the right to criticize the president; having politics end at the water's edge brings its own problems. Nor is there anything wrong with intraparty differences. But rather than a lively debate over alternative courses of action, what we're seeing now from the GOP is mostly juvenile name-calling. Not that we had much reason to expect anything different.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to respond, because I like the gentleman too much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, two quick things. One, my friends are touting this whatever it is, this all-of-the-above approach to dealing with our energy challenges. But I am looking at this proposal, and it just seems it is the same old, same old, fossil fuels, fossil fuels, fossil fuels. I wonder who wrote this. I wonder where this came from. Why isn't there any mention of green energy or clean energy or solar energy or renewable energy, any of the things that, quite frankly, the majority of the American people want us to do? Why isn't it here? Well, I will make a suggestion to people who are tuning in: Follow the money. Follow the money. This is Big Oil's wish list. If you want to continue to find ourselves in circumstances, whenever there is an international crisis, that we have to kowtow to Big Oil, then listen to them. But on the Democratic side, we want to wean ourselves off of the same old, same old. And ``all-of-the-above,'' by the way, is not just oil, oil, oil. The second thing I want to say is that my friends on the other side always love to talk about how much they support our veterans. Well, we actually have a bill here that will support our veterans. It is a big deal. You all received a letter from all the leading veterans' service organizations of this country saying to please pass this bill. They don't want to talk about it. They say: Oh, support this minuscule bill, the alternative that we are putting up here, by the way, which our veterans' organizations do not prefer. If you really want to help our veterans, if you are sincere about what you say when you say let's support our veterans, then how about voting that way. Talk is cheap around here. How about putting your vote where your rhetoric is and supporting this underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about a major veterans bill, and the gentleman couldn't even bring himself to mention veterans once in his statement. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, talking about taking all cars off the road, who is talking about that? I will tell the gentleman that if we go ahead with what he wants to do on the Keystone pipeline, that is equivalent to adding another 5 million cars on the road. That is what that would mean to our environment. My Republican friends, if they want to think small when it comes to veterans, have at it. Veterans' organizations are watching. We are hearing from veterans all across the country who want this bill passed. They want us to pass this comprehensive bill. We will do that. If you want to do your minuscule bill, you have a substitute, you can vote for it. It is in your substitute. We want to actually do something in a comprehensive way to meet the concerns that our veterans have expressed for years and years and years. If you want to take a pass, go ahead. That is what you do on our most important issues. This probably is no exception. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that President Biden didn't try to extort President Zelensky by withholding money to get him to manufacture dirt on one of his political opponents. But I find this a little bit comical. My Republican friends say that they want to bring up this Senate bill, which is much narrower than what we are doing right now, yet they want you to defeat the previous question not so they can bring up that Senate bill, but so they can bring up this giveaway to the oil companies. Again, follow the money. Follow the money. This is a bill that was written in some back room in some oil company and, quite frankly, it is unconscionable. They never let a crisis go to waste. Today we are talking about trying to help our veterans, and it would be nice if on this one issue of helping our veterans we could all come together, but I guess that is asking too much. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an April 28, 2021, Military.com article titled: ``VA Secretary Wants More Vets Sickened by Burn Pits to File Claims, But Many Are Still Being Turned Away,'' and I include in the Record an April 12, 2021, ``NBC News'' article titled: ``Veterans Face Uphill Battle to Receive Treatment For `Burn Pit' Exposure.'' [From Military.com, Apr. 28, 2021] VA Secretary Wants More Vets Sickened by Burn Pits To File Claims, But Many Are Still Being Turned Away (By Steve Beynon) Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough wants more veterans who believe they were sickened by exposure to burn pits overseas to seek help from the department, despite many being turned away. ``We're urging vets to come forward with their claims,'' McDonough said at a press briefing Monday. ``Our commitment is to treat each claim with the care it deserves. As we get more claims, we can aggregate those claims to draw bigger conclusions.'' As of March 31, the VA had denied 72% of burn pit claims, according to agency data obtained by Military.com. Between June 2007 and March 31, the VA processed 15,640 disability compensation claims related to burn pit exposure. Of those, 3,510 veterans had at least one burn pit issue granted. The top three diagnoses related to burn pits are bronchial asthma, chronic bronchitis and allergic rhinitis, according to department data. The most common reasons for a veteran to be denied is not having a diagnosed medical condition or being unable to connect the condition to their service--43.1% and 42.8% of denials, respectively. But the data doesn't reflect the scope of the issue. The number of patients filing claims might be disproportionately small given VA estimates that 3.5 million veterans have been exposed to burn pits since 1990. It is unclear how many are sick due to their exposure or have died as a result. McDonough suggests that more data is needed, and he wants more veterans to seek help from the VA so officials can get a better grasp on the issue. The burn pit data also could be inherently flawed. To get the data, the VA had to use text mining, searching for keywords such as ``burn pit'' and ``burn pits'' in its patient databases, according to department records. This means patients coming forward with issues related to burn pits might not automatically be listed as burn pit patients if that phrase wasn't used in their records. Out of the 2.5 million Global War on Terrorism veterans, 781,384 have filed claims related to respiratory issues. According to VA data obtained by Military.com, 63% were granted. Of all the GWOT veterans, 42,686 filed for claims related to cancer; 37% of those claims were granted. The VA's research shows GWOT veterans are three times more likely than non-deployed veterans to file claims related to respiratory issues and twice as likely to file claims for cancer. ``Although the GWOT-deployed and GWOT non-deployed population sizes are relatively the same, the GWOT-deployed cohort has more than two times the number of service- connected cancers,'' according to the agency's findings. Burn pits are often referred to as the post-9/11 generation's Agent Orange, referencing the bureaucratic maze and uneven claims process veterans have to navigate, and what could be a decades-long legislative fight to issue easy-to- access health care and disability compensation. The House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees and advocacy groups have made toxic exposure the top issue this year. Congress is looking at some two dozen bills, ranging from incremental improvements to sweeping health care bills for all 3.5 million veterans exposed to burn pits and other toxic environments. But it's unclear what can actually make it to President Joe Biden's desk. Some lawmakers and advocates are concerned over what is very likely to be a huge tab to cover the cost of opening the VA up to a huge swath of new patients.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the world is watching. And I am not going to be lectured by someone who takes their marching orders from Donald Trump, who said that Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a genius and savvy move. I wish the gentleman would have condemned that. Listening to that speech, you would think that Joe Biden invaded Ukraine. I mean, he spent all this time criticizing Joe Biden, John Kerry, and everybody else but hardly criticized Vladimir Putin. You know, look, I also wish, because I think it would be helpful for this country and a signal to the world, if the gentleman who just spoke would reprimand Members of his own party who cozy up to white nationalists and go to pro-Putin rallies. That would send a signal to people in this country and to people around the world on whose side we are on. Bottom line is, the people of Ukraine are being invaded by a brutal dictator, Vladimir Putin. And when their standard-bearer, Donald Trump, was in charge, he spread propaganda about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, which was a lie. He ousted a well-regarded U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine because they weren't doing what he wanted to in terms of finding dirt on his political opponents. He froze military assistance to Ukraine; they said nothing. He withheld a White House meeting with Zelensky, turned Ukraine policy over to Giuliani--I could go on and on and on. We are not going to be lectured by them. Instead, we are going to move forward and pass a bill to help America's veterans, with or without them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I want to thank and acknowledge Jeff Gohringer, who has served as the communications director for the House Committee on Rules in both the majority and minority over the last 6 years. Today is his last day with the Committee on Rules, and I speak for Members and staff on both sides of the aisle when I say to Jeff that we are grateful for your years of service in this institution. We wish you well in your future endeavors, and you will always have a home here. I also thank James Fitzella, who is leaving as well. The staff are incredible on the Committee on Rules, and James will be dearly missed. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that we heard a lot on the other side and barely a mention about our veterans. The gentlewoman from Washington, who came on the floor just recently and read the oil company talking points, couldn't even bring herself to mention veterans once. The bill that we are talking about here today is to make sure veterans who have been exposed to toxic chemicals, who get cancer, who get other ailments, get the healthcare they need. You would like to think that we could all come together on it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania keeps on talking about this narrow bill. I mean, they are not even serious about it because if they were, they would have used the previous question vote, which would give them the right to control the floor, to bring that up. But they didn't. Instead, they are bringing up an oil company's wish list. This really is obnoxious. I get it. They don't like President Biden, and they will let no crisis go by without trying to make it about President Biden. But let me just say this: We should be together in standing with the people of Ukraine, and we should be together in standing with our veterans. The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 950 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 6858) to strengthen United States energy security, encourage domestic production of crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 6858.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Janice B. Yost, a passionate advocate whose efforts to improve health care and health outcomes has saved countless lives over the course of the last two decades. In 1999, after serving in leadership roles at both health care and educational organizations, Dr. Yost relocated from South Carolina to run a new organization in Worcester, Massachusetts, the Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts. A prolific grant developer, Dr. Yost helped the Health Foundation allocate over $50 million in grants throughout her 23-year career. Dr. Yost was able to develop results- oriented grantmaking and grant implementation, which enabled her to successfully push for significant changes in health care policy. Dr. Yost has worked hard to focus the Health Foundation's mission not only on health care, but also on social determinants of health. Her ethos requires looking at the whole of a person's life to determine the state of their health, and she engrained that belief in the work of the Health Foundation from its start. As a result, she has been a catalyst for systemic and policy changes in everything from community development and affordable housing to food insecurity and nutrition. Madam Speaker, the impact of Dr. Yost's advocacy in the field of public health cannot be understated. She has helped the foundation fund grants supporting everything from reentry programs for formerly incarcerated people to initiatives to address childhood trauma--Dr. Yost has been relentless in her pursuit to help others. Dr. Yost is driven by a genuine desire to do good. She has beautifully blended the work of philanthropy, government, and the nonprofit sector in a way that alters the trajectory of people's lives and serves as a model for public health across the country. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress and all the people in whose lives Dr. Yost has made positive and immeasurable differences, it is my great privilege to thank and recognize Dr. Janice B. Yost for her service to the people of Massachusetts and her tireless efforts to create a more just and equitable world.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority whip for yielding me the time and for his commitment to justice and all necessary to make this country a better place for everybody. Mr. Speaker, some say that time heals all wounds. In the hours right after the January 6 attack, I was hopeful that with time America might begin to heal, too; that in the wake of such a dastardly attack on our democracy, Republicans would recoil in disgust at what they had created; that after the President of the United States whipped a violent mob into a frenzy and sent them here to attack Congress, they might finally say enough is enough. That didn't happen, and it is not going to. The Republican National Committee just called January 6 ``legitimate political discourse.'' Legitimate political discourse? They had lead pipes and guns. They destroyed property and beat cops. Give me a break. Sadly, this is just their latest attempt to rewrite history. Last year they called January 6, ``a normal tourist visit.'' They continue obstructing the January 6th Select Committee. They continue spreading the big lie that the election was stolen despite overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence that it wasn't. The former President again promised to pardon those who engaged in violence if he assumes office again. This week we learned that he considered using the military to seize ballot boxes. Now, there is a sentence that sends a chill down my spine. I credit Leader McConnell, who rebuked his party this week. He said January 6 was ``a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.'' But he is the exception. For a majority of Republicans, things have not changed. They have stayed the same, stuck in a QAnon fever dream, waiting at the beck and call of a twice-impeached ex-President who has spent his retirement shredding evidence at Mar-a-Lago. Time has not stiffened their spines. It hasn't jolted them into reality or brought us together like we were in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. January 6 hasn't become a turning point. Instead, it has become a talking point. This is the new Republican reality. To gain support from the ex-President, you have to repeat a lie that the election was stolen, and to maintain the support of the Republican Party, you have to repeat another lie, that January 6 wasn't a violent uprising against America. There is a word for that, Mr. Speaker. It is called fascism, and it is a jarring word, one I don't use lightly. So let me be clear exactly how I mean it. Fascism isn't about a particular set of beliefs or political ideology. It is about power and the lengths to which some people will go to acquire and retain it. For decades, America fought against fascism, but today a growing movement here at home seeks to upend norms, settle disagreement with violence, and silence the truth. ``Free societies,'' American philosopher Jason Stanley says, ``require truth, and so to smash freedom, you must smash truth.'' So let me say this plainly: The election was not stolen. Trump- appointed judges say it was not stolen. Republican-led investigations say it was not stolen. Republican officials responsible for counting votes say it wasn't stolen. If you are an elected official and you continue smashing the truth, even after all that we have learned about what happened on January 6, you are supporting fascism. What is happening is not new. Even the earliest philosopher saw that democracies are particularly susceptible to tyranny. There is no reason to believe it can't happen here. What is special about America isn't the strength of our institutions alone, it is the strength and courage of the people willing to stand up and fight for them. And that is why I am glad the January 6th Select Committee is doing its work. I am grateful President Biden isn't falling for false claims of executive privilege by the ex-President designed to cover up what went on. And I am proud of the people who keep showing up day in and day out despite going through hell that day, from congressional staff to the administrative staff, to cafeteria workers, to the cleaning crews, to the Capitol Police. Each of you is playing a vital role in defending our democracy. But make no mistake, we are standing on the precipice. When we spend hours and hours debating whether State legislatures should be allowed to nullify ballots; when politicians call an attempt to violently overthrow the United States Government ``legitimate political discourse,'' we are in a dangerous spot. The insurrection, conspiracy theories, the big lie, voter suppression, they are all branches on the same tree. And at the root of all of it is power. Now, I don't have a magic wand to make it better, I have a warning: Time won't heal our wounds or reign in fascism in America. That is why we must demand the truth. If we don't, the people who are trying to normalize what happened on January 6 won't be dismissed. They will be empowered. God help us all, and God help the United States of America if that happens.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Rosalie Grenon of Sutton, Massachusetts, a loving mother, grandmother, and friend to many. Born in Worcester, Massachusetts, Rosalie spent her entire life in Central Massachusetts, growing up and raising her family in Millbury and Sutton, respectively. She married her high school sweetheart, David Grenon, and they built a beautiful family and life together. Driven by their belief in the importance of education, Rosalie and David have a long history of supporting the business studies program at Assumption University in Worcester, MA. Rosalie was actively involved in her community, and a true patron of the arts. She served on the Advisory Board of the Joy of Music in Worcester, the Scholarship Committee for the Greater Worcester Community Foundation, and the Advisory Board for the Performing Arts School of Worcester. A graduate of Anna Maria College in Paxton, Massachusetts, Rosalie received a degree in music from the college in 1960. She was a talented opera singer and had a particular adoration for classical music. A skilled artist, she found joy in photography, painting, and drawing. She often used her talents to contribute to her church and events in our community. Rosalie loved the many roles she held in her life, but she cherished being a grandmother and great-grandmother the most. She had magical connections with the children in her life, and she often spent her time playing with them and rocking them to sleep with ease. Rosalie was a vibrant woman who put an abundance of love out into the world. She will be remembered for her artistic eye, her dedication to her family, and her love of Barry Manilow's music. Her kindness and passion extended beyond herself and touched the people who loved her in unforgettable ways. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress and Rosalie's loved ones, it is my great privilege and honor to celebrate and recognize the beautiful life of the late Rosalie Grenon.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Sarah Tyree, a passionate advocate who spent her career fighting for farmers, advocating for rural and urban agriculture, and working to end hunger. Sarah dedicated herself to ending hunger and spent her life working on issues like promoting nutrition and reforming our food system to make eating locally grown foods more accessible to everyone. After starting her career on Capitol Hill, Sarah worked for the Biotechnology Industry Organization and then the Missouri State Department of Agriculture, helping to establish the Missouri Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Sarah served as vice president of the agricultural consulting firm AgriLogic, and then spent the last 15 years of her career at the financial cooperative CoBank here in Washington, D.C., where she most recently served as vice president for policy and public affairs. Madam Speaker, the impact of Sarah's commitment to agriculture and local farming cannot be understated. She established a partnership between CoBank and the D.C. Central Kitchen, which allowed for the kitchen to significantly expand their local purchasing power. Her efforts helped many farmers keep land that they may have otherwise lost due to the pandemic. Sarah was a devoted member of the D.C. Central Kitchen board of directors for many years, and she served as chair of the board between 2013 and 2018. In this capacity, Sarah continued her amazing work to end hunger and played a major role in securing funding to establish D.C. Central Kitchen's new location and expand its reach. Sarah was unbelievably generous in her support of a cause that was dear to me, Monte Belmonte's annual march across Western Massachusetts to end hunger and to help support the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. She poured her energy into supporting local and national efforts to end hunger while also empowering the next generation of leaders in combating hunger through her work as a board chairman of the Campus Kitchens Project. Sarah never stopped imagining a bigger and brighter future. She believed in harnessing the power of community to make America the best that we can be, promoting nutrition, supporting local farmers, and fighting to end hunger along the way. Sarah approached her work and this life with an open heart and a genuine desire to do good. She cared about improving the lives of others in a touching and rare way and has left an immeasurable impact on this world. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, and all those whom Sarah's light touched, it is my great privilege and honor to celebrate and recognize the wonderful life of the late Sarah Tyree. I want to say that I think I speak for all of my colleagues in this Chamber when I extend our condolences to her husband and her family. I hope that they all get comfort out of the fact that Sarah made such a difference for so many in this country and around the world.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to my colleagues, this is kind of pathetic. It is a nonbinding resolution that does nothing, and I guess attacks immigrant parents who are involved in local school boards, I guess. But I mean, really? I mean, this is your response to what is happening all across this country in terms of the attacks on voting rights? The bill that we are talking about bringing to the floor, let me just tell you some of the things it does. Our bill, which will become law, would enhance protections for individuals with disabilities. It would make Election Day a national holiday. It would improve election security by requiring post-election audits and voter- verifiable paper records of votes. It would protect elections from foreign interference. It would promote digital ad transparency. It would end partisan gerrymandering. I can go on and on and on and on. But the difference here is that I think we recognize, and I think, unfortunately, this has become a partisan issue because I think there are a lot of Independent voters and Republican voters across the country who are concerned, like Democrats in the House are, about the attacks on voting rights. I mean, the idea that we have one State that passed a law that said it is going to be illegal to give people water who wait in a line to be able to cast their vote? And we know in some States, people have to wait for hours and hours and hours to vote. But somehow, that would be criminalized; that that would be forbidden? I mean, give me a break. I mean, I don't know what the hell happened to the Republican Party. I mean, I don't know when they decided that the basis for who they are was a big lie. We had an election in 2020. As one of my colleagues pointed out, a lot of people showed up and voted. I mean, the people who voted returned me and returned my Republican colleagues and brought new Members to this body. And yet, they have been working overtime to embrace a big lie, after a violent insurrection, where people's lives were threatened. Our staff, the people who work here, their lives were threatened. Madam Speaker, 140 Capitol police officers were injured. After all of that, they still embraced the big lie and are working to try to nullify the legitimate votes of the people of this country. It is stunning to me. So, yeah, to take this, whatever it is, meaningless, nonbinding resolution, and, I guess, maybe you can say you are for something. But it is nothing. It is pathetic. Or we can actually do something about protecting the right of every single person in this country to vote. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.