Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a December 17 CNN article entitled ``Fact check: Trump's wild letter to Pelosi is filled with false and misleading claims.'' [From CNN, December 17, 2019] Fact Check: Trump's Wild Letter to Pelosi is Filled With False and Misleading Claims (By Daniel Dale and Tara Subramaniam, CNN) Washington (CNN)--It was on White House letterhead. It read like a string of President Donald Trump's tweets. And it was just as dishonest. On Tuesday afternoon, Trump released a six-page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in which--employing his distinctive vocabulary and punctuation--he blasted Democrats' push to impeach him, defended his dealings with Ukraine and touted his accomplishments in office. Like much of his previous rhetoric about Ukraine and impeachment, much of the letter was false or misleading. Trump repeated multiple false claims that have been debunked on numerous occasions. He also delivered some new claims that were false, misleading or lacking in context. We're not finished going through all of Trump's claims in his letter, but here are some early fact checks. Dealings with Ukraine Trump decried ``the so-called whistleblower who started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.'' Facts First: The whistleblower's account of Trump's July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been proven highly accurate. In fact, the rough transcript released by Trump himself showed that the whistleblower's three primary allegations about the call were correct or very close to correct. You can read a full fact check here. Trump claimed the whistleblower ``disappeared'' because ``they got caught, their report was a fraud.'' Facts First: There is no evidence the whistleblower has disappeared, let alone that they have vanished because they were shown to be inaccurate. Whistleblowers do not have an obligation to speak publicly after filing their anonymous complaints. Trump wrote, ``Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: `No quid pro quo. I want nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on.' '' Facts First: Sondland, Trump's ambassador to the European Union, did testify that Trump told him this--but Sondland nonetheless said that, in his own opinion, there was indeed a quid pro quo. Trump wrote that the rough transcript of his call with Zelensky ``was immediately made available.'' Facts First: The call occurred in July. Trump released the rough transcript in September, after the public learned of the existence of the whistleblower complaint about the call. Trump wrote, ``President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He further emphasized that it was a `good phone call,' that `I don't feel pressure,' and explicitly stressed that `nobody pushed me.' '' Facts First: Zelensky did say there had been ``no pressure'' from Trump and made other statements to that effect, but he has not gone so far as to say Trump did nothing wrong. In an interview published by Time magazine in early December, Zelensky did say, ``Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That's not my thing.'' But Zelensky continued: ``I don't want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We're at war. If you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us. I think that's just about fairness. It's not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.'' Trump wrote, ``I said to President Zelensky: `I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.' I said do us a favor, not me, and our country, not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States.'' Facts First: It's worth noting that Trump only adopted this explanation for his ``favor'' comments more than two months after he released the rough transcript of the July call. Trump quoted himself accurately here--but in between his ``favor'' sentence to Zelensky and his mention of the attorney general, he had asked Zelensky to look into a debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic computer servers. In his next series of comments to Zelensky, after Zelensky spoke, Trump asked Zelensky to look into former vice president and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Joe Biden and Ukraine Trump wrote that Biden ``used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars.'' Facts First: There is a lot wrong with this claim. The $1 billion in question was a loan guarantee, not an aid payment. The prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was widely viewed by American diplomats and in the international community as corrupt; Biden was pursuing official policy in pushing for Shokin's ouster. And the prosecutor's former deputy has said that the investigation into the company where Biden's son, Hunter Biden, sat on the board of directors was dormant at the time Joe Biden applied the pressure. Trump wrote, ``Biden openly stated: `I said, ``I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars'' . . . I looked at them and said: ``I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.'' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.' '' Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it `looked bad.' '' Facts First: Trump was not entirely clear on what he meant by ``it,'' but he left open the impression that Biden had recently told NPR that his effort to oust Shokin, or the 2018 video of him telling the story of his effort to oust Shokin, ``looked bad.'' In fact, Biden's ``looked bad'' comment was about something different: Hunter Biden's position on the board. Specifically, Biden said ``the appearance'' of Hunter Biden's presence on the board ``looked bad and it gave folks like Rudy Giuliani an excuse to come up with a Trumpian kind of defense.'' Trump wrote, ``Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.'' Facts First: Democrats are accusing Trump of abuse of power for soliciting foreign interference in the presidential election and for trying to use official acts to pressure the Ukrainian government into doing something that would help him personally. Biden has not admitted to anything of the sort. The impeachment process Trump wrote, ``I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses.'' Facts First: The constitutional rights of criminal defendants do not apply to public officials in a House of Representatives impeachment process, though Trump is free to argue that they should. Trump's counsel was denied the opportunity to participate in House Intelligence Committee impeachment hearings but was invited to participate in House Judiciary Committee hearings; Trump's counsel declined that opportunity. House Republicans were allowed to have their lawyer question witnesses at the House Intelligence Committee. Trump wrote, ``More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.'' Facts First: Trump might have meant this as a non-literal figure of speech, but as a factual matter, the claim is absurd. (Salem's current mayor told Trump to ``learn some history.'') Nineteen innocent people were hanged after they were accused of witchcraft in the trials of the late 1600s. The courts accepted ``spectral evidence'' from dreams. Some of the accused were tortured into confessions. Democrats Trump wrote of Hillary Clinton: ``Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide (306-227).'' Facts First: Leaving aside Trump's characterization of the result as a ``landslide,'' he got the numbers wrong--again. If he was going by the number of electoral votes each candidate earned in the voting, the result was 306 for him to 232 for Clinton. If he was going by the final result, after some ``faithless electors'' defected from both him and Clinton, the result was 304 for him to 227 for Clinton. This was not a one-time slip; Trump is habitually inaccurate about this. Trump said Pelosi has a policy of ``open borders.'' Facts First: While Pelosi wants a more liberal immigration policy than he does, she does not support completely unrestricted migration. She has repeatedly endorsed funding for border security measures aside from the President's proposed wall. The Mueller investigation Trump again claimed the cost of the Mueller investigation was ``45 million dollars.'' Facts First: The investigation cost $32 million, according to figures released by the Justice Department, and the government is expected to recoup about $17 million as a result of the investigation, most from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to a CNN analysis of the sentences handed out to people charged by Mueller. Trump said that the world now knows that former FBI Director James Comey is ``one of the dirtiest cops our Nation has ever seen.'' Facts First: We give Trump wide latitude to express opinions about public figures, but the December report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz presented no evidence that Comey was corrupt in any way. Horowitz found significant errors in FBI work connected to the Russia investigation, and rejected Comey's claim of vindication, but he did not make any finding accusing Comey of deliberate malfeasance. Supposed accomplishments Trump claimed ``a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings.'' Facts First: While there has been a reduction since May, it is only a reduction from the high point of the Trump era; the total number of people apprehended at the southwest border, a proxy measure for the number of actual crossings, has been higher under Trump than it was in the late Obama era. Trump boasted of the US ``becoming the world's top energy producer.'' Facts First: The US became the world's top energy producer in 2012, according to the government's Energy Information Administration--under Obama, whom Trump has repeatedly accused of perpetrating a ``war on American energy.'' Trump claimed ``a completely reformed VA with Choice and Accountability for our great veterans.'' Facts First: The Veterans Choice program was signed into law by Obama in 2014. Trump signed a law in 2018 to expand and modify the Choice program, the VA MISSION Act, but he did not create Choice. Trump touted ``the building of the Southern Border Wall.'' Facts First: As of December 6, the date of the latest official update from Customs and Border Protection, no miles of border wall had been constructed where barriers did not previously exist. (Construction had started on some new barriers, the government said.) Trump has argued that the replacement of old barriers with newer barriers should count as the building of his wall; as of December 6, 90 miles of replacement barriers had been erected. Jamie Ehrlich contributed to this article.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend, Mr. Cole, for his kind words, and I appreciate his leadership on the Rules Committee and the fact that he respects this institution. But, Madam Speaker, let me say again what happened here: The President withheld congressionally approved military aid to a country under siege to extract a personal, political favor. That is a cold, hard fact. The question before us comes down to this: Should a President be allowed to ask a foreign nation to interfere in an American election? I remember my first political experience as a middle schooler in 1972, leaving leaflets at the homes of potential voters urging them to support George McGovern for President--no relation, by the way. I remember what an honor it was to ask people to support him, even though I was too young to vote myself, and what a privilege it was later in life to ask voters for their support in my own campaigns. I have been part of winning campaigns, and I have been part of losing ones, too. People who I thought would be great Presidents, like Senator McGovern, were never given that chance. Make no mistake: I was disappointed, but I accepted it. I would take losing an election any day of the week when the American people render that verdict, but I will never be okay if other nations decide our leaders for us. The President of the United States is rolling out the welcome mat for that kind of foreign interference. To my Republican friends: Imagine any Democratic President sitting in the Oval Office--President Obama, President Clinton, any of them. Would your answer here still be the same? No one should be allowed to use the powers of the Presidency to undermine our elections, period. This isn't about siding with your team. I didn't swear an oath to defend a political party. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. And when I vote ``yes'' on this rule and the underlying articles, my conscience will be clear. I ask all of my colleagues to search their souls before casting their votes. I ask them all to stand up for our democracy, to stand up for our Constitution. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and 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. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk on the resolution (H. Res. 758) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to establish a fair price negotiation program, protect the Medicare program from excessive price increases, and establish an out-of-pocket maximum for Medicare part D enrollees, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5038) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for terms and conditions for nonimmigrant workers performing agricultural labor or services, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 1790) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on Tuesday, December 3rd, and Wednesday, December 4th. On Roll Call Vote No. 643, on passage of H. Res. 546, disapproving the Russian Federation inclusion in future Group of Seven summits until it respects the territorial integrity of its neighbors and adheres to the standards of democratic societies, if I had been present, I would have voted YES. On Roll Call Vote No. 644, on passage of S. 178, the Uighur Intervention and Global Humanitarian Unified Response Act (UIGHUR Act), if I had been present, I would have voted YES On Roll Call Vote No. 645, on ordering the Previous Question to H. Res. 739, if I had been present, I would have voted YES. On Roll Call Vote No. 646, on passage of H. Res. 739, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2534, the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, if I had been present, I would have voted YES. On Roll Call Vote No. 647, on passage of S. 151, the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, if I had been present, I would have voted YES.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud the House of Representatives is considering S. 178, the ``Uighur Intervention and Global Humanitarian Unified Response Act'' or the ``UIGHUR Act.'' In the last year, Chinese authorities have expanded their network of mass internment camps, where it is now estimated that 1.8 million or more Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims have been involuntarily detained in approximately 1,400 extrajudicial internment facilities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Detainees are subjected to torture, extended solitary confinement, and political indoctrination. Many scholars and human rights groups argue that these practices may amount to ``crimes against humanity.'' Over the last month, leaks of highly classified Chinese government documents uncovered operations manuals for the mass internment camps and exposed details about the mass detention and surveillance systems in Xinjiang. Among the findings in the Chinese government's own documents: Reeducation centers are designed to ``wash clean the brains'' of those interned in them; Those who show signs of resistance are subjected to ``assault-style re-education'' efforts; Children of detainees are reportedly often placed in orphanages, welfare centers, and boarding schools; Special security measures are mandated to ensure detainees cannot ``escape,'' thereby refuting Chinese government assertions that detainees are there voluntarily; and The establishment and expansion of the mass internment camps are part of a systematic policy directed by General Secretary Xi Jinping and carried out by XUAR Communist Party Secretary Chen Quanguo as well as other senior officials at the central and local levels. Further, we also have become more aware of the widespread use of a government-subsidized and large-scale system of forced labor in both mass internment camps and in factories throughout the Xinjiang region. Satellite imagery, personal testimonies, and official documents indicate that detainees in camps, and some who have been released, are forced to work in food production, textile, and other manufacturing jobs. Products reportedly produced with forced labor include: Textiles, such as yarn, clothing, gloves, bedding, and carpet; Electronics, including cell phones and computers; Food products, shoes, tea, and handicrafts. Current U.S. law prohibits the import of any product made with forced labor. Any U.S. or international company that produces or has a supply chain in Xinjiang may be complicit with forced labor and human rights violations. Customs and Border Protection rightly stopped the import of some goods from Xinjiang, but much more needs to be done to ensure that Americans are not purchasing products made with forced labor. The UIGHUR Act is an essential update and strengthening of U.S. policy in response to gross human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The bill calls on the President to submit a list to Congress of Chinese officials responsible for the mass incarceration, political indoctrination, or reeducation efforts and to impose Global Magnitsky Act sanctions for all those on the list. It also includes needed export restrictions on technology critical to the Chinese government's ability to suppress human rights and individual privacy. With passage of this legislation, it should be clear that Congress stands in solidarity with the Uyghur people and other suppressed minorities affected by the mass internment and surveillance system in the Xinjiang region, and we will continue to do all we can to support the full exercise of their human rights in Xinjiang and in China.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1838, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. I want to say thank you to Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her incredible leadership in ensuring that the House made a timely and unequivocal statement in support of the Hong Kong people at this very important and vital time. I would also like to thank Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, as well as Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul for bringing this legislation to the floor today. I also appreciate the leadership of Senators Rubio, Cardin, and Menendez for all that they have done. Mr. Speaker, in recent months, the situation in Hong Kong has worsened as the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments have escalated repression against the protest movement and provoked more violence and chaos. The recent attacks on university campuses, including last weekend against students at Hong Kong Polytechnic University raises disturbing questions on the strategy of the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. Protestors were violently assaulted and not even allowed to escape without facing a barrage of tear gas and police brutality. It is long past time for the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments to try a different approach that respects the people of Hong Kong and restores the people's faith in the autonomy of the government. That is what political leaders do, they use dialogue and negotiation to achieve their goals. The demands of the protestors are reasonable, and an independent inquiry into the police violence is more than justified. In what was initially a positive development, this week the Hong Kong High Court decided that the government's recent facemask ban was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the fierce response by Beijing to that ruling and claim of sole jurisdiction over constitutional review almost certainly violates the basic law, subverts the rule of law, and further undermines whatever trust the Hong Kong people have left in their governing institutions. If the Hong Kong court system is not sufficiently autonomous, then it is difficult, if not impossible, to argue that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous. It should be clear by now that Hong Kong's leaders are beholden to the Chinese Government, and the independence of the judiciary is being undermined. The ``one country, two systems'' framework enshrined in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and Hong Kong's basic law has been rapidly eroding and has now reached a point when the United States has no choice but to modify its policy toward Hong Kong. It is time we put the Chinese Government on annual notice that further erosion of autonomy or a crackdown will cause the city, which serves as an important financial haven for wealthy Chinese elites, to lose its special economic, financial and trade arrangement with the United States. Further, the legislation authorizes sanctions against individuals who violate human rights, and states that Hong Kong visa applicants should not be denied entry to the U.S. on the basis of politically-motivated arrests due to their protest activities. Today a Chinese official said that they will take strong opposing measures if the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy bill passes. Well, I have a message for Beijing: The United States will not stand idly by while the Chinese Government stifles free expression and tightens its grip on Hong Kong. Over the years, Hong Kong has prospered and become the financial center of Asia because of its strong commitment to the rule of law, good governance, human rights, and an open economic system. We must use our leverage to help the people of Hong Kong in their struggle to secure a democratic future that protects Hong Kong's autonomy and way of life. I am proud to support this legislation, which we will pass today with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority. I now call upon the President of the United States, who has been way too silent on this issue, to sign the bill into law.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Mr. Sherman) for his leadership on this and so many other important issues to uphold a high standard of human rights. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2710, the Placing Restrictions on Teargas Exports and Crowd Control Technology to Hong Kong Act, otherwise known as the PROTECT Hong Kong Act. I am proud to have introduced this bipartisan legislation, along with my colleagues Chris Smith from New Jersey and Ro Khanna from California, in the House. Senator Merkley and Senator Cornyn introduced it in the Senate. This bill responds to the excessive and unnecessary use of force by the Hong Kong police targeting those engaged in peaceful protests. The PROTECT Hong Kong Act prohibits U.S. exports of police equipment to Hong Kong, including tear gas, pepper spray, grenades, rubber bullets, foam rounds, beanbag rounds, pepper balls, water cannons, stun guns, and tasers. The Hong Kong Police Force is simply out of control. The reckless and escalating use of violence flies in the face of manufacturer guidelines and international standards on the use of force. In recent days, the world has seen eyewitness evidence showing protesters sprayed with tear gas directly in the face at short distances, rampant beatings and arbitrary arrests of people ages 11 to 74, police driving at high speeds into crowds, and unarmed protesters shot with live rounds. The British Government already suspended export licenses for the sale of tear gas and crowd control equipment until concerns about human rights abuses are addressed. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called for an investigation of the use of crowd control tactics in Hong Kong. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is time for American companies to stop selling police equipment that is being used to suppress peaceful protests. Mr. Speaker, today, we will cast votes on two pieces of legislation that will make it crystal clear to Beijing that we in this Congress in a bipartisan manner stand in solidarity with the protesters of Hong Kong, and we also stand with them in their demands, among which is there needs to be an independent investigation and inquiry into the brutal tactics of the Hong Kong Police Force. It is absolutely outrageous. It is unacceptable. It goes beyond the pale. We have all seen the pictures, the photographs, and the videos that are on social media. Anybody who cares about human rights will stand with us proudly and vote for these two pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this PROTECT Hong Kong Act.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to take from the Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 1865, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or her designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment submitted for printing by Representative Lowey of New York in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII; that the Senate amendment and the motion be considered as read; that the motion be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question; and that House Resolution 708 be laid on the table.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 708 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 Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 708, providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3055. One hour of general debate has been provided, controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, funding the government may seem like an arcane exercise to some watching this debate today, but it is the most basic responsibility any Member of Congress has. And failure to follow through could be devastating. Remember what happened during the Trump shutdown? The President and Republican leaders who controlled the Congress then caused the longest government shutdown in American history. Hundreds of Federal workers were forced to miss paychecks. The men and women who keep our country safe struggled to put food on the table. Members of the Coast Guard, FBI agents, Border Patrol officers, and TSA agents waited in long lines at food banks to provide for their families. Millions of households were at risk of experiencing a gap in their SNAP benefits without a backup plan. And I could go on and on. These debates are not just some abstract political exercise. They have real-life consequences. And that is why this majority passed bills to fund roughly 96 percent of the Federal Government earlier this year, but Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans couldn't get their work done. So today we find ourselves needing to take action, once again, before funding runs out later this week. And, once again, this majority is not shirking its responsibilities. We are taking the lead through a bill that not only keeps the lights on, it addresses the most critical budget priorities we face. In addition to funding the government through December 20, the underlying measure also gives our military a 3.1 percent pay raise. It fully funds a fair and accurate 2020 Census, and it keeps critical public health programs going for another month, so consumers don't see a gap in care. Families, businesses, and communities need this certainty while talks continue on a longer-term deal. Just as important as what is here, Mr. Speaker, is what is not here. There are no controversial policy provisions, nothing designed to make Members run to their partisan corners. This is simply about whether key programs remain authorized and funded, whether members of our military are able to avoid the pain of budget uncertainty, and whether we guarantee an accurate 2020 Census. You know, we fight about a lot of issues on this floor, but this bill should not be one of them. I know President Trump's disposition is to govern by tweet. That is what helped bring on the last Republican shutdown. I don't know if he has logged on in the last few minutes and tried to throw a wrench into the process, but I hope that regardless of what he does or doesn't say in the next few days, Republicans will join us in agreeing that we should not be shutting the government down. We should pass this bill. We should allow appropriators to have more time to negotiate and continue this process in an orderly way. Make no mistake, this majority will continue fighting hard for our priorities. We are going to keep defending vital programs, and we will be providing a check on the Trump administration. But we are going to fight for what we believe in while averting another costly shutdown because it is the right thing to do, and it is the responsible thing to do. I don't expect that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are always going to share our priorities, but I do know that there are many in the House, and I include my ranking member who was also an appropriator in that category, who is sincerely dedicated to making sure we do our job to making sure we fund our government, to making sure that we achieve a reasonable compromise, and to making sure that we avoid another shutdown that has such catastrophic effects. So I urge all my colleagues to join with us. Let's allow more time for talks to continue while saying enough to government shutdowns. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we don't have any additional speakers on our side, so we are ready to close any time the gentleman is.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me begin my closing by again thanking the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) not only for his work on the Rules Committee but also for his work on the Appropriations Committee. I think he understands the importance of making sure that we don't have any more government shutdowns, but he also understands that in this place, no matter who is in charge, you don't always get 100 percent of what you want and that sometimes compromise is appropriate and necessary to do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we on this side tried to accommodate the minority in terms of the underlying measure, changing the underlying measure at the minority's request. Unfortunately, a Member on the minority side objected, so we were not able to do that, but I do have nothing but the highest respect for the gentleman, and I appreciate his words. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle would have drafted a different bill if they were in charge. I want my colleagues to know that if I could wave a magic wand and have my own way in everything, I would, too. For example, I would have removed the 4-month extension of the PATRIOT Act's FISA provision from this bill. I have voted against this program in the past and for bipartisan reforms that would strip the government of this unchecked and, I believe, unconstitutional spying power. I may be the chairman of the Rules Committee, but I don't believe it should be my way or the highway on everything. I don't believe in blowing up a bipartisan, bicameral negotiation just because I didn't get my own way on a particular provision. But make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we have a standalone and robust debate on the FISA when the extension expires next year. As I said, this is a 4-month extension that we are talking about. Meaningful reforms, I think, are long overdue. Let me remind my colleagues what is at stake today. 800,000 Americans had their paychecks held hostage for 35 days during the President's last shutdown. Workers couldn't pay their bills. Communities lost access to health and safety services. Our national security was endangered. Our economy was harmed. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that it cost us billions of dollars for the President's shutdown. The choice before us today is whether we are going to vote to cause a repeat of that devastation or not. I think the costs are too high, and I would like to think my Republican friends have learned their lesson. Look, no one expects either side to stop fighting for what they believe in, but let's do it while the lights are on. There is really nothing terribly controversial here. This is not a radical proposal. It is about keeping the government funded through December 20, giving the men and women of our military a raise, fully funding the Census, and encouraging Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans to finally get their work done. House appropriators, I would say in a bipartisan way, did most of their work. The Senate remains a problem on getting a yearlong budget deal. Quite frankly, if it were possible, the Senate majority leader should be sued for malpractice due to his inaction. But we are where we are, and we should all be able to agree on that. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, for leading this special order today on the life of Austin Tice. In November 2016, I had the privilege of meeting for the first time, Austin Tice's mother, Debra. It was at the Newseum, where Reporters Without Borders and the Newseum were launching a campaign that ran a banner on the Newseum's facade featuring Austin. The banner was showing on the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists. The banner had a simple message next to a photo of Austin's face, ``Held captive for being a journalist since August 2012.'' Austin Tice is the only American journalist being held captive in Syria. The banner at the Newseum is supposed to continue to run until he is safely returned home to his family. Today, November 12, 2019, Austin remains in captivity. I had the privilege of meeting his parents Marc and Debra Tice in September. They brought me up-to-date on Austin's captivity, and the many efforts to press for his freedom. Austin Tice is a graduate of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and many of Georgetown's students and faculty have taken up his cause. He served as a Marine officer and returned home to study at the Georgetown School of Law. But when he saw the carnage inside Syria, he felt a calling to report on the Syrian human crisis. Working as a freelance journalist and photographer for McClatchey newspapers, his images, interviews and reports soon appeared in the Washington Post, McClatchey, Agence France-Presse and other news media. He intended to leave Syria after his 31st birthday, on August 11, 2012, after he filed his last story. On August 14th, he left for Lebanon by car from Damascus. Shortly after, we know that he was stopped and detained at a checkpoint, most likely in rebel control. Five weeks later, a video was posted on a pro-government website by people who appeared to be Islamist militants. There has been no contact with his captors. Marc and Debra continue their efforts to find and release their son. The State Department believes that he is still alive. Other countries have offered their services as intermediaries. And national and international campaigns have been mounted to support him, his family, and the many other journalists from many nations who are in captivity or held hostage around the world. Congress has sent several letters, introduced bills, and like today, taken to the floor of the House of Representatives to raise his case and declare our sympathy and solidarity with his family, friends and colleagues. We will not stop until Austin is free and reunited with his family.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up H. Res. 660 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the professionalism that my friend from Oklahoma has demonstrated throughout this process. We don't see eye to eye on this impeachment inquiry, but he has always conducted himself with integrity and defended this institution. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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