Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close for our side, so I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me assure the distinguished minority leader that this Democratic majority can legislate and also fulfill our constitutional responsibilities to hold this President to account because it is our job. We took an oath to do that. In terms of our legislative accomplishments, they are second to none. When the Republicans were in the majority, they shut the government down. Today the Education and Labor Committee just reported out the higher education bill, we passed a bill to deal with gun violence, we passed the Dream Act, and we raised the minimum wage. We are working on a bill to lower prescription drugs, and we passed a bill to protect our elections so Russia doesn't interfere in our elections ever again. So, Madam Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues that I am proud of the process we are following here today that brought us this resolution. Madam Speaker, past Congresses under the impeachments of Presidents Nixon and Clinton found it prudent to have a resolution in place laying out the path forward, and that is what we are doing here today. This resolution before us today is based on precedent. It includes protections for President Trump. The President's counsel is given the right to ask questions when the evidence is presented. The rules here expressly provide his counsel the chance to be invited to offer a concluding presentation. Neither of these things were guaranteed to President Nixon or President Clinton. It lays out a clear path forward so that the American people know what to expect going forward. Madam Speaker, the obstruction from this White House is unprecedented. It is stunning. We don't know whether President Trump will be impeached, but the allegations are as serious as it gets, endangering national security for political gain. Madam Speaker, history is testing us, and I worry, based on what we have heard from the other side today, that some may be failing that test. There are no kings and queens in America. That is what separates this country from so many other nations. No one is above the law. Let me repeat that: No one is above the law. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Section 4(a) of House Resolution 660, 116th Congress, I hereby submit the following impeachment inquiry procedures in the Committee on the Judiciary for printing in the Congressional Record. Impeachment Inquiry Procedures in the Committee on the Judiciary Pursuant to H. Res. 660 A. Initial Presentations 1. The Committee on the Judiciary (``Committee'') may receive at a hearing presentation(s) from counsel(s) designated by the chairs and ranking minority members for the majority and minority of a committee which provides a report, records or other materials to the Committee under section 2 or 3 of H. Res. 660. 2. In addition, the Committee may receive from Committee counsel for the majority and minority at a hearing a presentation consisting of (i) a written statement detailing, in paragraph form, information believed by the counsel to be pertinent to the inquiry, (ii) a general description of the scope and manner of the presentation of evidence, and/or (iii) a detailed presentation of the evidentiary material, other than the testimony of witnesses. 3. The President's counsel shall be furnished a copy of the report(s), record(s) or other materials referenced in section 2(5) and (6) or section 3 of H. Res. 660, and any material furnished to the Committee pursuant to this section. The President and his counsel shall be invited to attend and observe the initial presentations, and the President's counsel may ask questions, subject to instructions from the chair or presiding member respecting the time, scope and duration of the examination. B. Additional Evidence 1. Any Committee member may bring additional evidence in writing to the Committee's attention. 2. The President's counsel shall be invited to respond, orally or in writing as shall be determined by the chair, in consultation with the ranking minority member. 3. Should the President's counsel wish the Committee to receive additional testimony or other evidence, he or she shall be invited to submit written requests and precise summaries of what he or she would propose to show, and in the case of a witness precisely and in detail what it is expected the testimony of the witness would be, if called. On the basis of such requests and summaries and of the record then before it, the Committee shall determine whether the suggested evidence is necessary or desirable to a full and fair record in the inquiry, and, if so, whether the summaries shall be accepted as part of the record or additional testimony or evidence in some other form shall be received, subject to instructions from the chair or presiding member respecting the time, scope and duration of any examination or presentation. In making such determination, notwithstanding Rule II of the Committee on the Judiciary Rules of Procedure, the chair may schedule a Committee meeting subject to the notice procedures for a Committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of House rule XI. C. Witnesses If and when witnesses are to be called, the following additional procedures shall be applicable to hearings held for that purpose: 1. The President and his counsel shall be invited to attend all hearings, including any held in executive session. 2. Objections relating to the examination of witnesses or to the admissibility of testimony and evidence may be raised only by a witness or his counsel, a member of the Committee, Committee counsel or the President's counsel and shall be ruled upon by the chair or presiding member. Such rulings shall be final, unless overruled by a vote of a majority of the members present. In the case of a tie vote, the ruling of the chair shall prevail. 3. At the discretion of the chair, in consultation with the ranking minority member, notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this section during any hearing designated pursuant to H. Res. 660 and these procedures, the chair and ranking minority member shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than 5 minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this section shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or Committee counsel yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this section, the Committee shall proceed with questioning under the 5-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 655 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 Texas (Mr. Burgess), 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 655, providing for consideration of H. Res. 296 under a closed rule. This resolution also provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Speaker, this rule is about U.S. leadership, standing for human rights, and whether we are going to turn a blind eye to atrocities, even if they took place 100 years ago. H. Res. 296 is a resolution formally recognizing and memorializing the Armenian genocide. And let me say, it is about time. 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire in the emerging Nation of Turkey over a century ago. Tens of thousands of Armenians were violently expelled from their ancestral homelands. These truths are important. Acknowledging them is important. Yet, the United States has only tinkered around the edges of recognizing this reality. Some of our Nation's closest allies already have--31 nations, in fact--countries like Canada, Italy, France, Poland, Sweden, Germany, even Russia have recognized this genocide. Mr. Speaker, here is a map of those nations, and you can tell that the United States stands out; and I say that with great sadness. White House statements and Congressional resolutions over the years have referred to mass atrocities and other euphemisms; but nothing in recent times has fully recognized it by calling it what it actually was, a genocide. Mr. Speaker, we need to speak the truth. Forty-nine of our 50 States have formally recognized the Armenian genocide, but the Federal Government has not. This is a dark stain on our human rights record. The United States should stand foursquare for human rights. Anything short of that sends exactly the wrong message to abusers around the globe. Mr. Speaker, I represent a congressional district in central Massachusetts. It is home to the oldest Armenian community in America. The first Armenian orthodox church in America was built in Worcester, Massachusetts, my hometown. People still worship in it today. When I was first elected in 1996, we had rows and rows of pews filled with survivors of the Armenian genocide sitting at the front of the church during our annual April remembrance of the Armenian genocide. Sadly, almost 2 years ago, the last of our survivors, Rose, passed away. I have learned so much from this community. And to those who insist that now is not the time for us to recognize the Armenian genocide; I have to ask in return, when will it be the right time? When the very last survivor of the genocide has passed away? Those who want the world to forget, those who want to deny genocide, they believe that history will be erased with the last eyewitness to genocide. Mr. Speaker, I must be honest. As many political leaders have proclaimed ``never again'' over the years, the Armenian American community has been left to wonder when ``never again'' would finally become ``enough is enough.'' With this resolution, the United States will join the ranks of the many nations, parliaments, and institutions that have fully recognized and commemorated the Armenian genocide. We will speak out clearly in favor of human rights. Finally, we will say loud and clear that enough is enough. Mr. Speaker, as we acknowledge this genocide from 100 years ago, I am glad this House is separately considering H.R. 4695 on suspension this week. This bill recognizes the blood that is being spilled today in northern Syria. Because of Turkey's ruthless aggression, hundreds of civilians have been killed. Thousands more have been displaced. Erdogan's government has targeted the Kurds, one of our strongest and most courageous allies in the fight against ISIS. What is going on there can only be described as ethnic cleansing. Instead of standing up for the people who have fought alongside U.S. troops in Syria, President Trump gave Turkey the green light to try and wipe the Kurds off the map. The President even complimented President Erdogan, calling him a friend, a tough man, a hell of a leader. Just last week, 9 days after the President first announced sanctions against Turkey, he unilaterally lifted all the sanctions against Turkey--9 days. Are you kidding me? Never in my life did I think I would see the day when a President of the United States would pave the way for a nation to systematically slaughter our allies, remove sanctions from a country engaging in ethnic cleansing without holding anyone to account, or put U.S. troops stationed abroad in harm's way all while giving Russia not only a PR victory but control over territory that just days before had been safe, secure, and free from the control of ISIS terrorists and Assad's murderous regime. Standing up for human rights is not a Democratic or Republican issue; it is an American issue. Even in an age of heightened partisanship, this Congress must still be capable of speaking with one voice against genocide and crimes against humanity, no matter when they took place. I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolution so we can show the world that we still are. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from Texas talked about a lot of different subjects in his opening remarks. I have to say that I am a little bit disappointed--well, more than a little bit. I am disappointed and somewhat offended at the implication that this is not an important matter. Let me remind him that 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire and the emerging nation of Turkey. Let me remind him of the countless hundreds of thousands of people who had to flee because of that oppression. Let me also remind him that it is not the official policy of the United States Government. If it were, that map that I showed you would have included us as a nation formally recognizing the Armenian genocide. My friend may not think it is important, but as somebody who cares deeply about human rights, it is important that we respect historical accuracy and that we respect the truth. I don't know if the gentleman was in the Rules Committee last night when our colleague from California, Anna Eshoo, movingly and tearfully talked about her family's experiences during that time, when she lost ancestors and her parents came to the United States to try to have a better life. But I don't know how we can just kind of brush this off as not a big deal. It is a big deal. It is a big deal to Armenian Americans, and it is a big deal to anybody who cares about human rights in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who has been a leader on this issue for many years.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) that, again, it is frustrating to hear his comments. I mean, we are talking about a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide; 1.5 million people were murdered. I think it is generally a bipartisan resolution. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend not only Chairman Engel and Chairman Smith, who is a Republican, for their testimony before the Rules Committee; I want to thank Congressman Schiff, who is the main author of this; but our colleague in the Rules Committee, Congresswoman Lesko, came out very strongly in favor of this resolution. It would be nice if there were a couple of moments here that didn't always have to be politicized, and I think this resolution should be one of those moments. This is important; this is serious; and we shouldn't bring politics into a resolution dealing with the recognition of a genocide. So I obviously have a different opinion on how people should vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, it really is frustrating to hear my colleague try and dismiss this. There has not been a resolution calling this a genocide and outlining all the facts before. Mr. Speaker, I would again urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan way, to support the underlying bill and to reject any attempts to try to politicize this process. And, again, we do this out of respect for those victims of the genocide, for its survivors, for the Armenian American community, for the Armenian community all over the world, and we do it because the United States of America is supposed to be committed to a very high standard of human rights. If we stand for anything, we need to stand out loud and four square for human rights. To not appropriately acknowledge a genocide only paves the way for future thugs, dictators, and authoritarians to commit similar atrocities, believing that somehow the United States, the most powerful country in the world, will just look the other way. I hope that we have strong, bipartisan support on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman wonders why we didn't bring this legislation up under suspension of the rules. To be honest with you, I think there was a concern by Democrats and Republicans on the Foreign Affairs Committee that we might not have all the votes that we needed to pass them under suspension of the rules. Mr. Speaker, the Government of Turkey employs very well-paid lobbyists here in Washington, and they have been working quite diligently trying to defeat this. So I hope we have a vote that is overwhelming, but we don't know. Secondly, I don't know why the gentleman would object to bringing this up under a rule. It gives more time for Members on both sides of the aisle to be able to speak on this, and a lot of Members do. We had a lot of Democrats on our side who wanted to speak. We have others who are going to speak when the underlying bill comes up. So I don't quite get it. Let me say, again, for the Record, this is not the official policy of the United States. If it was, President Trump would publicly acknowledge the Armenian genocide. By the way, I am not picking on President Trump. The same could be said for President Obama. I can go right down the list of Presidents. The deal is, this is not the official policy. If it was, we wouldn't be here. It really is somewhat disappointing that the gentleman doesn't quite appreciate how impactful this is and how important it is. Mr. Speaker, the horrors of human rights abuses can be mind-numbing, whether they occurred 100 years ago, like the Armenian genocide, or are happening today in Syria at the hands of Erdogan's government. I get it. It is easier to turn away than to see the impact of brutality, the loss of life, the maiming of civilians, including children, in the devastated communities. It can turn your stomach and break your heart, but we must not lose our capacity for outrage. That 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire in the emerging nation of Turkey should outrage all of us. Formally recognizing this genocide is the right thing to do. I wish we took this step long ago, but it is always the right time to do the right thing. I urge my colleagues: Let's speak with one voice. Let's join some of our closest allies in recognizing the Armenian genocide. Let's finally remove this dark stain on the record of the United States of America. I say this all the time: The core of our being as a nation should be upholding a high standard of human rights. We should always be counted on to speak out when people's human rights are being denied. We certainly should be counted on to adhere to historical accuracy. This happened, and it is time that it become the official policy of the United States of America to recognize that it did happen and call it for what it was, and it was a genocide. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote ``yes'' on the rule, and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3289, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Chris Smith for his incredible leadership in introducing this bipartisan legislation and for all of his work on human rights. I also thank Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul, as well as Chairman Sherman, for their leadership and their support of this bill and bringing it before the House today for consideration. Behind me is a photograph taken on Monday night in Hong Kong's Chater Garden. It is estimated that 130,000 people took part in this rally calling on the United States Congress to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. The Hong Kong people need international support, and I am proud that the United States House of Representatives is standing in solidarity with Hong Kong in their struggle. While the protests were sparked by the extradition bill, the heart of the discontent is that many of Hong Kong's political leaders do not represent the people. Instead, Hong Kong's leaders are beholden to the Chinese Government. Millions of Hong Kongers would not have to protest in the streets if they could freely choose their political leaders. Since the 2014 umbrella movement protests, the ``one country, two systems'' framework has been rapidly eroding as free expression has been stifled and the space for democratic participation has been restricted. We have seen the prosecution and sentencing of prodemocracy leaders, the disqualification and removal of prodemocracy legislators, the abduction and arbitrary detention of booksellers, and the expelling of a Financial Times journalist. Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy is enshrined in the legally binding 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and Hong Kong's Basic Law. The joint declaration is an international treaty, signed by the Chinese Government, and guarantees the protection of rights and a separate economic system for mainland China. I believe it is time for the United States to reconsider its policies toward Hong Kong. U.S.-Hong Kong relations are governed by the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 that commits the United States to treating Hong Kong as a separate customs territory from the rest of China as long as Hong Kong remains sufficiently autonomous. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would require the Secretary of State to certify, on an annual basis, whether Hong Kong continues to warrant special treatment different from mainland China under U.S. law. 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 United States based on politically motivated arrests based on their protest activities. To be clear, we stand together with the people of Hong Kong and, indeed, all the people of China when we express our concerns about the human rights violations of the Hong Kong and Chinese Governments. 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 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. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from California for his leadership. I rise in support of H.R. 4270, the Placing Restrictions On Teargas Exports and Crowd Control Technology to Hong Kong Act, the PROTECT Hong Kong Act. I am proud to have introduced this bipartisan legislation, along with my colleagues Chris Smith and Ro Khanna, that responds to the excessive and unnecessary use of force by the Hong Kong police, targeting those engaged in peaceful protest. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing this bill so quickly before the House for consideration. The PROTECT Hong Kong Act prohibits U.S. exports of defense articles, munitions, and police equipment to Hong Kong. Specifically, it stops U.S. exports of teargas, pepper spray, grenades, rubber bullets, guns, semiautomatic rifles, and such defense articles and munitions to the police. Let's be clear about what is happening in Hong Kong right now. Millions of people from all walks of life, including: young people, students, women, seniors, entrepreneurs, teachers, civil servants, and workers are standing up to the most powerful, authoritarian government in the world. Protesters have inspired the world as they risk their lives, their health, their jobs, and their education to fight for the future of Hong Kong. They are savvy and strategic. They are using technology to mobilize, stay anonymous, and organize. They are capturing and extinguishing teargas containers. They have taken down, taken apart, and shown the world increasing surveillance cameras that monitor everyday Hong Kongers. They are using art, music, laser pointers, and the projection of messages on building to highlight their struggle. They organized a human chain of 200,000 people spanning 37 miles. Tenants in Hong Kong's residential buildings organize the shouting of slogans from their windows every night with calls and responses echoing throughout the city. The people of Hong Kong have made their voices loud and clear. But instead of listening to them, the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments have mishandled the situation at every turn. The world has now seen eyewitness evidence compiled by journalists and the media showing that police have used excessive force and used equipment in violation of manufacturer guidelines and international standards. We have seen the police firing rubber bullets and bean bag rounds at peaceful protesters at close range. We have seen them launching teargas canisters, from high buildings and directly at individuals, into crowded and enclosed areas. We have seen them failing to give demonstrators visible and audible warning before firing, and we have seen them use batons to beat and subdue demonstrators and disperse journalists. In fact, the situation has been so bad that in June, the British Government suspended export licenses for the sale of teargas and crowd control equipment until concerns about human rights abuses are addressed. On August 13, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights called for an investigation of the use of crowd control tactics in Hong Kong. Enough is enough. It is time for American companies to stop selling weapons that are being used to suppress peaceful protests. Instead of heeding international calls to stop the crackdown, the Hong Kong Government continues to make matters worse. On October 1 alone, 269 arrests of protesters, spanning the ages of 12 to 71 were made. Two teenage protesters had been shot with live ammunition, and the uptick of violence against journalists has further served to inflame public anger against the government and the police. Instead of establishing an independent commission of inquiry on police conduct to deescalate the situation, the Hong Kong Government has formally invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to ban the use of masks during public assemblies. This is an impractical and draconian step to move the city closer to martial law. The Hong Kong Government should repeal this regulation and refrain from bypassing oversight and scrutiny by the legislative council in making ad hoc regulations. An intensified crackdown will only escalate and promote violence, and further tarnish the reputation of Hong Kong and its police force. At a minimum, it is beyond time for Congress to send a clear message that the United States supports the people of Hong Kong, and that we will no longer provide assistance to crack down on pro-democracy protesters. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4270, the PROTECT Hong Kong Act.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 564 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, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 564, providing for the consideration of H.R. 4378 under a closed rule. One hour of general debate has been provided, controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, let me just take this moment also to recognize the leadership of the ranking member on the Rules Committee, Mr. Cole. He is not only a friend, but he is a fair and evenhanded appropriator that can work with both sides. I know if the gentleman could control this entire process, we would not be having continuing resolutions; we would be actually voting for funding for the entire year. As my colleagues know, funding for the Federal Government runs out on September 30, and that is less than 2 weeks from now. I had hoped that we would have finished all of our work by now. Certainly, the House has done its lion's share of work, but instead of prioritizing that, President Trump has been obsessed with drawing on weather maps and Twitter fights and cozying up to dictators. And the Republican Senate is completely dysfunctional. It seems like we have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than seeing them pass a bill. The House has passed bills that fund 96 percent of the government. Again, 96 percent of the government is funded by the actions in this House. But the Republican Senate has passed zero. Nothing. What are they doing over there, Mr. Speaker? The Senate is just starting to get its act together, but where have they been all summer? This House is the only adult in the room. That is why we are acting today to keep the lights on. This continuing resolution will keep the government funded through November 21. It is bipartisan and it is drafted as cleanly as possible to encourage the Republicans in the Senate and the White House to finally negotiate on a long-term deal. I know my Republican colleagues on the other side of the Capitol are afraid to stand up to the President. They have stood by as President Trump ransacked funding for military construction projects in their States and diverted it, instead, to pay for his ineffective border wall, a border wall that I am now being told you can fry an egg on. The President is hurting our brave servicemen and -women, their families, and their communities, but still Senate Republicans do nothing. They won't be able to shirk their responsibilities here because any compromise will require bicameral support and the President's signature. Someone over there is going to have to deliver some bad news to Donald Trump: that he is going to have to log off Twitter and actually govern. It may not make for good television but keeping the government open for business is the most basic responsibility that we have. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, when we finally do go to conference, this majority is going to defend our values. That means fully funding a fair and accurate census, securing our elections from foreign interference, and supporting Federal research into our Nation's gun violence epidemic, all while working to fund education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This is what responsible governing looks like. I know that may be a radical concept for some of my friends on the other side, who enabled this President to launch the longest shutdown in American history, but we don't believe in shutting down the government. The last Trump shutdown cost us $3 billion in economic activity that can never be recovered. That is according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. We cannot afford a repeat at a time when Moody's has found the President's disastrous trade war is already resulting in 300,000 fewer jobs created. That is a figure that could increase to 450,000 fewer jobs by the end of the year if he continues these policies. It is tough to know what will happen because it seems like the President can't make up his own mind. You would have better luck at a casino than betting what President Trump will do next. That is not master negotiation, that is madness. Our farmers are hurting. I am glad that this bill lessens the impacts they are facing as a result of the President's trade war. These families need our help, and I stand with them. Someone has to lead here to keep our government funded, and we are. No gamesmanship, just the cleanest possible plan to keep the lights on for another month. So I encourage all my colleagues: let's say enough to this uncertainty. Enough with the shutdowns and enough with the President's inaction. Let's pass this short-term CR and finally make bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on a long-term deal a reality. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.