Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers on this side of the aisle, and I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question and, obviously, yes on the rule. Let me just say that we need to do something about campaign finance. I think our current system is corrupt. I think people wonder why this institution has enacted tax bills that favor billionaires and millionaires at the expense of the middle class. Well, I think you can tie that to the money. When people want to know why we can't get the United States Senate to take up sensible gun control legislation, like universal background checks, I tell them to follow the money. I think we need to even the playing field so that middle class families, and those struggling to get into the middle class, are heard on this Hill as much as corporations and special interests have been over the past several years. H.R. 1, which we passed in this House, I think is a step in the direction toward giving government back to the people and taking it away from big corporations, ending the practice of tax bills that just favor the very well-off and the well-connected, so I disagree with the gentleman's amendment. But let me say this in conclusion. As my good friend, Mr. Cole, pointed out, this is a bipartisan compromise continuing resolution. I thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger, as well as my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) who I know worked so hard on the Appropriations Committee, for getting us to this point. I wish we did not have to do continuing resolutions. In the future that would depend on whether our colleagues in the United States Senate want to get their act together and deliberate and legislate in a timely fashion. We need to pass this because our farmers are hurting. Our retailers, our small businesses, and our local manufacturers are hurting. Virtually, anyone who sets foot into a store is forced to pay more for products today than before he took office because President Trump's tariffs are causing the typical U.S. household $1,000 a year. That is $1,000, Mr. Speaker. None of us can control the President's haphazard so-called negotiation with China, but we can control whether Congress acts to lift the threat of another shutdown. The Senate may be in disarray and the President may be focused on his latest Twitter feud or talking about how many mountain climbers couldn't climb over his new wall, or whether you can fry an egg on it, but this majority is focused on the American people. We are doing our job to prevent a shutdown to provide necessary funding that benefits all people in this country and buying some time so that we can work out a long-term deal. So I urge all my colleagues to join with us today. Let's encourage the Senate Republicans and the President to finally do the jobs they were elected to do and keep this government funded. We are doing our job, and in here, today, we will bring a bipartisan product to this floor--this bipartisan continuing resolution--that deserves a strong vote on both sides of the aisle. The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 564 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 2. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4261) to prohibit the use of federal funds for payments in support of campaigns for election for the offices of Senator or Representative of Congress. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 3. Clause l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 4261.

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 highlight the settlement concluded between the Department of Treasury and my constituent, Dr. Valentin Gapontsev, acknowledging that Dr. Gapontsev is not a Russian oligarch for purposes of the CAATSA listing that appears on Treasury's website. Dr. Gapontsev is the founder and CEO of IPG Photonics, headquartered in Oxford, Massachusetts, a global leader in fiber laser technology. I have followed his dispute with Treasury for over 18 months, and I am glad to see it resolved favorably on behalf of my constituent. Therefore, I include in the Record the following: September 11, 2019 Letter from Department of the Treasury to Dr. Gapontsev; September 11, 2019 Press Release by IPG Photonics; and September 11, 2019 Washington Post article, ``Treasury admits Russian-born physicist shouldn't be on oligarch list that it cribbed from Forbes.'' Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, September 11, 2019. Dr. Valentin P. Gapontsev, c/o IPG Photonics Corporation, Oxford, MA. IPG Photonics Corporation, Oxford, MA. Dear Dr. Gapontsev and IPG Photonics Corporation: The following concerns the Secretary of the Treasury's unclassified report to Congress on January 29, 2018, pursuant to Section 241 of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (``CAATSA''), Pub. L. No. 115-44, 131 Stat. 886 (2017) (``the Section 241 Report''). The United States Department of the Treasury is of the opinion that, if it had to create the unclassified report today, Dr. Valentin Gapontsev would not be listed among oligarchs in the Russian Federation referred to in Section 241 of CAATSA. Consequently, Dr. Gapontsev is not an oligarch in the Russian Federation for purposes of Section 241 of CAATSA. The Department's view is based on information we did not have at the time the report was submitted to Congress. Among other things, Dr. Valentin Gapontsev is a U.S. citizen and chairman and CEO of IPG Photonics Corporation, a publicly-traded corporation headquartered in the United States. Any reference to Dr. Valentin Gapontsev in the unclassified Section 241 Report does not reflect any judgment of the Treasury Department regarding compliance with U.S. law, including those relating to sanctions against Russia or its oligarchs. Sincerely, Paul Ahern, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, President Trump said that the U.S. is ``locked and loaded'' and ready to launch an attack against Iran in retaliation for attacks on Saudi oil facilities that Houthi rebels in Yemen have claimed responsibility for. Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has not--and let me emphasize, has not--authorized any kind of military operation against Iran. Nevertheless, the President is beating the drums of war to distract Americans from the truth. What happened in Saudi Arabia is a logical outcome of failing to negotiate an end to Yemen's civil war. It is a logical outcome of the President's blind support for Saudi Arabia against the will of Congress. It is time for cooler heads to prevail. It is time to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. It is time to end the failed maximum pressure campaign against Iran. It is time to remind this President that the Constitution gives Congress the right to declare war, not him.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a resolution (H. Res. 553) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to provide a copy of the on-the-record portions of the audio backup file of the transcribed interview of Roger J. Stone Jr. conducted by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on September 26, 2017, to the prosecuting attorneys in the case of the United States of America v. Stone, No. 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ (D.D.C), and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise to include in the Record the following resolution on climate change, adopted by the American Association of Geographers on April 3, 2019. [From the American Association of Geographers, April 3, 2019] AAG Resolution on Climate Change 1 (Adopted by the AAG Council) Whereas: The American Association of Geographers (AAG) is a nonprofit scientific and educational society founded in 1904 with close to 12,000 members in 2019 who are located in the United States and nearly 100 other countries; Whereas: The objectives of the Association are to further professional investigations in geography and to encourage the application of geographic findings in education, government, and business; Whereas: Gilbert F. White (1911-2006) was among the most distinguished and honored American geographers of the 20th Century who stimulated efforts to foster and improve human adjustments to the risks of our endangered planet through better-informed public and private sector decision-making; Whereas: Gilbert F. White was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Clinton in 2000 for ``major contributions to the study of water systems in developing countries, global environmental change, international cooperation, nuclear winter, geography education and the mitigation of natural hazards including earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought;'' Whereas: The planet is now experiencing more frequent, more intense, and more costly disasters associated with anthropogenic climate change in the forms of prolonged drought, wildfires, intensified hurricanes, coastal and river flooding and extreme temperatures. Deglaciation of mountainous regions threatens water supplies and hydropower generation for hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Europe, western Latin America, and the Pacific Northwest. Accelerated melting of Arctic and Antarctic land ice will cause rising sea levels to inundate portions of coastal cities worldwide by mid-century; Whereas: At the global scale, the last four years have been the hottest on record. One-fifth of all corals have died in the past three years. World carbon emissions rose 2.7 percent in 2018 despite efforts by many nations to meet the goals of the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement; Whereas: As climate change renders vast areas of the globe uninhabitable, mass population migrations and competition for water, arable land, and living space will heighten the likelihood of armed conflict, either conventional or nuclear; Whereas: Gilbert F. White challenged professional geographers to study and communicate the risks of our endangered planet and to help stimulate responsible policies and decisions by all sectors of human society; Therefore be it resolved that: In the spirit of Gilbert F. White, the American Association of Geographers urges the Government of the United States to resume its leadership in combating climate change, including (but not limited to) strategies that: 1. Recognize human activities as the preeminent cause of accelerating climate change, as emphatically concluded by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment, among many other authoritative studies around the world; 2. Reaffirm U.S. commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement, and--in cooperation with the international community-- intensify efforts to limit emissions of greenhouse gasses to control further rise in global temperatures; 3. Ratify Kigali Amendment of the Montreal Protocol to limit hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) production and consumption; 4. Encourage transition of the U.S. economy to embrace energy conservation and substitution of sustainable energy sources in place of fossil fuels; 5. Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through incentives, taxes, regulations, public transit, carbon recapture and other means; 6. Promote continued innovation by states and local governments and the private sector to conserve energy and reduce dependence on fossil fuels (e.g. through ``LEED'' green building codes, reforestation and reduced deforestation, watershed management, sustainable transportation, and other means); 7. Stimulate public and private sector decision-makers to prepare for rapid-onset impacts of climate change (e.g. wildfire, electrical grid failure, fuel and water shortages, and coastal flooding) through enhanced emergency response, relief, and recovery capabilities; 8. Reaffirm that climate change policy at all levels of society from international to local must be based on sound, verifiable science as reflected in the IPCC reports, the U.S. National Climate Assessment Reports, and other authoritative studies by scientists around the world; Be it further resolved that: The AAG will publicize this resolution to government leaders, to other scientific bodies, and to the general public through a press release and other available means. The MG should further encourage its membership to stimulate public understanding of climate change and its potential impacts (including armed conflicts) through relevant research, teaching, publications, and participation in public forums, study panels, oped columns, blog posts, and other available means.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to introduce today H.R. 3960, the Freedom for Americans to Travel to Cuba Act of 2019, along with my colleagues, Representatives Tom Emmer (R-MN), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Darin LaHood (R-IL), Jose Serrano (D-NY), Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), Donald Beyer, Jr. (D-VA), and Denver Riggleman (R-VA). I'm also proud to stand with my good friend, Senator Patrick Leahy, who will be introducing this bill in the Senate on Monday with 45 bipartisan cosponsors. This bipartisan bill addresses an issue I care very deeply about--the right of American citizens--my constituents--to travel freely anywhere in the world. Freedom of movement, freedom to travel, the basic right of any U.S. citizen to choose freely where they can go in this world has always been a fundamental part of being an American. Foreign governments might choose to deny our citizens a visa. They might restrict where Americans can go when they arrive inside a foreign country. But the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress should not be in the business of imposing restrictions on our own citizens. Yet this is what Congress has done to U.S. citizens when it comes to only one country for the last 60 years--Cuba. Americans can travel to China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Russia, Iran and Syria--each with human rights records arguably as bad or worse than Cuba's and, it should be noted, each of these countries also support Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. And until just recently, Americans could even travel to North Korea. This is an anachronistic policy, left over from the Cold War and proven to be ineffective at leveraging change by the Cuban government. The only people it harms are American citizens and those in Cuba striving to create innovative economic alternatives to state-controlled enterprises. Ironically, continued efforts to further restrict the right of Americans to travel to Cuba have had devastating consequences for Cuba's fledgling private sector--the very people the United States aims to help--which had grown to be approximately 30 percent of Cuban economy as a result of more Americans traveling to the island during the last Administration. Madam Speaker, I believe that the American people are our very best ambassadors; that they reflect the democratic values, curiosity, and innovation that make our country so great. Congress should not be in the business of denying them their own rights. Congress stripped away this basic right, and only Congress can restore it. It's past time for us to do so. I urge all my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to cosponsor this bipartisan bill and ensure its passage in the 116th Congress. I include in the Record an opinion piece by Chris Sabatini entitled, Trump Doubles Down on Failed Cuba Policy, which was published in The New York Times on July 24, 2019. [From the New York Times, July 24, 2019] Trump Doubles Down on Failed Cuba Policy the cuban autocracy remains a nagging reminder of united states impotence in rooting out communism (By Christopher Sabatini) The Trump administration's effort to bring about the end of Cuba's repressive government by squeezing the island's economy promises only more suffering for Cuban citizens, who are already struggling under Fidel Castro's failed economic project. The White House is hurting the very people--ordinary Cubans--it claims to support. Not only are their potential sources of independent income (and, with it, political independence) drying up, so is their access to food--and their hopes for the future. For decades, the Cuban autocracy has been a nagging reminder of United States impotence in rooting out Communism. Washington's embargo on Havana was tightened by Congress in 1992 and 1996--with the unintentionally ironic titles of the Cuban Democracy Act and what's known as the Cuban Liberty Act. This pressure has always come with tough talk from Republicans, who like to claim that the Castro government's time is up. John Bolton, the national security adviser, is the latest hawk to spew this empty rhetoric. Yet more than 58 years of isolating Havana has shown that the strategy doesn't follow any logical theory of regime change, even if it plays well in South Florida. Isolation has only reinforced the Cuban government's effort to make its citizens economically dependent on the Communist state. There was a brief break in America's hard-line approach when, in December 2014, President Barack Obama announced a loosening of the embargo and the normalization of relations. President Trump reversed course and rolled out many of the past, failed sanctions against Cuba, plus some new ones. Those have included restricting Americans' travel to officially approved group trips with cultural organizations, ending the allowance for American cruise ships to dock in Cuban ports, plans to reduce to $1,000 the amount of money that Cuban-Americans can send to Cuba every three months, and allowing United States citizens to sue foreign companies over the use of property expropriated by the Castro government (a provision suspended by Republican and Democratic administrations since it was passed in 1996). By the White House's own admission, these policies will reduce by half the number of American tourists visiting the island. That number last year was 600,000. American tourists had been helping to support the private restaurants, shops and the approximately 20,000 Airbnb's that have sprung up in recent years. Support for Havana from the regime in Venezuela, another target of the Trump administration, has been halted, compounding Cuba's economic troubles. Shortly after he was inaugurated as president of Venezuela in 1999, Hugo Chavez, threw the struggling Cuban economy a lifeline, sending 100,000 barrels of oil a day, half of which the Cuban government sold on the world market for hard currency. As partial payment for the cheap oil, Cubans provided intelligence and military support to Mr. Chavez and to his successor, Nicolas Maduro, to help them consolidate their corrupt, autocratic project. But as Venezuelan oil production plunged in recent years, and global prices fell, Cuba's life-support system dried up to between 20,000 and 50,000 barrels per day, as of April. The Trump administration has seen the weakness of these two economies as an opportunity to push for regime change in both countries. The first target was Mr. Maduro, hoping his fall would bring democracy to his country and thus bankrupt the Cuban regime, finally bringing it to its knees. Now, as administration officials face their failed, overhyped efforts to topple Mr. Maduro, they have changed their focus: they are blaming Cuba for Mr. Maduro's survival--rather than Mr. Maduro for the Cuban government's survival. Cubans--and the Cuban leaders--have been through worse. American restrictions on trade and travel to Cuba are minor compared to the difficulties they faced after the collapse of the Soviet Union, during which the Cuban economy contracted by more than one third. Even then, with food, electricity and hope all in short supply, the Castro government survived. Today, Cuba's leadership, under Raul Castro's handpicked successor, Miguel Diaz-Canel, is once again rallying the island nation's citizens to tighten their belts, for example by promoting hutia, a local rodent, as a source of protein. And other authoritarian powers, like China and Russia, are more than willing to throw even just a bit of economic help, and lots of anti-American ideological support, which didn't exist during the post-Cold War period. The Trump administration's strategy will fail, as it has in the past, and ordinary Cuban citizens will continue to bare the brunt of a misguided American policy. When will American leaders finally learn the lessons of history?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am here this afternoon to raise strong concerns about a rule that the Trump administration recently announced on eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility. If implemented, this rule will cut 3 million people off of SNAP, 13 percent of whom are elderly and 7 percent of whom are children. In addition, 500,000 kids will lose access to free school meals. I will put it simply: This will increase food insecurity and hurt working families. President Trump wants to, literally, take the food off the table of working families so that he can give tax breaks to the well-off and the well-connected. This proposed rule is against the will of Congress. Last year, we worked on a bipartisan farm bill, and despite some discussion on this, Congress agreed to let States maintain their flexibility to accommodate low-income households. That is why I encourage my colleagues in the House and Senate to join me and fight every battle this administration wages against those who struggle. Let us demand an end to this President's cruelty, and let us work to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations hosted a hearing that discussed the devastating impacts of President Trump's proposed cuts to broad-based categorical eligibility. Today, I would like to share the stories of a few of my constituents who have benefited from the streamlined process that broad-based categorical eligibility provides hungry families in accessing food benefits. In my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts, a single mother who is a domestic violence survivor raising one child works as a certified nursing assistant and makes $1,819 per month before taxes or payroll deductions. While this may sound like enough to get by, her current income is barely over 130 percent of the Federal poverty level. Even with an income this low, her family only receives a $15 monthly SNAP benefit. But because of broad-based categorical eligibility, her child is also able to receive free school meals, and it helps her stay afloat as a working mom. Then there is another Worcester-area family of four, former refugees, with two high school aged children. The mother and father, who both work in shipping and packaging, make $15.35 an hour. While both parents work as many hours as they can, their income fluctuates depending on how many shifts they are assigned each week. Many months they make under 130 percent of the Federal poverty level. But during other months, when they get extra shifts, it puts them slightly higher, over 130 percent. This month they received $110 in SNAP; but if it were up to the Trump administration, just one more shift could threaten the entire family's access to SNAP and their children's access to free school meals. Mr. Speaker, broad-based categorical eligibility is not a black-and- white issue. President Trump shouldn't be cutting off people's benefits just as they are getting on their feet. Last year, we worked hard to come up with a bipartisan farm bill and, despite some discussions on this issue, Congress agreed then, and in 2014, to allow States to maintain their flexibility in accommodating low-income households. In my home State of Massachusetts, where the cost of living is relatively high, compared to the rest of the country, that flexibility is crucial. I would like to take a moment now to highlight a forward-thinking partnership to address hunger among college students in Gardner, Massachusetts. I find the work of organizations that address food insecurity to be especially important during times like these. I have mentioned before that the average SNAP benefit is around $1.40 per person per meal. You can't even buy a cup of coffee for that, much less feed an entire family. For those experiencing hunger, food pantries often serve as the safety net when SNAP just isn't enough. In my district, for example, Worcester County Food Bank provides donated food to a network of 118 partner agencies, including food pantries, community meal programs, and shelters. Its mission is to engage, educate, and lead Worcester County in creating a hunger-free community. Last year, they served 81,000 neighbors. Recently, I visited one of the food bank's partners, the Mount Wachusett Community College's Food for Thought Campus Pantry, one of the first college food pantries to partner with the Worcester County Food Bank in addressing food insecurity on local college campuses. Research shows that community college students experience higher food insecurity than the rest of the population. A recent study found that two out of three community college students are food insecure. The Food for Thought Campus Pantry was created in October of 2017 for students and by students in response to food insecurity among community college students, which is becoming an increasing threat to student success. Since the Food for Thought Pantry opened its doors in October 2017, 210 students have registered for food assistance, and 7,238 pounds of food, and 15,807 total items were distributed. Without organizations like the Worcester County Food Bank and Mount Wachusett's Food for Thought Food Pantry, students and families would not have consistent access to the food that they need. These programs and organizations are an irreplaceable key to solving our Nation's hunger crisis, but they can't bear all of the weight if the Trump administration has its way and cuts millions off of SNAP. That is why I encourage my colleagues in the House and Senate to join me and fight every single attempt this administration makes to wage war on people who are hungry. Working together is the only way we are going to be able to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for yielding me the time and I want to thank him for his service on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the rule, but I want to speak on one underlying bill in particular, H. Res. 489. Mr. Speaker, what we saw this week used to be reserved for the darkest corners of the internet, some chat room somewhere where people would be too ashamed to even use their real name when spewing vile rhetoric. But this isn't some online troll. We are not talking about using dog whistles or speaking in some kind of secret alt-right code, Mr. Speaker. This is proudly using Twitter as a megaphone to attack fellow Americans. These are American citizens being turned into some kind of scary ``other,'' not because of their party, but because of their background, their race, and their opinions. This is the same type of attack the President has used against immigrants and refugees for years. I have seen this administration carry out some deeply troubling policies. I have heard some deeply offensive things. And I know I am not alone in this, because when the cameras are off and the press isn't around, some of my colleagues on the other side have told me the same thing, that they are sickened by what is going on. Well, these recent comments are in a completely different category. This type of language isn't just offensive. It could lead to violence. It is corroding our discourse. It undermines our values, and it doesn't reflect who we are as a country. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle, more sternly worded press releases and disappointed tweets aren't going to cut it. The only thing that matters here is votes. Press statements are not enough. This House needs to speak with unity and vote to condemn the President's comments for what they are. Now, I believe in the adage from Maya Angelou: ``When someone shows you who they are, believe them.'' The President told us who he was long before he rode that escalator down to announce his campaign. It is time Republicans told the American people with their votes what they whisper to one another in the Cloakroom, what many of them have told me behind closed doors, because this dark world view is what will be on the ballot. Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to think twice before they follow the President off a cliff. Our credibility matters and their credibility matters. A Presidency lasts, at most, just 4 to 8 years. Some of us will get the chance to serve here long after this administration ends, and we will have to live with our conscience for a lifetime, but silence is an endorsement, equivocation is an endorsement, blaming both sides is an endorsement. There is no gray area here. There is a very clear right and wrong. So supporting this resolution isn't about standing with Democrats; it is about standing up for decency. The President showed us who he is. Now we have the chance to show the American people who we are. Now, it is no secret that I have profound policy disagreements with this President. His economic policies favor the rich and his foreign policy completely ignores human rights, but in all the time I have been alive, I have always respected the office of the President and the occupant. I feel differently now. I feel embarrassed. I feel ashamed. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues, our children are watching us. So do the right thing. Do the moral thing. Condemn President Trump's hateful and blatantly racist rhetoric. And I don't care if it is out of order, but we need to be clear, we need to call it what it is, and we need to condemn it.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I believe that what I am saying on the House floor supports the truth. I believe every word I said, and I feel strongly about it. I would only wish my colleagues on the other side would feel equally strong about condemning these horrific remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the President can say whatever he wants. I think we have a moral obligation to call out racism wherever it exists.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I would ask him: Where was he when President Trump was spreading lies about President Obama's birth? Where was he when Representative Joe Wilson shouted, on the House floor, ``You lie,'' to President Obama in 2009?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor, I rise in support of H. Res. 432, and I want to commend my good friend and colleague, Mr. Kildee, for his leadership on this issue. I also want to commend the incredible work of Chairman Engel for all he has done on this issue, as well as Chairwoman Bass and Mr. Bilirakis and others here. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express my unwavering support for the people of Sudan in their long-held desire to live in a democratic nation, a nation where all the Sudanese people live in dignity and where their rights and freedoms are respected and protected. For three decades, the people of Sudan have suffered under the brutal, genocidal regime of Omar al-Bashir. They were murdered, mutilated, bombed, starved, imprisoned, tortured, and raped by Bashir's army, air force, police, intelligence unit, and paramilitary allies, formerly known as the Janjaweed and now organized as the Sudanese Rapid Support Forces. Villages were burned to the ground, churches destroyed, radio stations and the press shut down, protests violently repressed, and food and medicine denied to populations at risk. Last December, the people of Sudan rose up in massive protests across the country and said: Enough. No more. The time for change is now. On April 11, Bashir was removed from office by the Sudanese military. But instead of turning the government over to the civilian-led council, they took power for themselves. On May 16, 92 Members of Congress sent a bipartisan, bicameral letter to the administration expressing support for a civilian-led transition in Sudan and concern about the military's escalating violence against the peaceful protesters, which I include in the Record. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 16, 2019. Hon. Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Pompeo and Secretary Mnuchin: We write to express our deep concern about the current situation in Sudan and our support for a rapid transfer of power to a civilian- led transitional government committed to laying the foundations for democracy in the country. This is a critical moment for Sudan, one that came about because the Sudanese people took to the streets to demand it. It is also critical for the United States to support Sudanese citizen's demands for real democratic change. We welcome the April 18th statement by the State Department supporting ``a transition to a peaceful and democratic Sudan led by civilians who represent the diversity of Sudanese society,'' and expressing support for the ``will of the Sudanese people'' for ``a transitional government that is inclusive and respectful of human rights and the rule of law.'' We appreciate the efforts of the Africa Bureau to update congressional offices about the changing situation in Sudan. We also acknowledge the African Union's condemnation of the military takeover as a coup d'etat and its demand that the military ``step aside and hand over power to a transitional civilian-led political authority, in accordance with the will of the people'' by June 3rd. We also welcome U.S. efforts to bring together like-minded nations and donors to emphasize international support for a civilian-led transition. The military leadership who have taken power are attempting to create the appearance of change, but elements and structures of the old regime remain. The Transitional Military Council (TMC) does not meet the aspirations so clearly articulated by months of peaceful pro-democracy protests that demanded an inclusive, civilian-led democratic change. A government dominated by the military is not the goal of the Sudanese people and the longer the protestors' demands remain unfulfilled, there is increased probability of conflict like the violence against protestors, deaths and injuries that occurred this week. We support your decision to continue Sudan's designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST) and to suspend Phase II discussions. Congress also has a role to play in law regarding changes to Sudan's status as a state sponsor of terrorism. We encourage close consultation with and the consent of Congress should the Administration seek to alter the SST designation or provide further economic relief to Sudan, actions which at the current moment would be inappropriate and premature. We understand that rapidly changing events on the ground might require a corresponding change in U.S. policy and we are ready to work as equal partners in decisions that advance civilian democratic governance, respect for human rights, including religious freedom, and rule of law. The United States must send a clear message that the path to international credibility and American partnership will only come through credible civilian leadership. We encourage you to use all mechanisms and leverage to facilitate, as quickly as possible, an inclusive civilian-led transition to democratic governance. The United States should make clear to foreign governments that have expressed support for the TMC that a civilian transition that reflects the will of the Sudanese people is nonnegotiable. In this regard, we are dismayed by the announcement from the Governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that they intend to provide Sudan with $3 billion in budget support and aid. We urge you to use all appropriate diplomatic and political channels to discourage such a transfer of funds. If funds are disbursed, this will likely encourage the TMC to delay a civilian-led transition. The Sudanese people will rightly determine matters of justice regarding the crimes of the previous regime, given the millions of people who suffered and perished under its deliberate and repressive actions. It is important for you, Mr. Secretaries, to emphasize that former President Bashir and other officials and military officers of his regime are internationally indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. It is an urgent matter of international law that they face trial and judgement on these charges. There are additional actions that we strongly encourage you to take in your respective capacities as Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury: When a civilian-led transitional council is established-- one supported by the pro-democracy movement and the Sudanese people--it is vital that the United States press for unimpeded access by international humanitarian aid agencies so that they may finally deliver, without interference or conditions, emergency relief to populations in conflict areas such as South Kordofan, Blue Nile and northern Darfur. We understand this is also a current priority for the U.S. and other aid donors, but unobstructed delivery of humanitarian aid to these regions is likely to remain stalled until inclusive civilian rule is established. To support and increase the capacity of civilian leadership and civil society, the United States should provide transitional civilian authorities and entities with technical and capacity-building assistance. The United States, in consultation with Congress, should signal its willingness to engage with and support international financial institutions in aiding Sudan once civilian-led transitional authorities are in place and functioning. The State Department should not issue visas to any Sudanese official to travel to the United States until credible civilian-led government is in place and functioning independently. Nor should any Sudanese or TMC official be issued a visa who has been internationally indicted, or who might be subject to justice in Sudan for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. Treasury, in consultation with the State Department and relevant congressional committees, should continue to use the sanctions authorities provided under the Global Magnitsky program to target key Sudanese individuals, officials, entities and networks. Recognizing Sudan's extensive corruption, money-laundering operations and theft of state resources, it is critical for the United State to provide leadership on preventing funds from being moved out of the country during this period when the former Bashir regime is being pushed aside but current regime structures remain in place. The Treasury Department should issue public advisories to banks and other financial institutions regarding the risk of such capital flight and other high-risk transactions from Sudan, such as the gold trade. This would be an action like the one taken by Treasury in 2014 related to Ukraine. It is also critical that the Treasury Department continue to track and respond aggressively to similar transfers of funds that occurred prior to Bashir's downfall. Thank you for your attention to these urgent concerns and recommendations. We look forward to working together and developing a new policy framework consistent with American values and the aspirations of the Sudanese people. Sincerely, James P. McGovern; Ann Wagner; Karen Bass; Jeffrey A. Merkley; Todd Young; Christopher H. Smith; Chris Van Hollen; Tina Smith; Gary C. Peters; Roger F. Wicker; Richard J. Durbin; Richard Blumenthal; Elizabeth Warren. Eliot L. Engel; Barbara Lee; Adam B. Schiff; Nita M. Lowey; Frank Pallone, Jr.; Maxine Waters; Zoe Lofgren; Raul M. Grijalva; Michael T. McCaul; Gus M. Bilirakis; Barry Loudermilk; Steve Watkins, Mark Meadows; Elijah E. Cummings; John A. Yarmuth; John Lewis. Naydia M. Velazquez; David Trone; Chellie Pingree; Gwen S. Moore; Gregory W. Meeks; Yvette D. Clarke; Jan Schakowsky; Donald M. Payne, Jr.; Peter A. DeFazio; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Sheila Jackson Lee; Grace Meng; Jared Huffman; Bonnie Watson Coleman; Federica S. Wilson; Joaquin Castro. Earl Blumenauer; Mike Doyle; Pramila Jayapal; Jim Costa; David N. Cicilline; Suzanne Bonamici; Steve Cohen; Ilhan Omar; Jamie Raskin; Bobby L. Rush; Mark Pocan; Daniel T. Kildee; Andy Levin; Seth Moulton; Chrissy Houlahan; Jennifer Wexton. Jose E. Serrano; Donald S. Beyer, Jr.; Alan S. Lowenthal; Darren Soto; Val Butler Demings; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Stephen F. Lynch; Ruben Gallego; Anna G. Eshoo; Emanuel Cleaver, II; Peter Welch; Albio Sires; Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.; Andre Carson; Lori Trahan; Mark DeSaulnier. Paul D. Tonko; Danny K. Davis; Ron Kind; Ro Khanna; Rosa L. DeLauro; Ann McLane Kuster; William R. Keating; Adriano Espaillat; Katherine M. Clark; Brian Higgins; Richard E. Neal; Joseph P. Kennedy, III; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Ayanna Pressley; Norma J. Torres.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we had good reason to be concerned. Just 2 weeks later, in a clear demonstration of how little has changed, the Sudanese police and RSF, under the leadership of the Transitional Military Council's second in command, General Hemeti violently attacked the unarmed protesters, killing, wounding, and raping hundreds. In an act of great cowardice and complicity, the Sudanese military chose to withdraw from the scene or stood by and watched the attack, doing nothing to protect the people. The Transitional Military Council then shut down the internet so information about the massacre couldn't come out. Last week, they were forced to restore the internet, and the world has now seen hundreds of videos documenting this heinous crime. On Saturday, thousands demonstrated to mark the 40 days since the deadly crackdown. Right now, African mediators are attempting to broker the details of a power-sharing agreement between the forces of freedom and change people's alliance in the Transitional Military Council. I hope that they are successful in reaching a deal that guarantees a genuine civilian-led transition and democratic governance, but I don't want to see the civilian-led democratic reform movement undermined and forced to accept a bad deal, one where power and the corrupt and brutal structures of the former regime remain under military control. Mr. Speaker, like so many of my colleagues, I have been engaged on the issue of Sudan for nearly 15 years. On April 28, 2006, I led Members of Congress, religious, and NGO leaders in an act of civil disobedience at the Sudanese Embassy to highlight the atrocities taking place in Darfur. It was my first of three such direct actions. On May 1 of that year, I joined over 50 of those people on The National Mall to protest the genocide in Darfur. I took my young son and daughter to see how people from all walks of life came together in solidarity with the people of Sudan and demanded action. Mr. Speaker, my children are now grown and in college, so I am not exaggerating when I say that what we are seeing happening today in Sudan is a once-in-a-generation moment for the people of Sudan. We cannot be silent. Along with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want the people of Sudan to know that we stand with them, that we have always stood with them, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2037. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, and I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski), my good friend and colleague, for his long commitment to human rights and his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank Chairman Engel for working to ensure that this bill came before the House for consideration. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 10 months since Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, journalist for The Washington Post, and former general manager and editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, and was never, ever again seen. He was assassinated by agents of the Saudi Arabian Government. Despite having arrested some of its own security personnel for this crime, the Saudi Government continues to refuse to disclose the location of Khashoggi's remains. In June, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions concluded that Khashoggi was ``the victim of a deliberate, premeditated execution, an extrajudicial killing for which the State of Saudi Arabia is responsible.'' She called the trial in Saudi Arabia of the 11 suspects to be suspended, saying it would ``not deliver credible accountability.'' ``The trial is held behind closed doors. The identity of those charged has not been released nor is the identity of those facing the death penalty. At the time of writing, at least one of those identified as responsible for the planning and organizing of the execution of Mr. Khashoggi has not been charged,'' she noted. She also found there was ``credible evidence that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and other high-level officials were individually liable.'' Not surprisingly, the Saudi Government, which denies the Prince was involved, has rejected the report. Meanwhile, despite all the international handwringing and denunciations, there has been little effective international response. This bill requires an intelligent assessment on responsibility for Jamal Khashoggi's murder, and it would sanction those named by imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions against them. It also requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress with a report on Saudi Arabia's human rights record, which, personally, I find to be among the most egregious in the world. Mr. Speaker, the U.S., Canada, France, and the U.K. all levied some level of sanctions against 18 Saudis allegedly linked to the killing. The Saudi Crown Prince is not among them. Germany, Finland, and Denmark have canceled arms deals with Saudi Arabia. The U.K. was also forced to cancel its armed sales to the Saudi Government, under court order. The Senate and the House have voted to condemn Jamal Khashoggi's murder and to end U.S. armed sales to Saudi Arabia because of Saudi Arabia's role in the Yemen civil war. President Trump has chosen to ignore the will of Congress, going so far as to invoke an imaginary emergency in order to continue selling arms to the Saudis. The Senate has voted to overturn those arms sales by passing resolutions of disapproval, which the House will consider later this week or next. I have introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 643, that would end U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Now is the time for the House to act strongly and definitely. There must be consequences for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Such a heinous crime must not be met with impunity. H.R. 2037 is an appropriate step in ensuring that those responsible are named and held accountable. Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership and urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chair, this bipartisan amendment co-sponsored by Congresswoman Walorski will authorize $11 million for the Wounded Warrior Service Dog Program in FY 2020, and I want to thank Chairman Smith for including this amendment in En Bloc 11. This lifechanging program will aid our nation's veterans by awarding grants to nonprofit organizations that stand-up, operate, and provide free assistance dogs to veterans and service members with physical disabilities, PTSD, or traumatic brain injuries. Service dogs often become an integral part of a veteran or servicemember's treatment team because they provide both physical and emotional support--they can protect a veteran who is having a seizure, remind them to take medications, or even create a protective physical barrier in a crowded space. Madam Chair, this amendment will continue to effectively expand treatment options for our veterans and service members and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 476 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 Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 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. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 476, providing for consideration of H.R. 2500 under a structured rule. One hour of general debate has been provided, controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. Madam Speaker, this rule makes more than 430 amendments in order. I think we broke a record. This bill has the most amendments, I think, ever made in order, and I think it is something that we should be proud of. These amendments include ideas from both sides. I think that is important. But I have got to tell you that I am especially proud that this rule allows a debate on many truly progressive ideas. One of these amendments would allow transgender troops their rightful chance to serve in our military without roadblocks from this administration. That shouldn't be a radical idea. Gender shouldn't matter on the battlefield. Transgender troops have been serving in our military for a very long time. They have willingly put their lives on the line to deploy in combat zones just like all other troops. They have worn the same uniform and have been held to the same standard as everybody else. But, instead of thanking them, instead of thanking them for their service to our country, this administration wants to prevent them from serving at all. Out of nowhere, President Trump logged onto Twitter one day and decided to ban transgender people from military service. This rule will give us a chance to debate an amendment to change that, to reject the President's bigotry. There is another amendment here that would prevent the President from using the 2001 AUMF to launch an attack on Iran or engage in military hostilities without explicit congressional authorization. Now, think about this. We were, apparently, moments away from the President launching an attack against Iran--no consultation with Congress at all, no debate on this floor, no thoughtful discussion, not even a vote. Democrats don't want war with Iran. Most Republicans don't want war with Iran. The American people certainly don't want a war with Iran. But this President was, apparently, about to use an AUMF passed more than a decade ago to fumble us into another conflict in the Middle East. I am glad the President backed off from bombing Iran, but I am terrified about the lack of thoughtful leadership coming from this Oval Office. I don't know what kind of mood he will be in when he wakes up tomorrow, whether he will want to go to war with a country or not, but I think we have a constitutional obligation here in Congress to make sure that we play a role as to whether or not we enter into another war as well as preventing another war. We need to make it clear to this administration that the President cannot use an old AUMF to initiate hostilities against Iran, period. This rule is our chance. There are dozens and dozens of ideas here that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to get debated for a long time and many on our side of the aisle have tried to get debated for a long time. This rule will finally allow us to do that. As important as they are, the importance of this rule goes beyond just the amendments. There is suspension authority included in here that would allow us to move quickly this week and pass the reauthorization of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. How could anybody oppose that, Madam Speaker? Recently, we saw 9/11 first responders coming to the Senate and literally begging for Majority Leader McConnell to move the bill. These people are heroes. They should never have to plead with hat in hand for the resources to help them survive. The Senate is finally showing a willingness to move on this. So, if we pass this rule, this program could be reauthorized within a matter of days. Passing this rule would also allow us to quickly take action on the first measure placed on the Consensus Calendar, H.R. 553, as part of the underlying bill. This calendar was created as part of our bipartisan rules package, passed at the start of the Congress. It is a new procedure designed to expedite consideration of measures with broad bipartisan support. Congressman Joe Wilson and Congressman John Yarmuth's bill to update the Department of Defense's Survivor Benefit Plan has well over 350 cosponsors. Clearly, there is a lot of bipartisan support here for this legislation. Let's pass this rule and make sure it gets taken up as quickly as possible this week as part of a must-pass vehicle. That is what this rule is all about, Madam Speaker: debating ideas and countless progressive amendments--and some amendments, quite frankly, that are very conservative that I am going to fight as hard as I can to defeat. Moving quickly to reauthorize a program that our 9/11 first responders depend on, I think, is an absolute priority of this majority, and I hope my Republican friends will join with us in supporting this effort. Allowing an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill to be considered on the floor without delay that benefits widows, I think, is something that hopefully will get broad bipartisan support. So, if we pass this, we can make sure all of this happens this week. Madam Speaker, I also want to take a moment and recognize that this underlying NDAA bill would finally confer a service medal honoring the sacrifice of atomic veterans. It has been a long road getting to this point. The prior three House NDAA bills included similar amendment language, sometimes by near unanimous votes, but it was stripped out of conference every single time. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why. Radiation-exposed servicemembers risked their lives for our Nation, in secret and at great personal cost. More than three-quarters of atomic veterans have already passed away, many prematurely from health problems directly related to their service. It is past time to finally recognize their courage and sacrifice, not just with a certificate of recognition but with what they truly deserve: a service medal. So I hope, by including this language in the base bill, it won't be stripped out as the process continues, and let's give these veterans the recognition that they have earned. Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just say this: The underlying bill is a good bill, and Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, and their staff deserve a lot of credit for this product. It was a bipartisan process in committee, as we heard last night in the Rules Committee. Many Republican amendments were adopted in the committee process, and I think Chairman Smith, again, and his staff deserve enormous credit for getting us to the point we are at here today. I will say that I regret very much that the marching orders coming from the leaders of the Republican Conference are that all Republicans should vote against the NDAA bill, a bill that contains a pay increase for our troops, a bill that includes items that will protect and enhance our national security, a bill that will provide all the other things I have just mentioned. I am sorry that the Republican leaders have decided to turn this into a partisan exercise, but they can do whatever they want. Our job is to make sure this gets done and it gets moved forward in a timely fashion, and that is what we intend to do. Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just take issue with the gentleman from Georgia when he talks about this as being a partisan process. From what I understand, in the Armed Services Committee, 142 Republican amendments were accepted, 142. And the gentleman's facts are a little bit wrong when he says it was a straight party-line vote reporting the bill to the floor, unless Ms. Stefanik and Mr. Bacon have changed parties--I hope they did--because they voted to advance it. Everybody in that committee should have voted to advance it, but they did, and they deserve credit for that. Notwithstanding the fact that the Republican leadership is telling all their Members, vote ``no'' on the final passage of the bill, and vote ``no'' on the rule, unlike my colleagues on the Republican side when they were in charge, who would routinely ask Democrats who came before the Rules Committee and offered amendments and they would say, if we make your amendment in order, will you vote for the bill? Well, we didn't ask a single Republican that question last night. And we made 62 Republican amendments in order. There are 94 bipartisan amendments in order, and so we didn't do that. If this ends up being a partisan vote on the rule, that is the choice of my colleagues on the Republican side. I think there is lots and lots of stuff in here that everybody should support. Let me just say one other thing about the Consensus Calendar. My friend from Georgia is just beside himself that we are moving forward a bipartisan idea that has over 300 cosponsors, overwhelmingly bipartisan. Oh, it is terrible that you are putting it in the rule. It is terrible, terrible, terrible. Well, let me say, what happened when they were in charge in the last Congress. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Yarmuth introduced a bill. I think there were 290-plus cosponsors on the bill. My Republican friends couldn't even be bothered last session with giving the bill a hearing. They didn't bring it to the floor for a vote. They could have brought it under suspension. They could have had it as an amendment to something. They could have put it in a rule if they wanted to. They didn't do anything. And now that we are moving forward an idea that has broad bipartisan support, they can't handle it. They are having a meltdown on the other side of the aisle. Well, you are obsessed with the process when you should be obsessed with the widows who would benefit from the enactment of this bill. But that is fine. That is fine. The whole point of the Consensus Calendar was to be able to bring bipartisan ideas that had overwhelming support to move those ideas forward, and we praise Mr. Wilson and praise Mr. Yarmuth for their leadership on this. But to carry on about that it is on a rule, and not at all be concerned about it becoming law really kind of shows the difference in our priorities. Let me tell you that one of the reasons why we think it is important to put it on the NDAA bill is because we think is a must-pass piece of legislation. This will go to the Senate. I mean, obviously, there will be a conference report, and there will be back and forth and there will be changes and additions and it will come back. But we know that this bill, if it passes the House is going over to the Senate, whether you like it or not. It is going to the Senate. If we brought it up here under a suspension, it would die in Mitch McConnell's graveyard, like everything else dies over in the Senate. He doesn't give a damn about this; if he did, he would have done something about it. So I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but, quite frankly, I think that they are unfounded; and I think that, quite frankly, this is a rule that deserves the support of not just Democrats but Republicans as well.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand the frustration on the Republican side. They lost an election, and so they are not getting everything they want in terms of policy. Well, elections have consequences, and I will give you an example. I oppose low-yield nuclear weapons, and I hope that that remains the policy, but we made an amendment in order that would allow them to reverse what was in the bill. I am going to fight to defeat it, but there will be a vote on that, and we will have to live with whatever the outcome is. The bottom line is that, if it doesn't turn out your way, it doesn't mean the process is somehow partisan. That is what happens when you win elections. You don't win on every policy debate that you decide to engage in. And let me just say one thing about the process and the procedure, because I think it is important for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to have a little bit of a fact check here. Our friends like to point out the ratio of amendments, but that is a cherry-picked statistic that doesn't tell the whole story. To date, we have made in order more amendments, overall, than my Republican friends did when they were in charge. We have even made in order more minority amendments, to date, than the Republicans did last Congress. By this time in the 115th Congress, a total of only 140 amendments were made in order. Of those, 89 were minority amendments. This year, we have made a total of 1,280 amendments in order. That is nine times as many amendments as my Republican friends made in order at the same point in the last Congress. And we have made in order 256 minority amendments this year, which is more than double the number of minority amendments the Republicans made in order at this point in the 115th Congress. You want to look at the statistics, there they are. And the bill that we are about to debate, we are making in order the most amendments, ever, of any bill brought to the floor. Now, I guess we could do better than that, but the bottom line is the most amendments, ever, are being made in order on this NDAA bill--and, by the way, on any bill; not just NDAA, on any bill. So I know it is frustrating to be in the minority. I was there not too long ago. I know it is frustrating not to win on every vote and to be able to rig every vote as my friends did when they were in charge, but the bottom line is, in this place, the majority, whoever has the most votes, wins. So in terms of the process, I think my friends protest too much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a member of the Armed Services Committee.