Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 9 months ago, as the already unpopular Republican tax scam was making its way through Congress, Speaker Ryan stood in this Capitol and made a bet. He wagered that ``results are going to be what makes this popular.'' Today the results are clear, and they are not what the majority and President Trump promised. Big corporations have gotten a windfall. Workers have gotten laid off. Jobs are being shipped overseas, and the richest 1 percent is getting 83 percent of the law's benefits. Despite those realities, my colleagues seemed to be surprised recently when a survey commissioned by the Republican National Committee was released in the media. It found that the public believes their tax scam benefits the wealthy and large corporations over average Americans by a two-to-one margin--61 percent to 30 percent. Let me repeat that before the President tries to tweet that it is fake news. It was a poll conducted for Republicans by a Republican polling firm. That is why we are here today with tax 2.1, Mr. Speaker, because the majority's bet is turning out to be a losing one. Nine months ago, the Republicans were assuring themselves their tax scam was good politics. Back then, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, ``If we can't sell this to the American people, we ought to go into another line of work.'' With polling like this, some Washington Republicans may have to. But first, they are here today with a package of bills that represents their last-ditch attempt at trying to turn the tide before November. And the sequel is as bad as the original in three key ways. First, the original Republican tax scam added $2.3 trillion to the national debt to give the wealthy more tax cuts. 2.0 would add another $3 trillion to the debt. You won't see its cost on the budget scorecard. Republicans think they can waive a magic wand and hide the costs. But I have news for them: this is Congress, this isn't Hogwartz. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that this is going to cost $3.2 trillion. It is important that people pay attention to this. I have got to give the Republicans credit for their sneaky ways to try to avoid the realities. They have an amendment that says this massive giveaway to the wealthy magically doesn't count. And here is the other thing. We won't even get to vote on it. It is in the rule. It will be self-executed once the rule passes. So no one has to take any responsibility for adding all this to our debt. This is at a time when the U.S. Treasury is borrowing money at a rate of $5.4 billion a day. The Congressional Budget Office recently found that the majority and the Trump administration have blown a $900 billion hole in the Federal budget. The deficit will increase by nearly 32 percent this year alone, with one of the main causes being the first GOP tax law. Mr. Speaker, what happened to the Republican Party that claimed to care about fiscal discipline? This majority is drowning in red ink. And the list goes on. Second, the original Republican tax scam reduced the Medicare trust fund by 3 years. 2.0 could trigger an automatic 4 percent cut in Medicare. That means hundreds of billions of dollars for this program would be lost. My colleagues on the other side may stand here today and claim that they want to protect Medicare and Social Security. But don't believe them. Don't be fooled. Right after their tax law exploded the deficit, what did the President's chief economic adviser do? He called for new cuts to Medicare and Social Security. It is no wonder that in the Republican poll I referenced earlier, many Americans worry that the tax law would lead to cuts to these vital programs. Make no mistake: under the majority, these earned benefits are on the chopping block so Republicans can give tax breaks to the wealthy. Third, the original Republican tax scam temporarily limited the State and local tax deduction, undermining funding for priorities like schools, firefighters, and police officers. Under 2.0, that deduction would be made permanent. More than 45 million Americans claim the SALT deduction, including those in Massachusetts, by the way. They will have a harder time doing things like buying a home if this package becomes law, all while State and local governments have a harder time investing in their communities. Even while making these harmful changes to the Tax Code, the majority apparently couldn't be bothered to make changes that could actually help Americans who have become victims to natural disasters. In the wake of Hurricane Florence and the largest wildfires in California history, Democrats asked the majority to include an amendment that would provide to all eligible Americans the same type of relief that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee provided his constituents last year after Hurricane Harvey. That request was denied. It is outrageous that, under the majority, the tax relief Americans get after a tragedy apparently depends on their ZIP Code. Mr. Speaker, there is a word for doing the same thing other and over and over again and expecting a different result. I think the majority would be hard-pressed to find anyone watching today who thinks doubling down on such an unpaid for and damaging policy is anything other than insanity. The policies in these proposals are very similar, but there is one key difference worth noting, and that is the process. The first time around, the majority used special fast-track procedures to provide tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations. They pulled out all the stops to assure that it became law as quickly as possible. They couldn't even find time to hold a hearing before voting on it. But now, on a proposal they are claiming is for the middle class, there are no fast-track procedures. There is not even a guarantee that this proposal will even be considered in the Senate. Every middle-class American watching should realize this: with this majority, the wealthy and the well-connected get a windfall under a special, quick process. Their tax cuts were virtually guaranteed under a rigged system. Your tax cuts aren't getting that same urgency. There is no special process for you. This plan will be left in limbo on the other side of the Capitol. And we all know that. The fact is, their procedures give away the whole game. This isn't about policy. This is about politics. The first tax scam isn't paying the kind of dividends that the majority anticipated. It is unpopular. So they are trying to pass this to have another talking point on the campaign trail. The public didn't fall for the majority's spin with their last tax scam, and I think they will see through this one again. They will see what this is all about. They will see this for what it is: a proposal that continues the same, old Republican policies at a time when the public is demanding a new direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire of the gentleman from Texas how many more speakers he has on his side?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is nonsense to suggest that somehow Democrats don't want the economy to work well. The difference here is we want the economy to work well for everyone, not just those at the top. Eighty- three percent of the benefits in their tax scam go to the top 1 percent of this country. The people who are struggling are those in the middle and those struggling to get in the middle. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the Speaker and to the minority leader from Feeding America, which basically says very clearly that the Republican tax bill `` . . . did not prioritize assisting those taxpayers who are most at risk of being food insecure, and as a result the new law provides little direct, tangible benefit to the individuals and families served by Feeding America.'' Feeding America, September 25, 2018. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: We write to share Feeding America's views about ``Tax Reform 2.0'' and the legislation recently approved by the House Ways and Means Committee. We previously expressed our concerns about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) and its impact on the millions of Americans facing hunger in every community across our country, and do not believe making its provisions permanent would ease the burden on those individuals and families As the nation's largest private response to domestic hunger, and the country's third largest charitable organization, Feeding America works to advance public policies that support food insecure individuals and families and that expand the resources necessary for them to access nutritious food. Given that the aggregate annual food budget shortfall for the more than 41 million food insecure individuals in the United States now stands at more than $21 billion, our highest priority is protecting the federal nutrition programs that help these families access the resources and nutrition needed to succeed. At the same time, a large percentage of individuals, including children, who struggle with hunger fall outside the public safety net, underscoring the profound need for private food assistance. In 2016, more than a quarter of food insecure individuals nationwide lived in households that earned too much to qualify for most federal nutrition assistance programs. For these working families, the generosity of individuals and corporations makes possible vital food assistance that might not otherwise be available. Regrettably, H.R. 1 did not prioritize assisting those taxpayers who are most at risk of being food insecure, and as a result the new law proves little direct, tangible benefit to the individuals and families served by Feeding America. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) beginning in 2021 taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $30,000 per year will see an increase in their average tax rate, a circumstance that will apply to all taxpayers earning less than $75,000 by 2027. Additionally, changes to the standard deduction and the availability of itemized deductions have effectively eliminated the charitable deduction for 28.5 million taxpayers, according to JCT. The result will be a decline in charitable giving of more than $17 billion per year, according to a recent American Enterprise Institute study, with human service charities likely to be especially hard hit. Of the 28.5 million taxpayers expected to no longer file itemized returns, 24.6 million earn less than $200,000 per year. Donors with incomes below $200,000 are responsible for 62% of annual charitable giving to all human needs charities. Simply put, the loss of this century-old giving incentive will have a devastating effect on a wide range of charitable programs and services delivered in communities across the country, including those that provide much-needed food assistance to hungry individuals and families who are not otherwise benefitting from the new tax law. H R. 1 represented a missed opportunity to provide relief for the millions of Americans who struggle to put food on the table, and we do not support making its provisions permanent. We do, however, encourage you to undertake Tax Reform 2.0 with the aim of enacting legislation that eases the burdens on lower-income working families, continues to encourage Americans to give generously to charity, and ensures the government has the resources necessary to meet our collective obligations to provide for the health and well-being of our neighbors and our communities. We hope to serve as a resource to you as this process unfolds, and we look forward to the opportunity to share with you proposed tax code changes that we believe will have a positive impact on the people we serve. Sincerely, Alabama Food Bank Association (AL); All Faiths Food Bank; Arkansas Foodbank (AR); Atlanta Community Food Bank (GA); Blue Ridge Area Food Bank, Inc. (VA); California Association of Food Banks (CA); Capital Area Food Bank (DC/MD/VA); Central California Food Bank (CA); Central Pennsylvania Food Bank (PA); Central Texas Food Bank (TX); City Harvest (NY); Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma (OK); Community Food Warehouse of Mercer County (PA); Connecticut Food Bank (CT); Eastern Illinois Foodbank (IL); Facing Hunger Foodbank (WV/ KY/OH); Feeding America; Feeding America Southwest Virginia (VA); Feeding Indiana's Hungry (IN). Feeding San Diego (CA); Feeding South Dakota (SD); Feeding the Gulf Coast (AL/FL/MS); Feeding Wisconsin (WI); FeedMore (VA); Food Bank Association of New York State (NY); Food Bank Council of Michigan (MI); Food Bank for Larimer County (CO); Food Bank for the Heartland (NE/IA); Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina (NC); Food Bank of Central New York (NY); Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano (CA); Food Bank of East Texas (TX); Food Bank of Iowa (IA); Food Bank of Lincoln, Inc. (NE); Food Bank of Northern Indiana (IN); Food Bank of Northern Nevada (NV/CA); Food Bank of the Golden Crescent (TX); Food Bank of the Rio Grande Valley (TX). Food Bank of the Rockies (CO/WY); Food Bank of the Southern Tier (NY); Food Bank of West Central Texas (TX); Food Finders Food Bank, Inc. (IN); Food Lifeline (WA); FOOD Share of Ventura County (CA); Foodbank of Southeastern Virginia and the Eastern Shore (VA); Foodlink, Inc. (NY); Forgotten Harvest (MI); Fulfill (NJ); Georgia Food Bank Association (GA); Gleaners Food Bank of Indiana (IN); God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc. (KY); Good Shepherd Food Bank (ME); Greater Chicago Food Depository (IL); Greater Cleveland Food Bank, Inc. (OH); Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank (PA); Harry Chapin Food Bank of Southwest Florida (FL); Harvesters--The Community Food Network (MO/KS); Island Harvest (NY); Kentucky Association of Food Banks (KY). Long Island Cares (NY); Los Angeles Regional Food Bank (CA); Mid-Ohio Foodbank (OH); Mid-South Food Bank (TN/AR/MS); Montana Food Bank Network (MT); Mountaineer Food Bank (WV); New Hampshire Food Bank (NH); North Texas Food Bank (TX); Northern Illinois Food Bank (IL); Ohio Association of Foodbanks (OH); Oregon Food Bank (OR/WA); Ozarks Food Harvest (MO); Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York (NY); Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma (OK); Rhode Island Community Food Bank (RI); Roadrunner Food Bank (NM); San Antonio Food Bank (TX); Second Harvest Community Food Bank (MO/KS); Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida (FL); Second Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Tennessee (TN); Second Harvest Food Bank of Northwest North Carolina (NC). Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County (CA); Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties (CA); Second Harvest Foodbank of Southern Wisconsin (WI); Second Harvest Heartland (MN/WI); Second Harvest Northern Lakes Food Bank (MN/WI); Shared Harvest Foodbank (OH); Southeast Missouri Food Bank (MO); Southeast Ohio Foodbank (OH); Southeast Texas Food Bank (TX); St Louis Area Foodbank (MO/ IL); The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts (MA); The Foodbank, Inc. (OH); The Greater Boston Food Bank (MA); The Idaho Foodbank (ID); Three Square Food Bank (NV); Treasure Coast Food Bank (FL); Tri-State Food Bank, Inc (IN/IL/KY); Utah Food Bank (UT); Vermont Foodbank (VT); Virginia Peninsula Foodbank (VA); Weld Food Bank (CO); West Ohio Food Bank (OH); Westmoreland County Food Bank, Inc. (PA); Worcester County Food Bank (MA).

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have so diminished this House of Representatives. We are being told that tomorrow may be our last day in session before the election, that the Republicans will adjourn 2 weeks early so they can go home to try to convince voters that they deserve to be reelected. What we are doing today, this tax scam 2.0, is a joke, because they know it is going nowhere in the Senate. They are frightened by the fact that their original tax bill is so terribly unpopular, and rightfully so, because the American people object to a tax bill where 83 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent. That is just not fair. People understand things like fairness. Mr. Speaker, we are asking people to defeat the previous question to protect the Mueller investigation. Since we are adjourning most likely tomorrow, this may be our only time to do it. You can vote to defeat the previous question. You can still vote for this tax scam bill, but you also can vote on whether or not to protect the Mueller investigation. We ought to do that. But there is another thing I want Members of both sides to appreciate, as this may be the last rule we bring to the floor. What we are considering today is record-shattering. The majority broke the record for the number of closed rules in Congress earlier this year. The record they broke, by the way, was their own. This restrictive process has often shut out debates here on the House floor that the American people desperately want this Congress to have, on issues like gun safety, protecting the Dreamers, and lowering the cost of prescription drugs. Now, today, the majority is taking is the most closed Congress in American history to a whole new level because, tucked inside this measure, is the majority's 99th, 100th, and 101st first closed rules of this Congress. There has never ever been a moment like this in American history, more than 100 closed rules in a single Congress. This isn't some arcane legislative matter. Consider what the majority has brought under closed rules, things like their first tax scam and their disastrous healthcare repeal bill. There are still months to go before the 116th Congress begins. Who knows what other disasters the majority of President Trump will dream up next. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that everything that the House considers should be under an open rule. There are times when a closed rule might be necessary. But more than 100 closed rules? There is no justification for that. Now, I don't know who will run this place in January, but if Democrats are trusted with the majority, we will have a more accommodating process. This place will be run like professionals. Ideas will be allowed to come forward, and the House of Representatives will actually debate again. But we don't have to wait until next year to force a more open process. We can start right here today. My Republican colleagues have voiced frustration with their majority's closed process. Well, we have the chance here to do more than just talk. We can vote. So when a closed rule goes down, Speaker Ryan will actually have to start upholding his promise of a more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, and more participatory process. It would be better late than never. While calling for a more open process, virtually every Republican voted for every closed rule we have considered. The rank and file Republicans are part of the problem. Mr. Speaker, if they are not going to take a stand on the 101st closed rule, will they ever be able to back up their talk with their vote? So I ask the majority, as we stand on the doorstep of this dubious distinction, join us in voting against this record-shattering closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if I could just inquire of the gentleman from Texas one more time, just to make sure there is nobody else who wants to speak.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I kind of figured, if this was so popular, that there would be tons of Republicans down here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of George's Coney Island in Worcester, Massachusetts on Sunday, September 30, 2018. Mr. Speaker, everyone from Central Massachusetts is familiar with George's Coney Island. Since its opening in 1927, the restaurant has become one of New England's most iconic eateries. I grew up enjoying their hot dogs, and still try to visit whenever I'm back home in Worcester. George's Coney Island is an important piece of Worcester's history. George Tsagarelis opened Coney Island in 1927 after he bought an existing luncheonette. George ran it with his wife, Catherine, eventually passing ownership down to their children. The restaurant is now run by Kathryn Tsandikos, who is George's granddaughter. As for the hot dogs--the restaurant's signature style is to smother them in chili and top them with mustard and onions. What many people don't realize is that this style was made popular in the United States by Greek immigrants like George, who migrated to the U.S. during the early 20th Century. Because so many immigrants passed through New York's Ellis Island, they were familiar with Coney Island--this is how the Coney Island hot dog was born. I'm especially grateful to George and Catherine for opening George's Coney Island nearly a century ago. The restaurant has been a staple for visitors and locals alike. The dark wooden booths that line the sides of the dining room are covered with decades of graffiti as customers etch their names and initials into the booths. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of everyone that knows and loves George's Coney Island, I'd like to offer a sincere ``thank you'' to Kathryn and her grandparents for making George's Coney Island such a treasured landmark. For all of us in Central Massachusetts, their restaurant is a point of pride. I'm proud to represent such an iconic, beloved piece of Worcester.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding me the time and for her leadership on this legislation. I appreciate it very much. And I am grateful to my colleagues from Florida, as well, for their support and for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for human rights. The House is about to approve our bipartisan bill, the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act, that will impose real consequences for China's bad behavior in Tibet. America's foreign policy ought to send a message that we value human rights, that we stand with those working for freedom, that those values compel us to speak out when we see something that is wrong, and that we will hold accountable those who violate the basic human rights we all are entitled to. That is exactly what this bill today is all about. The basis of diplomatic law is mutual access and reciprocity. But while Chinese diplomats, journalists, and tourists travel freely within the United States, the Government of the People's Republic of China has erected many barriers to travel in areas of China inhabited by ethnic Tibetans. U.S. diplomats, journalists, and tourists must obtain permission to enter the Tibet Autonomous Region, a requirement that does not exist for any other provincial-level entity of China. Visitors also face obstacles to their ability to travel to Tibetan areas outside the TAR. But under this bill, Chinese authorities who are involved in the design and implementation of policies that restrict travel to Tibetan areas become ineligible to receive a visa or be admitted to the United States. This is a victory for human rights of Tibetans and Americans. Restricted access to Tibet has many negative consequences for Tibetans in China and for citizens of the United States. Tibetans are left isolated from the rest of the world. Their well-documented suffering under Chinese rule--arbitrary detention, torture and ill- treatment, extensive government surveillance, restrictions on the use of their language and their religious and cultural practices--all these violations of fundamental human rights are hidden from sight. Preventing diplomats, journalists, and tourists from traveling to Tibet makes it much harder to assess the full scope of these abuses. I know firsthand how important access to Tibet is because I had the opportunity to join Leader Pelosi and several other Members of Congress for a visit there in November of 2015. I saw the tight control the government exercises over virtually all aspects of the daily lives of Tibetans. And I had people thank me for being there, remembering them, and fighting for their rights. On the other side, China's travel restrictions deny Americans the right to visit one of the most beautiful places on Earth and to experience Tibetan culture in all its richness. In emergencies, Americans may be denied help, due to China's restrictive policies. I am reminded that in an October 2013 bus crash in the TAR, which left three Americans dead and many others injured, U.S. consular officers faced a delay in obtaining permission to travel to the region. This severely hindered their ability to serve American citizens in distress. Following a 2015 earthquake that trapped dozens of U.S. citizens in the TAR, the U.S. consulate general faced significant challenges in providing emergency consular assistance. This is simply unacceptable. If China wants its citizens and officials to continue to travel freely in the U.S., Americans, including Tibetan Americans, must be able to travel freely in China, including Tibet, beginning now. This bill will move us in the right direction on this basic but very important issue. Let me also take a moment to recognize several organizations with which I have had the privilege to work on behalf of the human rights of all Tibetans. I thank Human Rights Watch, the Office of Tibet, Students for a Free Tibet, and most especially the International Campaign on Tibet. Without their commitment and persistence, this bill would not be on the floor today. With this bill, we are taking an important step forward on behalf of the human rights of Tibetans; we are reaffirming our support for the leadership of His Holiness the Dalai Lama; and we are sending a message to the Government of China that human rights are not negotiable. Supporting human rights is the moral thing to do; it is the right thing to do; and it is the American thing to do for Tibetans in China and everywhere else in the world.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Johnny Appleseed Arts and Cultural Festival in Leominster, Massachusetts on Saturday, September 22, 2018. Mr. Speaker, most of us know the story of Johnny Appleseed. I grew up hearing about his travels across the country--an American folk hero, who was said to wander barefoot while wearing a tin pot hat and carrying a sack of apples with him to help promote the growth of apple trees everywhere he went. What many people do not know is that Johnny Appleseed's story is based on the life of a real man--John Chapman. On September 26, 1774, John Chapman was born in Leominster, Massachusetts. Taught by his father from a young age, Chapman became an orchardist and nurseryman. Since frontier law allowed anyone to lay claim to land through the development of a permanent homestead, Chapman traveled over 100,000 square miles. All the while, he planted apple seeds as he walked. At the time of his death on March 11, 1845, John Chapman owned over 1,200 acres of land from Massachusetts all the way to Illinois. Every year since 1993, thousands of people have gathered in Leominster to celebrate the life and work of John Chapman. Through live music, and of course, apple crisp, the festival aims to inspire and educate the public about Johnny Appleseed's important ties to Central Massachusetts. And just as importantly, it offers a chance for our community to come together and celebrate our shared heritage. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the communities in Central Massachusetts, I'd like to offer a sincere ``thank you'' to the hardworking volunteers and organizers--who make this event such a success every year. I'd especially like to thank Leominster City Councilor Rick Marchand, who has organized the event for the last 20 years. Johnny Appleseed is a treasured national figure that we in Central Massachusetts are proud to share. I commend the Johnny Appleseed Festival on its 25th anniversary and am proud of all they do to make this such a beloved annual event.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Alabama that he may want to defend a process where the majority of bills that have come to this floor have come under a process where nobody can offer an amendment. I think that is undemocratic. I think that goes against what this House is supposed to be about. It is one of the reasons why so many of the bills that come through here, quite frankly, are deeply flawed, because everybody is shut out of the process. This is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. Nearly 60 percent of the bills that have come to the floor have come under closed rules. Now, you expect that in Russia, you expect that in China or Turkey, but you don't expect that in the people's House. It is unbelievable to me that my friends defend this process. When you throw in bills that don't need a rule, the suspension bills--post offices and a lot of bills that, quite frankly, are inconsequential-- you can rack up the numbers. The bottom line is the Rules Committee has become a place where good ideas are blocked on a regular basis, and not just Democratic ideas, but a lot of Republican ideas. I respect the Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, enough to be able to say that, if they have good ideas, they ought to be brought to the floor. They ought not be blocked in the Rules Committee behind closed doors and never even know why they are blocked. But that is the pattern here. It has to stop. Maybe it is going to take an election for it to stop, but this is unacceptable. I think most people around the country who are paying attention to what is going on here are fed up. And just one other thing. When I talk about the need to debate the war in Afghanistan and these other wars where we put American lives in jeopardy, that is not partisan bickering. Most of these amendments have been bipartisan. What we are responding to is many of our constituents who have been deployed halfway around the world who come back and say: What the hell are you doing? Do you guys have any idea what is going on over here? Why aren't you talking about this? Why aren't you debating it? We have been in a war for 17 years and we can't even have a debate. We can't even have 10 minutes on the war in Afghanistan or our growing involvement in military conflicts around the world. It is outrageous. You can defend it if you want. It is irresponsible. And the fact that this Congress won't debate these issues, that is moral cowardice, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed one of the most disgraceful displays by an American President on foreign soil in our Nation's history when President Trump refused to stand behind our intelligence community and to, instead, side with Vladimir Putin. Putin, he sided with Putin. Then on Tuesday, via Twitter, the President changed his tune and said, ``I'm very concerned that Russia will be fighting hard to have an impact in the upcoming election,'' I guess apparently embracing the intelligence community again. And then he tweeted another tweet, basically saying that Russia is not involved in meddling in an election. I have to tell you, this President is messed up when it comes to the issue of Russia meddling in our election. I don't know what the Russians have on him, if anything, but the behavior out of this President is not normal, and it should concern every single person, no matter what your party affiliation is. Russia attacked our country. They meddled in our election. Everybody knows it. And we have a President of the United States who is going out of his way to cover it up, to make it seem like it never happened, to dodge the issue. We cannot count on him to protect our election system; let's just be honest about that. We need to step up in a bipartisan way. We need to hold Russia accountable for its election meddling, and we need to insist that these attacks on our democracy stop. Russia is not our ally. They are not a competitor. They are not our friends. We have to start acting like that. I am going to ask that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Engel's and Representative Connolly's bill, H.R. 6494, the SECURE Our Democracy Act. Their bill would punish foreign entities who interfered with our elections, going back to 2015, and punish future attacks. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, while I oppose the underlying conference report, for reasons that I have already articulated, I do support the rule because it reflects a good process where committees were respected, where the ranking members were respected. We went through a conference committee, which is something almost unheard of in this body, and so I think many of us, myself included, are reasonable when the majority behaves reasonably. But the bottom line is, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed that aren't being addressed, and they are not being addressed because the Rules Committee routinely blocks good ideas from coming to the floor. So the only way we have an opportunity to bring up important issues is through procedural motions like defeating the previous question so we can bring up the Engel-Connolly bill, so we could actually stand up to Russia. So we are going to vote for the rule. We are asking you to stand up to Russia. I don't think that that is a bad exchange. So vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's stand up to Russia before we go home. Let's do the right thing. Let's show the President that we have a spine, that we disagree with what he did and we are going to do the right thing here. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel Brent E. French from Westborough, Massachusetts, who will be retiring from the United States Air Force after 27 years of active-duty and reserve service in August. Most recently, Colonel French served as the Individual Mobilization Augmentee to the Director of Security Forces within Air Force Headquarters. Colonel French advises on the training and organization of 40,000 United States Air Force Security Forces who protect our national security every day. Colonel French was commissioned through the University of Connecticut Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps, where he was a distinguished graduate. He has commanded an Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron in Oman and the International Military Police at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, Colonel French has had a remarkable record of success in the Air Force--but don't take my word for it. He has received the Bronze Star Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, as well as the Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Air Force Achievement Medal, and Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor Device and two oak leaf clusters. Closer to home, Colonel French has played a key role at Worcester Polytechnic Institute's Foisie Business School--where he manages an $8,000,000 budget and operations for the 40 faculty and staff assigned to the school. He also serves as an adjunct teaching professor. Mr. Speaker, in every city and town across America, there are people who know that public service is more than just a career--it is a calling. People who see problems and want to fix them; people who know that through hard work, they can truly make a difference for their country. Throughout his life, it's clear that Colonel French is one of those people--and for that we are grateful. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I offer my most sincere thanks to Colonel French for his service to our nation, and a very heartfelt congratulations on his retirement.