Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman's proud of the President's performance in Helsinki, but I assure you, the majority of Americans were disgusted. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just correct the gentleman on one thing. Voting against the previous question is not voting against the bill. What it means is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It means that we can not only debate and vote on the defense conference report, but we can also debate Mr. Engel's and Mr. Connolly's bill. The gentleman is on the Rules Committee. He should know that. If we want to have this debate, we ought to vote ``no'' on the previous question. And, by the way, we are talking about defending our country. Russia attacked us, in case you forgot, and we are trying to protect that from happening again. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) to discuss our proposal for the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the White House cannot be counted on to protect our elections. All they are interested in is protecting the President. We need to do the right thing.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the work of the conferees this year is to be commended. I don't want the gentleman from Alabama to faint that I am saying something nice, but the bottom line is that the conferees did a great job. They worked hard and fast to get this NDAA conference report to the floor today. It has been just 2 months since we brought the rule for the House version of the bill forward for consideration. In fact, and I don't get to say this enough, this process has been an example of how Congress should operate. Members brought their ideas forward when the original bill was being considered. The Rules Committee made amendments in order. We had some real debates here on the floor, and the conference committee has now done its job. That is how this body is supposed to work. But under this majority, it is the exception and not the norm. Bills often come before the Rules Committee without being considered by the relevant committees first. More than half of the rules that the majority brings to the floor are unamendable. All too often, the Rules Committee is where democracy goes to die. Regular order seems like a thing of the past. It shouldn't be that way, but, all too often, it is. That is why this process is so notable. Mr. Speaker, why are we using this process for only things like the NDAA bill? Why not for other urgent matters, like addressing gun violence, stabilizing our healthcare market, or reforming our Tax Code? Wouldn't it be nice if Congress tackled all problems like this? Now, this process made the NDAA bill better. Many harmful environmental provisions, thankfully, were removed. That includes language that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from listing the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act for a decade. I am also grateful that the conferees honored the sacrifice of the atomic veterans. The past three House versions of the NDAA included language that would award them a service medal honoring their sacrifice and service, which was carried out in secret and at great personal cost. It was adopted with near-unanimous votes. But, each time, it has been dropped in conference. This year, though, the conferees have agreed to provide the atomic veterans a certificate of recognition and, in the manager's statement, have gone further by encouraging the Secretary of Defense to consider an appropriate medal or award to recognize radiation-exposed servicemembers. For the life of me, I can't understand why it is so hard for the Pentagon to honor these proud veterans with a service medal. Over three-quarters of atomic vets have already passed away, many prematurely from health problems directly related to their service to our Nation. They and their families deserve a medal. For the Record, I would like to say that I remain committed to making sure that they receive that recognition, and I hope the chairman and ranking member will add their voices to encouraging the Secretary of Defense to do the right thing and confer a medal that recognizes the courage, the sacrifice, and the service of the atomic veterans. So, there are good things in this bill. That includes the increase in pay for our Nation's military. Many members of our caucus will support this conference report as a result. Now, you would think the majority would want more bipartisan votes. It is possible, if they undertake a process like this more often. Let's bring regular order back from the dead. Although this bill has been strengthened, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support it because very real weaknesses remain. This conference report still endorses President Trump's plan to develop new low-yield nuclear warheads. A ban on developing these warheads has been in place for 15 years. Lifting it now could drastically impact our strategic stability at a time when the President is already upending our foreign policy. Now, let's also talk about what is not included here. The conference report does not have language that would finally force this Congress to debate its role abroad. That is not because an amendment wasn't offered. In fact, I put a bipartisan amendment forward with my colleagues, Representatives Jones, Lee, Garamendi, Kildee, and Welch. The amendment was pretty simple. It said any escalation of U.S. troops in Afghanistan over the next fiscal year put forward by the President or the Pentagon would have to be debated by Congress. We would have 30 days after a report was issued for Congress to either disapprove of the escalation or allow it to move forward. That is it. It wasn't a radical idea, at least not to me or many of my colleagues. But it must have been to Republican leadership, because they did what they always do when pressed to pass a new AUMF or to have legitimate debates on the war in Afghanistan and other wars: They blocked us from even having a debate on the House floor. Republicans will apparently try anything to avoid a debate on this subject. We submitted a similar amendment to the Rules Committee last year during the NDAA consideration, and the majority advanced an alternative amendment that called for the administration to release a report on our strategy in Afghanistan instead. A study is not a serious attempt at congressional oversight of our foreign policy. The Trump administration must not have thought so either, since they never even bothered to send the report to Congress. It was more than 100 days late. Magically, it appeared shortly after the House had already debated and approved the NDAA. And, frankly, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Mr. Speaker, do my Republican friends even care that Congress is abdicating our responsibilities? We should be debating our role in Afghanistan. The administration has sent more than 4,000 additional servicemembers to fight over there in this last year. There are now more than 12,000 of our constituents there today. Mr. Speaker, don't my Republican colleagues want to have a say over whether their constituents are sent to fight abroad? We are 17 years into this war. There is no end in sight. The least we could do is spend 10 minutes debating our foreign policy on the House floor. There are reports that the President is frustrated with his Afghan policy, that he may call for a review of our role there. Well, Mr. Speaker, shouldn't Congress have a role in that new strategy? Maybe the Republicans are afraid to take on President Trump. They send angry tweets and critical press releases sometimes, but when it comes to actually doing something, they lose their nerve. Just take ZTE. Many members of the majority were outraged when the President announced plans to prop up this Chinese tech company. President Trump tweeted: ``Too many jobs in China lost.'' Apparently, his policy of ``America First'' quickly became ``China First.'' His move came after the Secretary of Commerce had banned U.S. companies from exporting any parts to ZTE. President Trump undercut his own Commerce Secretary, urging him to reverse this ban. It was an about-face from an administration that has become defined by saying one thing one day and doing another the next. Republicans joined Democrats on both sides of the Capitol in pledging to reimpose the penalties the President reversed. Language banning government agencies from using or procuring technology made by ZTE were included in both the House and Senate bills. The Senate had stronger language, which I was hoping would be included here. If it were, I think it would pass. But a funny thing happened as this report was hashed out. Republicans went with the watered down House language instead. Mr. Speaker, actual leadership requires standing up and doing something and going against the President when he is wrong. But this majority has proven again and again and again that they aren't willing to do that, no matter what the President says or does. We saw that after President Trump cozied up to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. He stood with a dictator over the American intelligence community. It was a disgrace, and the majority did nothing. They even blocked our attempt to get a simple debate on the Quigley amendment. That would have provided funds to strengthen our election system against future hacking by bad foreign actors like Russia. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this President? What is wrong with my friends on other side of the aisle? We should be passing amendments to protect our election system. We ought to be passing the Engel resolution, condemning what the President did. This is already the most closed Congress in history. Most bills that come to the floor can't even be amended by anybody, Republican or Democrat. It is ``my way or the highway'' with this majority. That is bad enough, Mr. Speaker. But now we can't even debate protecting our democracy, just like we can't debate our military's role abroad. We have gone from being the people's House to being more like Putin's House. It is disgusting, quite frankly. The last time I checked, this was still America, where Congress is supposed to actually debate. Let's act like it. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about the need for bills to go through the committee and conference process. That happened here. The NDAA report was crafted in a bipartisan manner. I can't vote for the underlying bill for all of the reasons I have discussed. That includes the lack of an AUMF. But when the process is better, we should recognize that. For that reason, I will be voting for this rule. I hope that we consider more bills through a similar process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. What this House needs is a little democracy.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that we are here debating a press release. We are not debating a carbon tax. We are debating a press release. I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you are against the carbon tax, go back to your office and issue a press release and send it to your local newspapers, because that is what this is. We are wasting precious time on this floor when there are other issues. We have children being separated from their parents at the border. We have prescription drug prices that are skyrocketing. We need an infrastructure bill. We have gun violence in this country that is out of control, where there are massacres occurring on a regular basis. And what are we doing? We are doing a press release. This is shameful. And on the issue of Russian interference in our elections, we ought to be having a debate on an amendment to provide more funds to States and local authorities to protect their election systems. The gentleman from Washington says: Oh, there is still 39 percent of the money left. They don't need it. I think his information is old, because we are told that every single State has put in a request for additional assistance. Why don't we debate that and vote on it and do the right thing? I am looking at a New York Times article that just appeared today where the President of the United States, Donald Trump, says Russia is no longer targeting the U.S. I mean, is this for real? What is wrong with him? It is time for Congress to stage an intervention with him and tell him to listen to his intelligence agencies who contradict what he has just said this morning. This is urgent. We can't count on the President of the United States to do the right thing. Congress needs to stand up. Congress needs to be counted. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that I have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I just double-check and inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional speakers over there?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. McGOVERN. I thought I would ask. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry of the gentleman from Washington? I know the gentleman said he has no further speakers, but we are being inundated with speakers on this side. Does the gentleman want to maybe send a few minutes our way?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all these excuses. As the gentleman knows, hundreds of Members of this House don't sit on the Appropriations Committee. Should they not have a voice on this issue? And, by the way, since that vote in the Appropriations Committee, a lot has changed in this country. If you are reading the news, 12 Russians were indicted for meddling in our election. The President of the United States went over to Helsinki and made nice with Vladimir Putin. That shocked not only the citizens of the United States, but the entire world. So I disagree with the gentleman when he says there is no crisis. There is a crisis and we need to address it. We need to do everything we can to prepare ourselves for another attack. All we are asking for is a vote. If the gentleman doesn't think there is a crisis, doesn't want to vote for this, he can vote ``no,'' that is his right, but for the hundreds of Members of this Chamber who would like a debate and a vote on this, give them that opportunity. The Rules Committee ought not to be a place where democracy goes to die, especially on issues like this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Mr. McGOVERN. We can try one more time. We have been trying and trying and trying, but they are insistent on blocking this amendment from even being considered.

Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, when I offered the Quigley amendment, which would have allowed us to have this vote, all the Republicans voted ``no.''

Mr. McGOVERN

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