Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the measures included here aren't just bad, they are dangerous. Take the Interior Appropriations bill. It would put the health and safety of Americans at risk by slashing funding to address climate change and enforce environmental safeguards. The EPA, the agency tasked with fighting carbon emissions, is cut by $100 million. That is especially ironic since the majority was completely unwilling to rein in the wasteful spending by its former Administrator, Scott Pruitt. This is someone who spent $43,000 on a soundproof phone booth, but the majority was silent. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is cut by $65 million. That is after Republicans cut it by a third in the last fiscal year. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a champion of the LWCF, especially the stateside grant program where States provide a 50 percent match to grants that create more recreational and green open spaces in our districts. The people in communities in nearly every congressional district in the country have benefitted from these grants. We should be increasing, not cutting, LWCF. There is even language in the bill that would repeal a rule designed to protect our wetlands and waterways. State revolving funds were cut by $300 million, a $150 million cut to clean drinking water and a $150 million cut to clean water projects like water treatment and sewage programs. Mr. Speaker, the American people rely on Congress to make sure that the water they drink is clean. What is going on with this bill? As always, Republicans have again attached several poison pill provisions that undermine the health and safety of our communities and the environment. Every year--every year--provisions like these weigh down this bill. Mr. Speaker, when will my Republican friends realize that harmful provisions like this are why the bill has to become law? I am especially outraged to see what the majority has done with the Financial Services Appropriations bill, especially after what we saw on Friday. That is when some of our worst fears were confirmed. As part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced charges against 12 Russian military intelligence officers. They were accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee, hacking Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, and hacking the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The website of a State electoral board was also hacked. Voter information was stolen. Even the vendor of voting equipment was targeted for a cyber attack. And those individuals involved in administering elections were also targeted. These charges are proof that our Nation, that our very democracy, is under attack. No troops were sent into combat. Not a single gun was fired. Instead, an adversary turned the internet into a battlefield. That is the new face of warfare in the 21st century. Although the methods were different, this Congress should be responding the way we always have, by putting partisanship aside and putting our country first by doing whatever it takes to ensure we are not left vulnerable again. But, Mr. Speaker, how is this majority responding? By using the Financial Services Appropriations bill to zero out funding for grants that help protect our election systems from cyber hacking. That is a cut of $380 million compared to what Congress enacted in fiscal year 2018. The wolf is at the door, and my Republican colleagues are inviting it inside for dinner. This is insane. The President tweeted, shortly after the election: ``Unless you catch `hackers' in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be hard, but it is not impossible, because we now have a 29-page indictment from President Trump's own Justice Department providing the roadmap. The indictment goes into extraordinary detail outlining how Russia successfully hacked into our election systems, how candidates and committees were successfully targeted--not by China or somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds, as the President suggested, but by Russia, by Vladimir Putin. It is mind-boggling that even after this indictment, after Russia's meddling was laid bare, the President did not stand up to Putin. He held a summit with him instead. He even told CBS News, in an interview before his sit down, that he ``hadn't thought'' about raising the issue with Putin during their talk. It gets worse, Mr. Speaker. British investigators believe that current and former agents of the same Russian military intelligence service accused of disrupting our 2016 elections are also likely responsible for the nerve agent attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter in Salisbury, England, earlier this year. Sadly, it is no surprise that the President didn't stand up to Putin. He never does. When President Trump was asked whether he was a friend or a foe, he recently called Putin a competitor instead, like this was all some kind of real estate deal. A President who calls the free press, journalists in the United States, ``the enemy of the American people'' time and time again is unwilling to call the leader of Russia a foe or even an adversary. It is disturbing. What kind of hold does Vladimir Putin have on this President, Mr. Speaker? So much so that the President basically blamed the United States for much of the tensions between the two countries. The President even deflected when asked whether he trusts the American intelligence community or Putin. The President may be satisfied by what he called Putin's strong and powerful denial of election interference, but I am not, Mr. Speaker. I am disgusted. It is clear that an effort to defend our democracy will have to be led by Congress, because it is not coming from the White House. But we are not leading when we make it easier for an adversary like Russia to attack us again. That is retreating. I remember learning about the separation of powers in school, how the legislative branch is a separate but equal branch of government. The Founders designed it that way so we could provide a check on a President. Mr. Speaker, when are the Republicans in Congress going to provide a check on President Trump? He is cozying up to Putin instead of holding him accountable for hacking our election. As Senator Schumer suggested, we should be increasing sanctions on the Russians. The Republican majority should be joining us, demanding the President's national security team that accompanied him to Helsinki testify before Congress, detailing what they know. It is past time that Republicans end their attacks on the Department of Justice, on the FBI, and on the special counsel. Already, 32 people and three companies have been either indicted or pleaded guilty under Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Now, we will see where else it leads, but there is already evidence of clear wrongdoing. He should be able to finish his work without any interference. The majority should move a bill from Representative Nadler to the floor immediately, so we can protect the special counsel's investigation from the whims of this President. President Trump has shown he is willing to fire his FBI Director. Mr. Speaker, are the Republicans really going to stand by and make it possible for him to fire Robert Mueller, too? This majority must also demand the President insist that the 12 Russians named in Friday's indictment are sent to the United States to stand trial. The President should have already done this when he met with Putin, but, apparently, it was an afterthought. Maybe he was too busy admiring the strongman to stand up for his country's interests. I wish I were optimistic that Republicans would take these commonsense steps to protect our country, but I am not, not after what we saw in the Rules Committee last night. The majority failed to make in order an amendment by Representative Quigley. It was germane. But they failed to make in order his amendment that would provide $380 million to help States protect election systems from cyber hacking. This funding should not have been zeroed out in the first place. Do my Republican friends see what is happening? Is anybody paying attention over there? Russia meddled in our election, and your response is to zero out funding for an election security assistance program. Then, when we pointed it out and tried to put the money back, you blocked the amendment. You won't even allow us to debate the program. That is the smallest step that they could have taken. Instead, we can't even have a debate on the floor. Apparently, the Republicans are afraid of having a fair fight about protecting our democracy, and it is indefensible. If the President isn't willing to do more to prevent Putin from doing it again, then this Congress has an obligation to act, not gut the accounts that provide for election security. We can start standing up by voting against this rule and the underlying legislation. It doesn't do nearly enough to protect our Nation against hostile foreign powers hell-bent on attacking our democracy. 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 want to respond to my good friend from Oklahoma who I think said that 39 percent of the funds are still left in the Election Assistance Commission account. Well, we still have 5 months left in this year, and does anybody here really believe that these attacks are going to stop? And shouldn't we have money in the pipeline? Shouldn't we be prepared not just for this election, but for the election after that? This is about protecting our democracy, and I don't understand why this is controversial. But no matter what you think about Mr. Quigley's amendment, it was germane. It was relevant to this bill. It should have been brought up, and we should debate it. All we are asking for is a fair fight. We are deeply concerned about what is happening to our country, and we are especially concerned in the aftermath of President Trump's disastrous meeting with Vladimir Putin. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Congress to stand unified with the unanimous assessment of our intelligence community. I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Engel's resolution, H. Res. 999, which follows word for word yesterday's statement by Speaker Ryan affirming Russia's attacks on our democracy. This is the second time today that I am going to give my Republican friends a chance to go on the Record and agree with the words of the Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. Defending our democracy shouldn't be controversial. Agreeing with the Republican Speaker that ``the United States must be focused on holding Russia accountable'' should not be controversial. I would say to my friends, take yes for an answer. 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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 999 was introduced by our colleague Eliot Engel from New York. Basically, what it says is that the House of Representatives expresses its agreement with the statements of the Speaker of the House of Representatives made on July 16, 2018, regarding the Russian Federation's interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters. It basically, again, is an endorsement word for word of what the Speaker of the House said, a very strong statement, basically making it clear that there was no question that Russia interfered in our election and continues to attempt to undermine our democracy here and around the world. It is not just the finding of the American intelligence community but also of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that any committees of referral be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 999, expressing agreement with the statements of the Speaker of the House of Representatives made on July 16, 2018, regarding Russian Federation interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters, and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House of Representatives.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as we look toward ways to help our constituents live healthier lives and address the rising cost of healthcare, I would like to draw attention to successful partnerships that are working to address these challenges. We know that diet-related diseases are driving up healthcare costs. Research from the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University estimates that diabetes costs our healthcare system an astounding $327 billion per year, and cardiovascular-related diseases cost more than $317 billion a year. Much of this cost, and the human suffering it represents, could be lessened or prevented through greater access to nutritious foods and better eating. I am proud that stakeholders in my home State of Massachusetts, including nonprofits, advocacy organizations, hospitals, universities, and other private sector partners, are coming together to examine the impact of hunger and diet-related disease on our health system. One shining example of a collaboration formed to tackle this terrible problem is Vitality. John Hancock, a leading life insurance company based in Boston, has partnered with the Friedman School at Tufts University on an innovative life insurance product that helps to encourage healthier behaviors. John Hancock clients complete an online health review and engage in activities like preventative care, physical activity, smoking cessation, education, and improved nutrition to earn points that translate into discounts on insurance and other products. What is particularly impressive about the program is the discount it provides to participants who want to increase their purchases of fruits and vegetables. Those who sign up receive a 25 percent discount on healthy food at more than 14,000 grocery stores across the country. The Vitality program is one example of the positive impact incentives can have on our collective public health when they motivate and reward individuals to take up healthy behaviors. We should learn from this innovative model and look at ways to expand upon its reach to greater segments of the population. Some Federal programs already allow for incentive-based programs. Within SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger, we know that incentives work. My home State of Massachusetts has been a leader in the effort to help ensure SNAP recipients have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. In 2011, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts worked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to pilot a first in the Nation initiative to provide incentives for the purchase of healthy foods. The pilot enabled participants to increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables by 26 percent and led to the creation of USDA's Food Insecurity and Nutrition Incentive, known as FINI. FINI has provided States and localities across the country with Federal resources to expand incentive programs for SNAP beneficiaries. Massachusetts currently uses Federal FINI dollars in conjunction with private donations and State resources to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables. It is working. In our State, FINI has helped more than 63,000 SNAP recipients increase their fruit and vegetable intake in 1 year alone. Estimates suggest this increase can mean savings of more than $1.1 million in public health costs. So imagine the impact these sorts of programs and incentives could have if they were replicated and expanded on a larger scale. New research from Tufts' Friedman School shows that incorporating technology-based incentives for healthier eating into other Federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid would be highly cost-effective, saving millions of lives and billions of dollars in healthcare costs. We should also look at how we can reach beyond Federal health and nutrition programs to encourage private worksite wellness programs. The fact of the matter is that all of us can and should be taking steps to make healthier choices. Congress should take lessons learned from successful partnerships like the Tufts and John Hancock collaboration to pilot and expand incentive programs. In doing so, we can provide greater access to nutritious foods, promote healthier choices, alleviate human suffering, and save our healthcare system billions and billions of dollars.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how do I get this cleared? Maybe I can yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma, who can maybe, in a gesture of bipartisanship, agree that it would be a strong statement for the House of Representatives to come together, Democrats and Republicans, and get behind the strong words of our Speaker of the House. Would that be appropriate?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my question was: How do I get it cleared now that I am on the floor? Can I ask the Republicans if they would agree to it?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues to urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring to the floor the Deutch-McGovern-Raskin bill and so we can at long last have a debate on campaign finance. The fact of the matter is there is too much money in our politics. The fact of the matter is that this money has a corrupting influence on our politics. Look at the bills that come before this House of Representatives. It is not about empowering people. It is always about a giveaway to a big corporation, changing the rules on who can sit on scientific advisory boards to include corporate cronies. The tax bill that my Republican friends brought to the House floor that they voted on and that they take such pride in, basically 85 percent of those benefits went to the top 1 percent income earners in this country. The bottom line is this place is becoming a place where money can buy anything. There is a culture of corruption that exists in this House of Representatives. There is a culture of corruption that exists in this White House, and people are sick of it. When I talk to audiences back home--they could be liberal audiences or conservative audiences--the two issues that I mention where everybody nods approvingly are when I say that there is too much money in politics, everybody says ``yes.'' And then when I say that Congress is dysfunctional, they all nod their heads approvingly. Enough. We need to change this system. People all across the country, an overwhelming majority, want us to change the way we do our politics. They believe that they should have the power, not corporate special interests, not people who are the wealthiest in this country. Let's give the people of this country what they want. Let's have their voices matter more than the special interest groups. We have tried time and time and time again to bring these issues to the floor, and we are constantly rebuked. Look, we shouldn't be surprised, because this is now the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America: more amendments routinely get denied in the Rules Committee; more bills have come to the floor under a completely closed process. We debate bills, again, that benefit the well-off and the well- connected. We ought to debate some bills that help regular people. And having a real debate on campaign finance reform, having a real debate on how we get big money out of our politics is an issue we should be dealing with right now. It is what the American people want. Let's do, for once, what the American people want; let's do what our constituents want; and, Mr. Speaker, let me just finish by saying we can have that debate by voting ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that to my colleagues, especially those on the Republican side. If you vote ``no'' on the previous question, we can have this debate. We can have a debate about how we get big money out of politics. We can have a debate about how we drain the swamp, how we clean this place up. You can go around and say you want to drain the swamp. That is just rhetoric, because what you are really doing is you are helping the well-off and the well-connected. The people who give the most money, they get their legislation to the floor. Regular people routinely get their interests blocked in this Chamber. It is time to clean up this place.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, there are lots of things that we should be doing oversight on and that they we are not. The Oversight Committee has chosen not to look into all the scandals in this White House. They have chosen instead to look the other way. I mentioned EPA Administrator Pruitt. He has demonstrated over and over that he has no regard for taxpayer money. He is living a lifestyle of the rich and famous at EPA. He has no respect for his position and no desire to follow our ethics law. His many abuses of his position demand that we fully investigate his actions. For example--I love this--he spent $43,000 on installing a soundproof booth in his office. Who does that? GAO stated that he was required to notify Congress before spending more than $5,000 on office improvements, but he goes ahead and spends $43,000 on a soundproof booth, I guess to make private phone calls. He racked up nearly $200,000 flying first class and luxury aircraft on the taxpayers' dime. One of those trips was to Italy. It cost $30,000. He rented an apartment from an energy lobbyist for $50 a night here in Washington. He enlisted an aide to help find his wife a job. You can't make this stuff up. And crickets from the Oversight Committee and my Republican friends in Congress. Congress needs to investigate the alarming drug price trends in this country. This is an emergency, a life or death issue for our constituents. Because of high drug prices, one in four Americans cannot afford to fill a prescription. These high drug prices are not due to foreign markets, but they are due to our unfair pricing system. We issue patents to drug companies, allowing them to have exclusive rights on drugs. Make no mistake, patents are important for incentivizing and rewarding innovation. However, drug companies found ways to game the system by prolonging their patents and continuing their tight hold on lifesaving medications. A study by UCLA found that 74 percent of new patents from 2005 to 2015 went to drugs that already existed. Patents allow these drug companies to charge patients unfair prices without facing competition. That is just unacceptable. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised that there is no investigation, because my Republican friends are working with this White House to undue patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. They are even trying to take away preexisting condition protections. Right now, because of the law, if you have a preexisting condition, an insurance company cannot discriminate against you and demand that you pay more. They have to give you the insurance. They want to take that away. This is unbelievable. We should be investigating this stuff. I could go on and on and on, but we are not doing that. What we are doing is, we are bringing a resolution that has been put forward by some who are trying to undermine the Mueller investigation and who do not want the American people to focus on the involvement between Trump operatives and the Russians. When I would go up to Massachusetts on the weekends, it used to be that people would ask me who in the Trump administration met with the Russians. Now the question is: Who in the Trump administration didn't meet with the Russians? What I love about the people who are testifying before the Mueller committee, they now are getting in trouble because they are realizing that, if you lie, there is a consequence, so they all have amnesia. They met with Russian operatives time and again, and they forget. They mysteriously remember when they are confronted with the evidence. We all should be shocked by this. A foreign adversary interfered in our election. Every single intelligence agency in our government confirms that. And yet you have the President of the United States today tweeting: Oh, Russia insists they didn't meddle in our election. Oh, my God, I can't believe this. The President of the United States is tweeting that today. It is shameful. Stop defending this unacceptable behavior, and stop defending a process that is unacceptable as well. I mentioned the terrible treatment Democrats received in the Judiciary Committee when this thing was reported out. I have never seen anything like that in my life. Democrats waited for an hour and they were just shut out of any opportunity to amend the measure or even speak. Welcome to the United States Congress. This is supposed to be the people's House. This is supposed to be the shining example of democracy, and you get people who have questions or who have ideas who are shut down in committee. Then we bring it to the floor after going through the Rules Committee last night, and it comes to the floor under a closed process. This is the most closed Congress in history. This is the 90th closed rule. What does that mean? It means that this legislation cannot be amended. There is limited debate. You have to vote for it up or down, my way or the highway. Everybody, Democrats and Republicans, are blocked from offering any of their ideas or any of their potential improvements to this bill. Nothing. This is the 90th closed rule, completely closed rule, in this Congress, the 90th bill that has come before us where neither Democrats nor Republicans can offer anything. It is frustrating beyond words to be here today. The system here is rigged. This is going to pass on a party-line vote, I guess. But this is not the way the people's House should be run. This is disgraceful. At some point, my Republican friends who care about this institution have to say enough is enough. They have to demand a more open, more transparent system here. This cannot stand. So, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so we can address the terrible impacts of the Supreme Court decision in the Janus case and vote ``no'' on the rule. We should not be doing this today. We should not be engaged in an attempt to try to defend the indefensible or undermine an important investigation into Russia's meddling in our election. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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, may I inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) to discuss his proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, there are a whole bunch of troubling things happening in our country today. The Supreme Court's Janus decision was just yet another very disturbing development that really attacks working men and women. Mr. Speaker, a union's ability to collectively bargain benefits both its members and nonmembers alike. Unions are responsible for many of the worker protections Americans enjoy today, and they continue to fight for fair pay and good working conditions, including for 17.3 million public employees. We have unions to thank for our weekends, for paid vacations, for overtime pay, for the 8-hour workday, for child labor laws, for pensions, for the minimum wage, for sick leave, for Social Security, for parental leave, for holiday pay, and the list goes on and on and on. However, yesterday, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to hardworking employees, the unions that represent them, and the protections they provide us. In a 5-4 ideological decision, the Court invalidated the laws of 22 States and undermined public sector unions. This decision enables free-riding by those who benefit from union agreements but do not want to help cover the costs of collective bargaining and enforcement. Unions fight for every single worker. Therefore, every worker should pay their fair share. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cartwright's legislation, H.R. 6238, the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act. This bill protects the rights of State and local government employees to join unions and collectively bargain. 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 want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin. With all that is going on in the country and in the world--we have children being ripped apart from their families at the border; we have Republicans working with the White House trying to take away healthcare protections for the American people; and we have a President who seems unhinged--with all that is happening, this is what we are dealing with today on the House floor this morning. Basically, it is a resolution to try to undermine the Mueller investigation, which is investigating potential Russian involvement and collusion in our election. That is a big deal. We should all want to get to the bottom of this. We should all want the truth. Instead of wanting to get to the truth, my Republican friends throw roadblocks in the way, one after another after another, to try to get people to try to discredit the investigation and to try to derail the investigation. It is unbelievable to me. The President this morning tweeted that Russia continues to insist they had nothing to do with meddling in our election. I can't believe the President of the United States is tweeting that. What is wrong with him? Every single intelligence agency in our government says that the Russians meddled in our election, and we have the President of the United States this morning tweeting that Russia says they didn't do it, so we have got to believe Russia. I don't know how my friends can defend this. At some point, you have to say, ``Enough.'' I get it. Republicans want to constantly circle the wagons around the President with every outrageous thing he says and does, but this is about a foreign power--an adversary--meddling in our elections. What is the response? Let's try to disparage the investigation. Let's try to undermine the investigation. It is unreal that we are going through this exercise today, but I guess we have come to expect this. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, also, that the process in this House that got us here today to debate this resolution was a disgrace and an affront to the way this Chamber is supposed to conduct business. In all my time here, I haven't seen a committee minority of either party treated as disrespectfully as Democrats were on Tuesday. That is when the Judiciary Committee considered this resolution of inquiry. Democrats showed up on time and sat patiently waiting for this hearing to begin--and they waited, and they waited, and they waited because the Republican majority gaveled the hearing to order more than an hour after it was supposed to begin. They didn't even have the courtesy to tell the minority about the delay. Things got only worse from there. When the hearing actually got underway, Democrats were cut off at every turn. The Republican majority moved the previous question, cutting off debate and preventing consideration of Democratic amendments. They blocked parliamentary inquiries and a unanimous consent request. Committee Republicans even took the extraordinary step of overruling their chairman after an amendment was ruled out of order. It was heavy-handed, and it was undemocratic. My Republican colleagues should be ashamed of the way they conducted themselves. Maybe they are, because the chairman of the committee appeared to hide in the hallway during the vote until he was called by another Member, and when he did vote, he voted ``present.'' So did the Acting Chair. Mr. Speaker, were they unwilling to stand up to the more conservative elements of their caucus? or did they condone what went on? I don't see how anybody in this Chamber could endure such an embarrassing process. It is unfortunate that the majority of the Rules Committee essentially enabled it by using emergency procedures to quickly move this resolution. This is a new low for a majority that has already turned this Congress into the most closed Congress in history. There have already been 89 closed rules this Congress, and it is only June. There has not been a single open rule under Speaker Ryan--not one. It is fitting that this measure from the Judiciary Committee is being considered under the majority's 90th closed rule because the Judiciary Committee is now the second most closed committee in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, what does the majority have to show for this bad process? We have another bad product here, this time a partisan measure meant to undermine the Russia investigation. Now, we know this isn't a serious attempt at oversight because the Republican majority apparently doesn't believe in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities to begin with. Republicans have refused, for example, to examine foreign payments to the Trump organization. They refuse to examine extravagant travel by members of the administration. They refuse to examine HUD Secretary Carson's $31,000 dining set. Who buys a $31,000 dining set? Where do you find a $31,000 dining set? They refuse to investigate the use of private email by administration officials, including Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller, and countless other scandals involving EPA Administrator Pruitt. The list goes on and on and on and on. We actually have a long list here, Mr. Speaker, of what we should be investigating. If my Republican colleagues would like a copy, I am happy to provide it to them. But suffice it to say, there is no oversight with regard to the misdeeds of this administration. Mr. Speaker, what happened to the Republicans' zeal for oversight? Former Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Issa subpoenaed the Obama administration more than 100 times in just a 4- year span. I didn't always agree with him on his investigations, but at least the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was performing some oversight. Republicans today are completely missing in action under President Trump. This is an administration that has been embroiled in one scandal after the next. It is an administration dripping with corruption. This makes the Nixon administration look like Common Cause. I have never seen anything like it. Apparently, the Republicans only believe in oversight if it involves President Obama or Secretary Clinton. Let me remind my Republican colleagues that there wasn't a single scandal in President Obama's 8 years in office that implicated him: no Cabinet official was forced to resign in scandal; no senior White House official had to leave in the face of wrongdoing. Only with the Trump administration can you have one scandal start at breakfast only to have another one by the time you sit down for dinner. We should be doing our job--getting to the bottom of what is happening and holding people accountable--but instead we are throwing sand in the gears of the Russia investigation. This is crazy. Now, let me remind everyone of what Special Counsel Mueller's investigation has yielded so far. Twenty people and three companies have either been indicted or pled guilty. That includes George Papadopoulos, foreign policy adviser on President Trump's campaign, who pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI; Michael Flynn, the President's former National Security Advisor, who also pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI. Paul Manafort, his former campaign chair, was indicted on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, and making false statements. He was later also charged with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges. He is sitting in jail today. As we have this debate right now, Paul Manafort is in jail. Rick Gates, the President's campaign aid, was also indicted on similar charges. That is just a small sample based on what we know today. We will see what else the Special Counsel's investigation finds. So this goes beyond your basic policy disagreements. This is about whether the minority in this Congress is allowed to do the job they were elected to do--not just this Democratic minority, but any minority, because we have seen and we could see again this year just how quickly power shifts in Congress. This is about whether this Congress is going to fulfill its oversight responsibilities or sweep possible wrongdoing under the rug. Now, we have a chance today to demand better from this majority, so we should vote against this rule and demand a better process. That is the only way we are going to see a better product. Just one final thing before I reserve my time. I say to my Republican friends: Look at what you are doing to this institution. You are destroying it. Not only the closed process, the most closed Congress in the history of our country, but the way you move legislation forward. The way Democrats in the Judiciary Committee were treated on this resolution, in all my years here, I have never seen anything like it. I get it. We have a President who wants to behave like a king and who thinks, when he speaks, everybody should sit up to attention just like they do when Kim Jong-un speaks. But this is supposed to be the people's House, and you are diminishing this institution. This has to stop. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a proud servant of the people and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Major General George W. Keefe, who passed away last Thursday, June 21. He will be laid to rest tomorrow, June 28, in Northampton, Massachusetts, surrounded by his family, friends, fellow officers, and the men and women who served with him throughout his 49-year career in military service. Major General George W. Keefe was born in 1939 in Northampton. He attended public schools in Northampton and graduated from Northampton High School in 1956. He received his associate's degree from Holyoke Community College in 1966. He enlisted in the Massachusetts Air National Guard's 104th Tactical Fighter Group in 1956 as a crash fire rescue specialist, attaining the rank of master sergeant before he was selected for a commission as an officer and first lieutenant. He served as a squadron group and vice wing commander at the 104th Tactical Fighter Group before being selected to serve at the Massachusetts National Guard Joint Force Headquarters. He was the last member to serve in uniform of the Massachusetts Air National Guard that was federally activated and deployed from October 1961 to September 1962 in Phalsbourg, France, for Operation Stair Step, the U.S. military's response to the Berlin crisis. George was also enshrined in the U.S. Air Force's Enlisted Heritage Hall at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama as one of the few general officers who rose from the rank of airman basic to major general. He was selected and appointed as the 39th adjutant general of Massachusetts in 1999 by Governor Paul Cellucci. With this appointment, he became the first U.S. Air Force officer to serve as a Massachusetts adjutant general since 1778. That is a long time, even by Massachusetts reckoning. He continued to serve under Lieutenant Governor and then acting Governor Jane Swift, and Governor Mitt Romney reappointed George to a second term as adjutant general, a position he held until retiring in 2005 after 49 years of military service. Among one of the bigger moments in his job as adjutant general was September 11, 2001, when he had to activate the Massachusetts National Guard to respond to the terror attacks on New York City that involved two jetliners that had flown out of Logan International Airport in Boston. I first met Major General Keefe at the start of my second term in office. I had just won my first reelection campaign and he had just been appointed adjutant general of Massachusetts National Guard. I respected the experience and long view that he brought to his position, and he was very helpful to me then and over the next 6 years in understanding the priorities of the Massachusetts National Guard and introducing me to the soldiers, airmen, and uniformed men and women who serve in the Massachusetts Guard and Reserve as well as their families. I appreciated his Irish sense of humor, and I admired and respected his dedication and service to our country, the Commonwealth, and, most importantly, to the many servicemembers of the Massachusetts National Guard. Like so many in Massachusetts, his little piece of heaven was his house on Cape Cod where he watched his sons and his grandchildren enjoy the beach, the waves, fried seafood, and the countless whiffle ball and miniature golf matches. The eldest of his four sons, Gary W. Keefe, currently serves as adjutant general of the Massachusetts Air National Guard. Few lives are as filled with service, love of friends and family, and so firmly rooted in Massachusetts as that of former Major General George W. Keefe. He made a big difference in the lives of so many people and in the life and history of our Nation. Major General George W. Keefe was not only a great man but, more importantly, a very, very good man. He will be missed, and we salute him as we say farewell and Godspeed.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.