Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman has any other speakers.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I guess I would just say to my colleague from Oklahoma that I have no problem with the appropriators. I think that is what Ranking Member Lowey was talking about yesterday when she talked about the process. The appropriators have done their work. They work in a bipartisan way and it is not their fault that we are at this moment. As I said, it is not even the fault of the Rules Committee. It is the fault of the Republican leadership. This bill that we are doing now could have been done last December, but the Republican leadership couldn't figure out a budget agreement until last month. Without top numbers, no one could move forward in the House or in the Senate. It turned out that what was more important was a tax cut for billionaires. That was the priority. So they passed the tax cut for billionaires and we get five CRs and two government shutdowns as a result. This process cannot be explained away, cannot be justified, and cannot continue. I probably should have had the bill in front of me here for dramatic effect, but it is 2,200 pages long. Again, it is not what I know is in the bill that I have a problem with. It is what I don't know is in the bill that concerns me. I know it concerns Democrats and Republicans alike. I just want to go back to something the chairman of the Rules Committee referenced with regard to DACA and President Trump's, somehow, support for these incredible people. Let's not forget there was no reason at all--none--for this President to end DACA. There was no deadline, there was no court case, there was no law that required that the program come to an end. It was just plain, old-fashioned cruelty and stupidity. That is what was at play here: red meat for the extreme rightwing base that can never get to ``yes'' on anything regarding immigration. The way we are treating these young people is unbelievably cruel. The frustration level throughout the country is at an all-time high. Every poll I have seen, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all overwhelmingly support us helping the DACA recipients. There are unbelievably high approval ratings for moving forward and passing a bill like the Dream Act, yet we can't even get it to the House floor for a vote. We talk about a lousy process. That is what we are also talking about. We talked earlier about guns. We have record-high levels of gun violence in this country and we have massacres that occur on a regular basis. I am so grateful that millions of young people are going to be out on the streets protesting on Saturday, demanding that their government do something. They are frustrated that this Chamber, supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the world, can't even find the time to bring something to the floor for a debate. All we do is have moments of silence in the aftermath of massacres. It would give me hope for the future of these young people, because they are not going to take it anymore. They are sick of the indifference. They are sick of the lack of action. They are sick of Members in this Chamber not listening to their voices. I feel hopeful that, ultimately, we will take action and do the right thing. I will tell you right now, for those who continue to turn their backs on the demands of these young people, I don't think they are coming back here after November. But, again, the frustration that you are hearing on our side here today--and I know that a lot of my Republican friends feel the same way--is that this place is broken. This process stinks. There has to be a better way to do this. None of us want to shut the government down. People are going to vote how they want to on the omnibus, but I would say: Don't endorse this lousy, broken process by voting for the rule. People should vote against this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, the brutal conflict in Syria enters its eighth year. As we meet, safe and secure in this Chamber, the Syrian regime, with the support of its principal ally, Russia, is pulverizing Eastern Ghouta. On February 24, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a resolution demanding a 30-day cease-fire across Syria. This was supposed to permit a ``durable humanitarian pause'' so that aid could be delivered and people who are critically sick and wounded could be evacuated. It hasn't worked. Instead, a brutal campaign of airstrikes, shelling, and ground offensives has intensified. Populated areas remain under siege. The targeting of civilians continues, and hundreds more men, women, and children have been killed. In the words of the U.N. Secretary General: ``Syria is bleeding inside and out.'' Mr. Speaker, our failure to stop this terrible slaughter is shameful. It is unacceptable. We must urgently work with our allies, put an end to this nightmare, and find a path forward.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Chief Alan R. Gordon for his 43 years of exceptional service to the people of Westborough, Massachusetts. Though Alan retired as Chief of Police in January, his reputation of integrity, excellence, and service above self will remain an example for law enforcement offices throughout the nation. Alan first joined the force in 1972, and became a full-time officer in 1978 after attending the Worcester Police Department Academy. While supporting a family and working long hours, often on the midnight shift, Alan rose through the ranks of the department, becoming Sergeant in 1988, Lieutenant in 1994, and Chief of Police in 2005. His bravery and quick thinking have saved lives and property countless times. One night in particular stands out in his mind; in October of 1983, he raced to the scene of a 911 call. A baby was not breathing. With seconds to spare, Alan's training kicked in, and alongside another officer, Alan administered CPR and saved the baby's life. Though Alan's duties changed as Chief, he always put the people of Westborough first: spending time listening to residents, addressing their concerns, and communicating the work of the department to his neighbors. And he always led by example--ensuring that his officers had the tools, training, and compassion they needed to effectively do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, all of Alan's professional accomplishments would be praiseworthy on their own. Alan's work has no doubt made Westborough a safer community and a better place to live. But what really makes Alan a model public servant--what really sets him apart--is how he goes above and beyond to give back to his community time and time again. As President of the Westborough Police Patrolmen's Association, Alan started a program to provide food for the less fortunate on Christmas and Thanksgiving. As a volunteer at the Lighthouse Mission Soup Kitchen, Alan regularly served meals to the homeless in Worcester. Alan continues to volunteer at the Boston Marathon, the Falmouth Road Race, and as a baseball umpire and basketball referee at Westborough Middle School and High School. And, he serves as the Police Department's liaison to numerous statewide boards. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our congratulations to Alan on his retirement, and our heartfelt gratitude to him and his family on behalf of the residents of Westborough and the United States Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues, I mean, let's be honest, the two bills that we are debating today are ``nothing burgers.'' I mean, you know, I just figured this out. In the Rules Committee, we have spent 43--43 percent of the bills that have come before the Rules Committee have been financial service-related bills, mostly to undercut Dodd-Frank and to reward big banks and powerful special interests. But, you know, we could debate that, but no matter what you think about some of this legislation, most of it, I think, has been either, you know, destructive to our economy or it doesn't add up to very much of anything. But no matter what you think about it--and we could say that banking issues are important--they are not as important as protecting our kids. I mean, 43 percent of the bills that have come before the Rules Committee have basically been attempts to reward big corporations and big financial institutions in this country. We have spent zero time, zero percent of our time, discussing legislation to ban bump stocks. We have spent zero percent of our time in the Rules Committee considering legislation to strengthen and expand universal background checks. We have spent zero percent of the time debating a bill to ban assault weapons. We have spent zero percent of our time discussing how we can restrict high-capacity magazines. I can go on and on and on. We spent zero percent of our time on the issue of guns, notwithstanding that we are seeing massacres occur on a regular basis in this country. There is something wrong here, and, I mean, we have the time; and if this were a priority, we would be talking about some of this commonsense gun legislation today rather than, as I said, these ``nothing burgers'' that are now before us. Mr. Speaker, less than 2 weeks ago, a gunman walked into a school in Parkland, Florida, and gunned down 17 students and teachers. Unfortunately, senseless acts of violence like that one are far too common. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, every day, 96 Americans are killed with guns; and every year, there are 13,000 gun homicides in the United States. With this most recent tragedy in Parkland, Americans have stood up and said: Enough is enough. We have all been inspired by these eloquent and passionate voices of these young students from Florida who have had the guts to stand up and speak truth to power. But you know, Mr. Speaker, according to a Quinnipiac poll from last week, over 90 percent of Americans are in favor of universal background checks for gun purchases; and according to a CNN poll from yesterday, over 70 percent are in favor of stricter gun control laws generally. The American people are clamoring for action on this issue, and we have yet to do anything about it, not one thing. As I mentioned, all of our time has been spent mostly on legislation to help the well-off and the powerful in this country. We have not spent any time at all talking about this issue of guns, which are killing our kids. But today, my Republican colleagues have an opportunity to put the safety of our children over the power of the gun lobby. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up three commonsense gun safety bills: H.R. 4240, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act; H.R. 3464, the Background Check Completion Act; and H.R. 2598, the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act. These bills would close the dangerous gun show and internet sale background check loopholes, prevent the sale of guns without a completed background check, and ensure that people who are a danger to themselves or others can be prevented from purchasing or possessing a gun. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat what I said at the outset. The rule we are considering would make in order two Financial Services bills that I think amount to ``nothing burgers,'' especially when compared to what we should be doing in terms of protecting our communities and protecting our kids from gun violence. That should take priority over this. We have young people from Florida here, going door to door, talking to Members of Congress and Members of the Senate, begging us to do something. And what are we going to consider is the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, and then we are going to consider the operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations. I did a couple of townhall meetings over the weekend, and I can tell my colleagues truthfully that nobody in the audience asked a question about the operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations. Nor did they bring up the need for us to rush ahead and pass the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, but they did ask what we are doing to protect their kids and to protect our schools. We are living in a time when parents have to wonder when they send their kids to school in the morning whether they will come back alive. We are living in a time when going to the movie theater is a risk, when going to a concert is a risk, or when going to church is a risk. This is unacceptable, and people have had it. I would say to my colleagues who are beholden to the National Rifle Association: I get it. If you don't want to stand up to them, that is fine, but don't stand in the way of this House having a debate on these issues and having a vote. Let the American people see where everybody stands, Democrats and Republicans alike. It is unbelievable to me, in the aftermath of this tragedy, that we are here talking about the operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations, when we should be talking about strengthening our background checks and expanding our background checks; when we should be talking about banning bump stocks; when we should be talking about dealing with high-capacity magazines; and when we should be talking about banning assault weapons. People don't have to vote for those things if they don't want to, but I think that is what the American people want. You see it in the polling data. I am hearing it when I go home and I talk in townhalls. People are just frustrated that we are doing nothing. We hold moments of silence, and that is about it. I think some in the NRA are hoping that this is kind of business as usual. That we will have this terrible tragedy, then, as time goes on, people will focus less and less on it, the media will focus less and less on it, and then we will just kind of move on. I remember, in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, there was talk about banning bump stocks. The President said he thought that was a good idea. Even the NRA did. Time went on, the focus went off of what happened in Las Vegas, and we did nothing. Maybe that is what some of my colleagues are hoping for, is that time will pass and we will do nothing. But it is such an abrogation of our duty and our responsibility, and I just don't get it. I don't get it. This is another closed rule that makes a mockery of regular order. But what is even more disturbing to me is that we are prioritizing banking issues over protecting our kids and our families, and I just find that unconscionable. I think the anger in this country is just growing more and more and more. I have great hope that these young voices, not just those from Parkland, Florida, but high school students all across this country, who want a future where they don't have to worry about going to school, their voices are getting louder and louder and louder, and they are not going to cave and they are going to demand change. It is their future, and they want us to give them a future where they feel safer and more protected. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can bring up some commonsense gun safety legislation. Again, if you don't want to vote for it, you can vote ``no,'' but we have to have the debate. I think that is what is particularly insulting to so many people across this country who are frustrated with this House when it comes to gun safety legislation, is that we don't even have the guts to have a debate. We don't even bring it up. It is not a priority. I think we have an opportunity now, if we defeat the previous question, to make it a priority. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I cannot say it better than these students, Mr. Speaker. These are young people writing to Congress begging us to do something to end the violence. They are young people who want a better future. I would just ask my Republican friends: Are you so beholden to the National Rifle Association that you could possibly turn your backs on our country's young people? Can you really ignore these heartbreaking pleas for action? You know, a recent poll showed that 80 percent of Americans support bans on assault-style weapons like the one used in the Florida school shooting and 90 percent support tougher background checks. These are commonsense reforms that have overwhelming support from the American people. This should be a bipartisan issue that we could come together on. But I would say, even if you don't want to support what I think is commonsense legislation and commonsense reform, understand that the majority of the people in this country do support this and at least bring these bills to the floor so that we could have a debate, and then people can vote however they want to vote. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and these terrible bills that help big banks, put consumers in our country at risk, and do absolutely nothing to address the real priorities that we should be tackling. It is long past time for Congress to finally do something to stop these horrific mass shootings that are taking the lives of our kids and our families. Mr. Speaker, we could just have easily spent this afternoon debating and approving one, or more, of any of the gun safety and gun reform measures that have bipartisan support. We could have shown high school and elementary students, our children, Mr. Speaker, that we heard them, that we care about them, and that we are starting to take action. Instead, we are debating these worthless bills to help big banks and continue to ignore our children's suffering. Shame on this Congress, Mr. Speaker, shame on all of us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which provides for the consideration of two bills from the House Financial Services Committee--H.R. 4607, the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act, and H.R. 4296, legislation to undercut operational risk capital requirements-- under a completely closed process. These are the 66th and 67th closed rules of this Congress, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply concerned with the Republican leadership's total lack of consideration for regular order. For all intents and purposes, regular order is dead in this Congress. We consider one closed rule after another after another after another, and Republicans routinely rush bills to the floor without even holding hearings on the underlying legislation to help Members better understand the impacts of these bills and to benefit from expert witnesses. What is especially shameful about the process today, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there were amendments submitted, but Republicans decided to self-execute these nongermane amendments with no debate or discussion on the House floor and to shut down the ability of Members to offer additional amendments. This is just bad legislating, plain and simple. I hope that if November turns out the way I hope it does and we have a change in leadership in Congress, when Democrats are in charge, we run this place like professionals, like adults, where we respect all points of view, where we go back to regular order, when we say we are going to go back to regular order, we mean it. Why are we doing all of this, Mr. Speaker? What is possibly so urgent that we have to throw regular order out the window? Today, we are considering another two pieces of deregulatory legislation that will benefit big banks at the expense of financial stability to our economy and consumer protections that help everyday families. H.R. 4607 would create a lopsided approach to implementing regulations that force agencies to consider the cost of regulations on bankers without considering the benefit to consumers. H.R. 4296 would undermine the ability of regulators to establish operational risk capital requirements to protect our economy from another crisis. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. Our constituents expect Congress to put them first, not the big banks, especially the big banks that wrecked our economy and endangered the life savings of millions of families. We owe it to them to bring to the floor legislation that will help their lives and make our country better. But, sadly, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has failed to act on meaningful legislation that will do anything like that. Mr. Speaker, today marks nearly 2 weeks since 17 people, including 14 students, were gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. This was one of the worst shootings our country has ever seen. It was the eighth school shooting this year, and it is only February. Yet Republicans in Congress have not lifted a finger to take up bipartisan gun reform legislation that would help to prevent shootings like these and protect our kids. Instead, we are here considering a bill that will only help the already rich and powerful. This is shameful. It is absolutely shameful, Mr. Speaker. According to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that monitors gun violence, since 2014, there have been over 1,360 mass shootings in America. In 2018 alone, less than 2 months, there have been over 400 teens aged 12 through 17 and 90 children under the age of 11 killed or injured by guns. Yet the majority in this House even refuses to bring to the floor legislation banning bump stocks, a reform agreed upon by both sides of the aisle, I thought. The NRA has even said that ``devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.'' I don't know if they meant it, but they said it. President Trump: ``I will be strongly pushing comprehensive background checks with an emphasis on mental health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of bump stocks. Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue--I hope.'' Now, it is true that we have a President who is so erratic that he changes his mind from one hour to the next, but so far, I haven't seen a retraction tweet. So I have every reason to believe he is still standing by his commitment to supporting these modest gun safety reforms. Yet here we are, just days after this horrific mass shooting, and not one single gun reform or gun safety bill is being voted on or even scheduled for a vote. I am furious that, in the face of such tragedy and such senseless violence, this Congress continues to do nothing--not a thing--to protect our kids and our families and our communities. Students from Amherst Regional Middle School in my district in Massachusetts sent me a letter last week that every Republican in Congress should read. They write: ``Seventeen innocent people lost their lives. . . . That scares us. It scares us that kids have to go to school wondering if they are next. That we even have to think that the next time we see some of our classmates or teachers may be in their open caskets. And what scares us most of all, is that our government fails to do anything to change this.'' They continue: ``They are gone because our country doesn't care enough to have better gun control, and we will not stop fighting until they get their justice. . . . We're writing this letter because we want to personally ask each and every one of our politicians: How many more killings must we bear before the laws are changed. . . . Our country is no longer safe. Not in school, church, concerts, parties, or even public meeting areas. Please choose to do something. All of our lives depend on your actions.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter written by these students. Dear Congressman McGovern: Seventeen innocent people lost their lives on February 14th, 2018. That scares us. It scares us that kids have to go to school wondering if they are next. That we even have to think that the next time we see some of our classmates or teachers may be in their open caskets. And what scares us most of all, is that our government fails to do anything to change this. Please don't forget. About the pain and suffering of all the families and the victims. About the children fearing that their school is next. About all of the lives that will never be lived. They are gone because our country doesn't care enough to have better gun control, and we will not stop fighting until they get their justice. And that's why we wrote this letter. We're not writing it to get some extra credit points or fame. We're writing this letter because we want to personally ask each and every one of our politicians; how many more killings must we bear before the laws are changed and regulations are tightened. Before the government cares for our safety. Before the lives that were lost are never forgotten or regarded as yesterday's news. The time to talk about gun-control is now. It is not next decade or next year or even next week. It is now. Now is the time to strengthen the process involved in conducting a complete background check and lengthen the waiting period required in order to receive a firearm. Please stand with us and all of the of the students and children in our nation. Stand with all of the families of the victims. Stand with the tremendously brave people who lived through these terrifying events. Stand with the heroes who saved countless lives, and ended up losing their own. Our country is no longer safe. Not in school, church, concerts, parties, or even public meeting areas. Please choose to do something. All of our lives depend on your actions and support. Sincerely, Students at Amherst Regional Middle School.

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have this debate. I am tired of all the excuses. I am tired of all the reasons that we are being given why we can't debate this issue. This is important. These are real people. These are members of our community. They are our neighbors. The time has come for us to act. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's have this debate. Let's protect the DREAMers. Let's do the right thing. But enough of the excuses. Enough of the excuses. It is time to vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I believe we ought to help the DREAMers. My Republican colleagues have said they want to help the DREAMers as well, yet they have done nothing. I am deeply frustrated, angry, and disappointed that in the greatest deliberative body in the world, we are constantly prevented from deliberating. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Dream Act so we can help nearly a million people in this country, mostly young people who came here when they were very, very young, who know no other country but this country as their own. We ought to find a way to protect them, to give them peace of mind. That shouldn't be a radical idea. Yet we can't seem to ever bring to the floor a remedy, a solution to help these people. Speaker Ryan, when he took the gavel in 2015, promised a return to regular order. He said: ``We need to let every Member contribute.'' He also said: ``We ought to open up the process and let people participate.'' Well, there is a bipartisan group here who believe we ought to protect the DREAMers, who have a solution: the Dream Act. Let us bring it to the floor, have a debate, and vote on it. If my Republican colleagues don't want to vote for it, they can vote ``no.'' But we ought to have a debate on this. This is a big-enough deal. This is an important enough issue where we ought to have this debate. It really is frustrating that at this late hour we can't even get a commitment from the Speaker of the House to bring this issue to the floor. This spending bill that we are talking about, this budget deal, would pass overwhelmingly. All Democrats, I am sure, would support it if the Speaker would just make one promise, and that is that we can bring a bill to the floor, a bill that we think is appropriate, to help the DREAMers. That is it. If my Republican friends don't want to support it, they can vote ``no.'' But to not let an issue like this be debated on the floor, to not think it is important enough to bring before the full House, is unconscionable. I don't know whether my friends on the other side of the aisle have met DREAMers or not, but they have been here. They have been knocking on your door. These are incredible people. They contribute to this country in so many ways. They have led efforts to help protect people who have been victims of hurricanes all throughout this country. They have saved lives. They serve in our military. All we want is a vote. That is it. And I just, for the life of me, can't quite understand why this is such a heavy lift.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, last week, Human Rights Watch reported that the Chinese Government has imposed draconian new controls on Larung Gar, the famous Tibetan Buddhist center of learning. An official document says Communist Party cadres are taking over management, finances, security, admissions, and even the choice of textbooks. This follows last year's demolitions and expulsions. China says it respects constitutionally protected religious beliefs. That is a lie. When the state puts officials who are required to be atheists in charge of your religious institutions, that is not religious freedom. When admission requires a firm political stand, when the state tells you what to teach and students must honor the Communist Party, that is not religious freedom. Sadly, the White House has been silent as human rights abuses in China worsen. Enough is enough. Congress must pass the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act. If the President won't act, Congress must ensure there are consequences for China's egregious actions to control and destroy Tibetan Buddhism.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage about the action by the Chinese authorities to impose Communist Party control over Larung Gar, the Tibetan Monastery and learning center of Tibetan Buddhism. According to information published by Human Rights Watch on January 24, 2018, some 200 Communist Party cadres and lay officials are taking over all management, finances, security, admissions, and even the choice of textbooks at the Larung Gar center, following demolitions and expulsions carried out last year. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the information released by Human Rights Watch. It is a significant blow to freedom of religion in Tibet and China, and a matter of great concern to all members of Congress. [Human Rights Watch, Jan. 24, 2018] China: New Controls on Tibetan Monastery New York--The Chinese authorities have imposed new administrative controls on the Tibetan Buddhist monastic center of Larung Gar that infringe upon freedom of religion, Human Rights Watch said today. According to an official document obtained by Human Rights Watch, some 200 Communist Party cadres and lay officials are taking over all management, finances, security, admissions, and even the choice of textbooks at the center, following demolitions and expulsions in 2017. ``The new government controls over Larung Gar fly in the face of Party claims that China respects constitutionally protected religious beliefs,'' said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. ``The micromanagement of the Tibetan monastery encroaches on religious freedom and is likely to fuel resentment against Beijing.'' The brochure emphasizes increased security and heightened control of the monks and nuns, calling for rigid limits on the numbers allowed to stay there, and for ongoing surveillance of the monastery population through the establishment of a ``grid management'' system throughout the settlement. It also states that all residents and visitors will be subjected to ``real-name registration,'' with monks required to have red tags or labels (Tibetan: byang bu), while nuns will have yellow labels, and lay devotees will have green ones. Larung Gar was the largest center of Buddhist monasticism in Tibet, if not the world, until an eight-month program of expulsions and demolitions, which ended in April 2017 after reducing the number of residents to around 5,000. It had previously been run by Tibetan monks and nuns selected by senior members of the monastery. The government's takeover of the administration--described in the official document as ``standardization''--could have far more significant impact than the demolitions and expulsions. The actions led a group of experts from the United Nations in November 2016 to ask the Chinese government to provide information about the legal grounds for the expulsions. The new document is an undated, four-page brochure printed in color in Chinese and Tibetan and apparently intended for public distribution. It ends with a quotation from Liu Chengming, Party secretary of Kandze prefecture, a supposedly autonomous area of Sichuan province that includes Larung Gar. The document appears to have been issued either by his office or by officials running Larung Gar. The document, made available in or shortly before August 2017, calls for the monastic settlement (Tibetan: gar) to be divided into two sections with a wall between them, with one section designated as an ``institute'' or academy with a maximum of 1,500 residents, who would be mainly monks, and one as a monastery with a maximum of 3,500 residents, mainly nuns. The original order for the demolitions, which Human Rights Watch obtained and published in June 2016, indicated that in the future three-fifths of the members of the main management committee at Larung Gar would be lay officials instead of monks. That plan was put into practice last August when local authorities announced the names of six top lay officials who had been given positions within Larung Gar's two main management committees. All of them, including the deputy police chief of Kandze prefecture, are Communist Party cadres and are therefore required to be atheists. The new document shows that scores of other cadres are to be installed not just in the management committee, but at every level and in each section of the monastic settlement. They will hold nearly half of the positions on most committees and in most offices, and in most cases will occupy the top positions. The prefectural deputy police chief will be party secretary and principal at the Larung Gar Institute, three of his seven deputy principals will be cadres, and the six ``sub-area management units'' (Chinese: guanli zu) that supervise the monks at the institute will each be headed by a cadre rather than a monk. According to the brochure, new committees will also be set up to handle propaganda, ``internal security,'' finances, education, and students within the institute. Half of the people running these committees will be cadres, 97 of whom will be stationed in the institute. Monastery sources have confirmed to Human Rights Watch that at least the same number will be stationed within the other section of the settlement, which is now officially designated as the ``monastery.'' These sources said that a large building has already been constructed to house the cadres. ``The administrative takeover of Larung Gar by Party officials shows that the government's aim was not merely to reduce numbers at the settlement,'' Richardson said. ``Chinese authorities are also imposing pervasive control and surveillance over every level of activity within religious communities.'' According to the brochure, 40 percent of teaching at Larung Gar Buddhist Institute must now consist of classes in politics and other non-religious subjects. The primary criterion for accepting students will be whether they ``have a firm political stand, accepting the Great Motherland, the Chinese [Chinese: Zhonghua] people, Chinese culture, the Chinese Communist Party and socialism with Chinese characteristics.'' The objectives of study will include to ``honor and support the Chinese Communist Party and the socialist system'' and to train monks who ``defend the unification of the Motherland, uphold nationality unity and patriotic religion and abide by their vows.'' Only residents of Sichuan province will be allowed to apply, other than in exceptional cases, eliminating monks and nuns from other Tibetan areas--which had been a distinguishing mark of Larung Gar. Since 2008, Chinese authorities have imposed similar limits on other major Tibetan monasteries, banning them from accepting monks and nuns from outside the local area. The document also indicates that steps will be taken to stop those who have been expelled from returning to the settlement. The scale of the Communist Party's intervention at Larung Gar is unprecedented, Human Rights Watch said. Since October 2011 permanent teams of cadres have been stationed in all monasteries in the Tibet Autonomous Region, the central Tibetan area far to the west of Larung Gar, where they have taken over the management committee of each monastery. There have been reports of similar takeovers of some monasteries in eastern Tibetan areas. But none are known to have consisted of such large teams of cadres, or to have included cadres even at the lowest levels of monastery management. The changes at Larung Gar are in line with current religion policy, which emphasizes ensuring political stability in monasteries by intensifying official management. It also rewards political compliance by monks and nuns with public praise, titles such as ``model patriotic monk,'' and other material or social benefits. The document aims to make the study of Buddhism ``standardized, law-abiding and modern,'' a reference to a new, centralized system for managing religious training, textbooks, and curricular content maintained mainly through a network of higher studies institutes being constructed throughout China to retrain Buddhist monks. The scheme appears designed to micromanage religious institutions rather than close them down and to produce a new generation of Buddhist teachers trained equally in religious doctrine and state ideology in order to ``adapt Tibetan Buddhism to socialist society.'' ``The Chinese government's latest inroads at Larung Gar show a pernicious intent to exercise extreme control over religious practice,'' Richardson said. ``This is an immediate threat to the religious freedom of all Tibetans, but a long- term threat to all Chinese.''

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 thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, here we go again, literally. Today we are considering, for the third time, the FY 2018 Defense Appropriations Act. The House took up and passed this bill in July. The House took up and passed this bill in September. And now, we will take it up and pass it once again under a completely closed process for the third time. I know, Mr. Speaker, that many people think that the third time is the charm, but in this case, I think the third time is a farce. There are a couple of minor changes to this version of the bill. For example, once again, it has $1.18 billion to fund President Trump's request to send 3,500 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, funding which has been attached to prior spending bills. It also has a general provision that turns off sequestration for defense spending. So it busts the budget caps but exempts itself from any consequences. That is a neat little trick, Mr. Speaker. But, really, why are we wasting our time on this bill for a third time? Here is a little bit of a reality check, Mr. Speaker. Neither this defense bill nor any other appropriations bill can move until the House and Senate Republican leadership get their act together, negotiate a budget agreement that works for all our Federal programs, and finally set the top-line numbers for all the appropriations bills. Then, and only then, will our appropriators be able to begin negotiations on the final FY 2018 omnibus spending bill to fund all our Federal programs, defense and nondefense alike, through the rest of the fiscal year. It would have been nice if this had been done in September, Mr. Speaker, or maybe by October or the end of November or the end of December. One might have hoped to have finally completed the job by the end of this month. That would be 4 whole months into fiscal year 2018. But we all know that is not going to happen. Now, I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I sure hope we can get these FY 2018 appropriations bills all done before we have to start working on the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills. There is a very simple reason why there is no budget agreement. The Republicans are squabbling among themselves over either raising the budget caps or making even deeper cuts in domestic spending. It is like the Republican rightwing is fighting with the Republican extreme rightwing. I will again remind my colleagues, as my colleague from Wyoming did, Republicans control everything. They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the Presidency. I wish they didn't, but they are in charge. It is their job to keep the lights running. But there is an incompetence that is on display here that I have never, ever seen in all my years of government. What should be happening is that the Republican leadership should be reaching out to the House and Senate Democratic leadership and negotiating a real bipartisan budget agreement, one that has votes in both Chambers. What a radical idea, to actually sit down and negotiate a bipartisan agreement that will get bipartisan votes. The notion that they can present legislation on the House floor in this kind of my-way-or-the- highway approach and expect Democrats to vote for it is ludicrous. We are not going to get everything we want. We know that. We are in the minority. But our values need to be represented in these overall budget negotiations as well. So they should do their job. Sit down and work out a deal. That is what they are supposed to do when they are in charge. Instead, here we are entering our fifth month of fiscal year 2018 and no budget agreement, which translates into no final appropriations bills because the appropriations committees don't know what their top-line spending ceiling is for any of the remaining bills, including defense. It doesn't matter how many times they send this same bill over to the Senate. It can't come back to us as a final House-Senate conference report without a budget agreement. They should do their job. We can't get a budget agreement until the Republicans stop fighting amongst themselves and decide to work for the good of the American people and the American military. They should do their job. I know today that we will hear a lot about how important it is to fund our military. Of course, that is important. You won't hear anybody in this House argue against that. But it is also important to fund things like the Department of Homeland Security. They help protect us here in the United States from potential terrorist attacks. It is also important to fund the Justice Department. There are many antiterrorism programs in the Justice Department that are important to protecting the citizens of this country. To suggest that somehow they don't matter, I think, is just wrong. Isn't it important that we support our Veterans Affairs Department to support our veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country? To say that somehow they are not a priority, I don't think that is right. It is important to fund the State Department. It is important to fund Transportation, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Education, Housing and Urban Development, the Energy Department, the Interior Department, and all our Federal bureaus, agencies, and programs. America's national security is more than just our military. It is our local law enforcement. It is our courts. It is our hospitals, our schools, our roads, and our bridges. It is investing in our communities, cities, and our towns. It is taking care of our veterans, our seniors, and our children. It is helping our local farmers, businesses, and companies survive and thrive. If we fail in these duties, Mr. Speaker, then what is there left to defend? Time and time again, Secretary of Defense Mattis has declared that the greatest damage to our military comes from continuing to fund defense by a series of short-term continuing resolutions, one after another after another. Yet that is exactly what Republicans in Congress are doing. So, please, Mr. Speaker, let's have no more crocodile tears about defense spending and how important our military is. If the military were really a priority for the Republican leadership and not just a good sound bite, then they would have reached a budget agreement and finished the FY 2018 appropriation bills--all of them--last year. Mr. Speaker, right now, Federal agencies, including the Pentagon, are operating under a fourth continuing resolution. Even if, by some miracle, a budget agreement is reached today or by next Monday, Congress will still need to pass a fifth CR by next Thursday, February 8, because there is no way the appropriators will be able to start and finish their negotiations on a final omnibus in just a few days. So, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, under a completely closed process, is theater. It is not about our military. It is not about the defense of this country. It is about a sound bite. It is about trying to provide some smoke so the people don't realize that the Republicans who run this government don't know how to do their job. It is nothing more than face-saving for the most extreme Members of the Republican Conference. It does nothing that hasn't been done twice before. It means nothing. It is a waste of time. Since the House is really only working 1 day this week--namely, today--then we could have brought up legislation that hasn't already moved twice through the House but for which action is desperately overdue. We could have brought up the reauthorization of our community health centers, which help more than 24 million Americans access essential healthcare. Or how about the reauthorization of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, which helps young families all across this country? The Republican leadership deliberately chose to let the authorization for each of these critical programs expire in September. They haven't even lifted a finger since to reauthorize them. We could have easily taken care of their reauthorization today in a couple of hours and sent those bills over to the Senate rather than spending the same amount of time passing the same defense bill for a third time. Mr. Speaker, defense spending and all other Federal programs are in a mess today because the Republicans are incapable of running the government. It is that simple. Each day it becomes even more clear that the Republican leadership not only can't govern, they are not even interested in governing. Everything we are doing on this day is going nowhere, and my Republican friends know that. This, again, is about theater. It is not about troops. It is not about our security. It is about giving them some cover to justify the incompetence that is on display here. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues on the Republican side that we don't need lectures from them about America's national security. When it comes to forcing their terrible policies on the American people, they say ``yes, yes, yes'' to President Trump; but when it comes to holding President Trump accountable and protecting American democracy, all they say is ``nyet.'' Clearly, House Republicans' desire to protect President Trump has clouded their judgment and caused them to lose sight of what is at stake: the security and integrity of our democracy. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's own CIA Director, our former colleague, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, recently admitted that Russia is currently working to undermine the upcoming election and has been doing so for decades. And, just yesterday, President Trump refused to impose defense and intelligence sanctions on entities purchasing Russian military equipment. In July, Congress passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill requiring President Trump to impose defense and intelligence sanctions on entities purchasing Russian military equipment. His decision, yesterday, to refuse to do so tells us all we need to know about where his loyalties lie. And still, Mr. Speaker, all the other side continues to do, day after day, is assault the rule of law. They have led an all-out assault on our Department of Justice and on our FBI to smear Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, attempting to tarnish the credibility of our Federal law enforcement along the way, and sowing doubt and confusion about the very ability of anyone in law enforcement to conduct an impartial investigation. And let's not forget that we are not talking about some hypothetical investigation. Here are the facts: The President's former National Security Advisor has pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. The President's former foreign policy adviser pled guilty after he lied about his contacts with the Russian Government. And the President's former campaign manager has been indicted by a grand jury for, among other things, conspiracy against the United States of America. Now the Republicans are trying to whip up a controversy out of thin air with a misleading cherry-picked memo written by their own staff, which contains significant inaccuracies and omissions that misrepresent the underlying intelligence. Associate Attorney General Stephen Boyd stated: ``We believe it would be extraordinarily reckless for the committee to disclose such information publicly without giving the Department and the FBI the opportunity to review the memorandum and to advise the committee of the risk of harm to national security and to ongoing investigations that could come from public release.'' ``Indeed, we do not understand why the committee would possibly seek to disclose classified and law enforcement sensitive information without first consulting with the relevant members of the intelligence community.'' Mr. Speaker, Republicans are doing this in a ridiculous attempt to discredit an entire investigation, which has already found a serious effort to attack our democracy. This is a deeply, deeply irresponsible attempt to undermine Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, regardless of the profound damage that it does to our democratic institutions and national security agencies. It is offensive to the Nation, and it is just plain wrong. I would remind my Republican colleagues that we are here to uphold the rule of law, not the rule of Trump. I understand that, in this Chamber, there are powerful political incentives to circle the wagons amongst my Republican friends around this White House, but the truth is the truth, and there is nobody, nobody in this country, including the President of the United States, who should be above the law. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that when we are talking about defending the national security of our country, what has gone on in this Chamber these last few days, in my opinion, is a threat to our national security. 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 would just respond to my colleague from Wyoming who said that talk will not fund our military, or that talk will not upgrade our military equipment, and I agree. Nobody is asking the other side to talk. We are asking them to do their job. We are asking them to go and sit down with Republicans and Democrats and work out a deal on the budget caps. In order to do any of this stuff, we have to know how much we can spend. Before you go shopping, you have to know how much you are going to spend. I know my Republican friends don't want to take responsibility for what is clearly incompetence, but, the bottom line is, in the Senate, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hasn't even marked up the Defense Appropriations bill yet. And the last time I checked, the Republicans controlled the Senate--I wish they didn't, but the Republicans control the Senate. And as my colleague from Wyoming knows, bills don't move in the House or the Senate without the Republican leadership moving it. So I think it is clear that this Republican-controlled government can't do its job, and November can't come soon enough, for me, because I think there needs to be a major change here. We need people in charge who understand that the American people come first, not some rightwing ideology, who understand the meaning that the American people comes first means doing your job. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that my colleagues vote to defeat the previous question, and I will give a little explanation why. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, President Trump tweeted that he wants to show that ``Democrats do not want to solve DACA, only use it.'' Well, I would beg to differ. This is the 19th time that we have attempted to bring the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, for a vote on the House floor, and, if we defeat the previous question, we will bring that bill up. We have made our position clear: we want immigration policies that make America safer, without betraying our core values as a nation. President Trump made his position clear as well. He has tweeted and said, time and time again: ``My standard is very simple: America First and Make America Great Again.'' Exactly what does he mean by America First? According to the conservative Cato Institute, repealing DACA would cost the government over $60 billion and would reduce economic growth by $280 billion over the next decade. That doesn't sound like an America First policy to me. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act: this bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would help hundreds of thousands of young people, who are American in every way, except on paper. I regret very much that the leadership in this House has refused, time and time again, to allow us to debate and deliberate on this issue. We have a bill called the Dream Act. If it was brought to the floor, it would pass overwhelmingly. Every Democrat would support it, and I bet a big chunk of Republicans would support it as well, and we could end this once and for all. The Republican leadership is so pathetically terrified of a narrow, xenophobic, bigoted element of their base that they cannot bring themselves to allow us to even consider such a bill, and I regret that very much. 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 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the people who write the Republican talking points because they keep on trying to change the subject to try to confuse the American people. My colleague knows that this battle is not over the DREAMers, although we all think it is immoral that these young people have been treated so terribly and so cruelly, and we believe that there needs to be a resolution to that. The bottom line is that we need to negotiate budget caps so we know how much we can spend on not only defense, but nondefense appropriations so we can keep our government running. This should have been done months ago. So if we really care about our troops, then where is the bipartisan agreement to raise the budget caps so that we know we have a budget deal? Where is this bipartisan agreement? My Republican friends have known that this is the deal for a long time, yet, again, they are tied in knots because they are fighting amongst themselves. Their rightwing is having a battle with their extreme rightwing; and there is even an extreme, extreme rightwing that not only does not want to raise any nondefense spending budget caps, but wants to cut domestic spending. I would say to my colleagues that this is about more than the DREAMers. In fact, this is about community health centers. I mean, people rely on community health centers all across this country to get their healthcare. We are not dealing with that. This is about funding our veterans. The men and women who serve our country, who we put their lives in harm's way, shouldn't we make sure that their budget is funded? I mean, Homeland Security. So, I mean, there is a whole bunch of stuff here, but this is really simple to fix. It requires the Republican leadership and this Republican government to do its job. That is all we are asking. Do your job, negotiate a deal for a budget agreement to fund the government for the rest of the year, then we are done, and we go on to fight other things. But there is an easy way to do this: come up with some numbers, work it out with your leadership, work it out with our leadership, and let's move that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me say again, the Republicans are in charge. I wish we were in the majority. If we created this mess, the Republicans would have every right to criticize us, but we are not in charge. I regret that very much. I think it is not good for the country that we have a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, because I think a lot of the priorities of the American people are not being addressed. All the Republican leadership needs to do is get together and do their job and negotiate a deal on the budget caps, and let us approve defense and nondefense spending for the rest of the year and get away from these CRs. It is in their hands. As I said, the Senate Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations hasn't even had a markup in their committee. I mean, they are controlled by Republicans. You can't blame us for everything. Bottom line is you are in charge. When you are in charge, you have to keep the lights on. That is your responsibility. Unfortunately, my Republican friends don't want to do this. I have never, ever, seen this kind of incompetence in our government, ever, in all my years. This has to end. Again, the way it ends is when the Republican leadership decides to negotiate a budget agreement with the House and Senate leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike. Mr. Speaker, we all believe that we ought to support our military, we ought to make sure we have the best military, second to none. We want to fund that, but we also understand that it is important to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which protects us from terrorist attacks here at home. I am sorry my Republican friends don't see that as a priority. We also believe we ought to fund veterans' health. I am sorry my Republican friends don't see that as a priority. We believe in funding community health centers. We believe in making sure that our States have the money to be able to rebuild their aging infrastructures. I am sorry that that is not a priority, but it is to us. The entire budget is a priority to us, and I don't think it is too much to ask the leadership of this House and the leadership of the Senate to make sure that everything is funded and that the needs of the entire country are met, and not kind of picking one over another over another. The other thing I would say is that, if we want to have a talk about national security, we ought to focus on what is happening right here with the Republicans and the House Intelligence Committee playing politics with an investigation into Russia's attack on our democracy. You ought to be concerned about a President of the United States who doesn't seem at all worried that the Russians interfered in our election, that according to his own CIA head says they are still trying to interfere in our election, and we can't even get this President to impose congressionally mandated sanctions. Is there anything that Russia can do to us that will cause this President to stand up and defend our country or to even say something mildly critical about Vladimir Putin, whom he praises, a man who kills journalists and human rights defenders and political opponents? Enough. I mean, stop this politicization of the Russia investigation. This should be bipartisan, getting to the bottom of this. Wherever it leads, it leads, but this is serious. You want to talk about a threat to our country, to our homeland, and to our democracy, look at what Russia is doing to us each and every day. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can bring up the Dream Act so we can actually protect these wonderful people who have been such great members of our community, who have been first responders, who have saved lives in the aftermaths of hurricanes, who serve in our military. We have to stop holding them for ransom. They are not hostages. We ought to stop holding them for ransom for a stupid wall that costs $25 billion. When I think about $25 billion, I can think of a lot of things to do with $25 billion that could help the people of this country rather than building a ridiculous wall that someone could buy a ladder to climb over or a shovel to dig under. We have to do better, so vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on this rule, and send a message to the leadership of this House: Get back to work and do your job. You are in charge. It is your job to keep this government running. Work out a deal on the budget cap. Fund everything. That is your job. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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