Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson ) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know we have a new manager on the Republican side. Maybe he will yield for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, with regard to the underlying bill that is being brought before the House today, a whole bunch of appropriations bills bunched together in an unprecedented way and, I would say, in an undemocratic way as well--nobody has had a chance to read these bills, over 1,300 pages--I don't think anybody in this Chamber has read them all. Close to 1,000 amendments were submitted. They were all asked to be submitted before we came back into session while people were still on work recess. I don't think Members have had a chance to review all of the amendments. As I said, hundreds of good amendments have already been rejected. Last night in the Rules Committee, I invoked Senator John McCain's name. He recently wrote a piece in which he called upon Congress to go back to regular order. I agree with him. We ought to go back to regular order. That is what the Speaker of the House promised when he took the gavel, we would have regular order. This is not regular order. This is not the way we should decide spending matters. I will tell you right now that there will be lots of mistakes in this legislation that is being rushed through--if it even goes anywhere-- because we are now being told we are going to have to do a continuing resolution, and chances are we are going to end up having to do a long- term spending bill. But process matters, and when you bunch things together and when you rush things like this, mistakes are made. As I said in my opening, we are going to ask for people to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If you vote ``no'' on the previous question, I will offer an amendment to bring up Representative Roybal- Allard's bill, which is the DREAM Act, which would actually solve the dilemma that we face. It would solve the dilemma that 800,000 good people in this country are now facing as a result of President Trump's cruel decision yesterday to repeal DACA, to end DACA. These are people who, as you have heard from all my colleagues as they have told their stories, are working in this country. They are leading efforts to rescue people in hurricane-ravaged Texas. They are paramedics and they serve in our military. These are good people. This is their country. They were brought here as infants. This is the only country they know. The fact that we are treating these good people in such a terrible way, every one of us should be ashamed. That is not who we are. We keep on saying that every time the White House does something else that we find offensive. We keep on saying: That is not who we are; that is not who we are. Well, at some point, we have to prove it. We have to show it. If we believe DREAMers are a valuable part of our community, then we need to protect them. This is a way to do it today. There is no need for compromise and more discussion. It is very simple: you either support the DREAMers or you don't. That is it. That is the only question at hand. If you want to load it up with all kinds of other extraneous materials, that is not a fair thing to do. That is not what these people deserve. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are hearing from their constituents. I know they are hearing from their churches, synagogues, and mosques that we need to protect these people. Well, let's do it. The DREAMers don't need your words. They don't need your sympathies. They don't need your empathy. They need your vote. We have an opportunity today, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, to have a vote today on whether to protect the DREAMers. It is that simple. Some of my colleagues on the Republican side have spoken very eloquently about the DREAMers. If you mean it, then give us your vote. If you mean it, do less talking and give us the vote. That is what we are asking for today. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let us help these great people. Let us help these people who have been such a valuable part of our community. Let us treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. Let us recognize that they view this country as their home. We should view this country as their home as well. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. If that doesn't work, then vote ``no'' on this lousy rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation my colleague, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), has introduced that would give Bob Dole the Congressional Gold Medal. I am a liberal from Massachusetts, but Bob Dole is one of my heroes. I admire him not only for his statesmanship and for his civility, but I particularly admire him because he has led the effort in this country and around the world to end hunger. Nobody that I can think of, other than George McGovern, who worked with Bob Dole during the 1970s, did more to try to strengthen our nutrition programs and to make sure that nobody in this country, the richest country in the history of the world, went hungry. And he worked in a bipartisan way and ensured that these programs were strengthened so that we were making great progress toward ending hunger in America. And then he joined with George McGovern in the formation of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program. Essentially, this is a program that expands school feeding initiatives all around the world, and millions and millions and millions of children are not only getting fed and getting a nutritious meal, but they are getting fed in a school setting. So they are getting the nutrition they need, and they are getting the education that they need so they can be literate and hopefully lead their countries out of poverty. The developing world cannot develop with an illiterate population, and Senator Dole understood the importance of education but also the importance of nutrition in helping people develop to their potential. And this McGovern-Dole program has also been incredible in getting more young girls into schools. In some countries where education isn't valued for girls, all of a sudden parents are sending their girls to school because they will get fed, and they will get the nutrition that they need. So Senator Dole, in my opinion, not only deserves this, but he deserves the respect and admiration of everybody in this Chamber, Democrat and Republican alike.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, he should be an example and an inspiration to us all. These are very difficult times for our country, and these are very tumultuous times in Washington, but you look at the example of Senator Dole and you realize how good this place can be, how good Congress can be, and how effective Congress can be. You don't have to agree on everything to agree on something, and I think that was Senator Dole's guiding principle. Where he could agree with people on the other side of the aisle, he reached across and got things done. Where there were disagreements, you know, he fought passionately for his point of view. But he represents the kind of civility and the kind of decency that we need more of in Washington, and so I am proud to support this legislation. I congratulate my colleague, Congresswoman Jenkins, for leading this effort, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to sing the praises of Virginia Bouvier, who is a senior adviser for peace processes at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the director of its Colombia program. I have known Ginny for over 30 years. She is a powerful voice for peace and a strong, loving, generous spirit. I have seen her create the conditions, open up the spaces so that peace may take hold even during violent conflict. Around the world, but especially in Colombia, she has brought together people from different points of view, different walks of life, the powerful and the marginalized. She has worked alongside them to find common ground and common purpose in building peace. In all honesty, Mr. Speaker, Ginny is the very model of a life lived fully with intelligence, love, compassion, tolerance, and devotion. Right now, Ginny is under critical care at Georgetown University Hospital. I ask all my colleagues to keep Ginny and her family in their thoughts and prayers.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to my colleagues from AFSCME opposed to this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, process matters. And I have come to the conclusion, after having served here for some time now, that a lousy process leads to a lousy product and lousy legislation. I know many of my colleagues were moved, like I was yesterday, when Senator John McCain appeared on the Senate floor and not only engaged in Senate business, but actually gave a very eloquent, passionate speech. I want to quote Senator McCain from yesterday. He said: ``Let's return to regular order. We've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle. That's an approach that's been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires. ``We're getting nothing done.'' I agree with Senator McCain, and I believe that a majority in this House, Democrats and Republicans, agree with Senator McCain. But at some point we have to stop saying: ``Well, we will get better. We will get better. It will be better next time. It will be better next time.'' Because what is happening is, it is getting worse each time we bring legislations or appropriations to the floor. We are getting more and more restrictive. We are shutting out more and more voices, not just Democratic voices, but Republican voices as well. This is a deliberative body. We ought to be able to deliberate a little bit. And both Democrats and Republicans have good ideas. Let us use this opportunity to change things, to go back to the regular order that Senator McCain talked so eloquently about yesterday. There is an opportunity to do that. It doesn't stop us considering the appropriations bills, but what it says is that we will do so under an open rule. We will go back to the way we all say we want it to be, an open process. If you like some of these amendments, you vote for them. You make this legislation better. If you don't like the amendments, then you vote against them. I mean, that is the way this body is supposed to operate; none of this underhanded, self-executing of controversial provisions that may not have the support of the majority in this House. Let's go back to regular order. This is the moment. This is a defining moment. Democrats and Republicans, if you really mean it when you say you want regular order, then you have to vote for regular order once in a while. You can't keep on making excuses. I think this is the moment that we have on these appropriations bills to send a message to the leadership that we want things done differently here. We want to open things up. I think that is what the majority on both sides really want. But the question is whether or not we all have the guts to vote for an open process. So we have an opportunity to do that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring this legislation up today under an open rule. Let everybody offer their amendments. Let's bring it up. Let's do this today. No more excuses. If you mean what you say when you say you want regular order, this is the opportunity to vote for it. So please vote ``no'' on the previous question. And I oppose the underlying bill. Maybe I won't if we can fix it through regular order. Maybe we can add a number of amendments, and even I would support some of these amendments. Let's give it a chance. Let's work in a bipartisan way. Let's go back to the days when we did have open rules on appropriations. This is the opportunity to do it. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an NBC News article on how the border wall is being planned to decimate the National Butterfly Center in the wildlife corridor of the lower Rio Grande Valley. [From NBC News, July 26, 2017] Border Wall Push Creates Flap in House--And at the National Butterfly Center (By Suzanne Gamboa) Washington.--A national butterfly preserve is the latest flashpoint in the border wall debate as Democrats accuse the GOP of rigging the process to slip wall funding into a pack of House spending bills possibly up for a vote this week. While there are not specific details on exactly where $1.6 billion proposed for President Trump's border wall will be spent, an amendment sponsored by Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, calls for $498 million to go to 28 miles of ``new bollard levee wall'' in Hidalgo County in Texas' Rio Grande Valley-- home to the National Butterfly Center. The amendment also calls for $251 million to repair secondary border fencing in the San Diego area and $38.2 million for planning future border wall construction. Another $784 million is for 32 miles of ``border bollard fencing'' in Starr County, Texas, also in the Rio Grande Valley. The butterfly center's executive director Marianna Trevino Wright said she found a work crew on the butterfly center's property last week, and she worried that their efforts might be related to construction of the proposed border wall. The workers had chain saws and work trucks and had cut and shred brush, trees and plants, she said. Trevino Wright said she found surveyor stakes and ``X'' marks on the property. She posted photos on the center's web site and Facebook page. The 100-acre center is part of the wildlife corridor of the lower Rio Grande Valley, which is a migratory flyway for birds, butterflies and a host of other wildlife. The center's property already is bisected by earthen levees. Two thirds of the property is below the levee, Trevino Wright said. ``The property we have acquired here used to be a commercial onion farm and we have spent the last 15 years fundraising for our efforts and growing plants and purchasing materials to revegetate this area, to plant native, host and nectar plants and provide breeding and feeding areas to support wildlife, especially butterflies,'' she said. ``We do have folks who come from around the state, nation, world for the birds and butterflies and other things we have here on the property. Sometimes people show up looking for indigo snakes,'' Trevino Wright said. In a previously issued statement, the Army Corps of Engineers denied that its contractors cleared or removed trees at the center, but acknowledged the crew placed X markings on the ground for mapping and wooden stakes flagging proposed locations to bore holes for possible construction. The agency said its contractor collected two soil samples from the levee but did so away from the butterfly center. Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Army Corps of Engineers, nor other agencies have outlined plans for the proposed border wall on the center property. Still, Trevino Wright and her supporters worry about what the center called on Facebook the ``government secret activity on our property.'' There also is angst over the possibility of border wall construction in another refuge along the Rio Grande--the San Ana Wildlife Refuge. It is considered the ``crown jewel'' of wildlife refuges and one of the nation's top birding spots. The Texas Observer first reported that crews were taking core samples, setting off a reaction among birders who flock to the spot that boasts 400 species of birds. The American Birding Association put out a plea to its members to write and call their members of Congress asking that they stop construction of the wall. Carlos Diaz, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, told NBC News he did not have information on what plans or hopes there are for putting fencing or a wall on the butterfly center's property or the Santa Ana Refuge. In a previously issued news release following a meeting with Rio Grande Valley mayors last week, Customs and Border Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers said in a news release they are conducting research activities in areas slated for construction of new or replacement border wall, with $20 million in reprogrammed funds approved by Congress. Also money provided for fiscal 2017 is being used to replace pedestrian barriers in San Diego and El Centro, California; replace vehicle barriers and pedestrian barriers in El Paso, Texas and install 35 new gates at gaps in border fencing built already in the Rio Grande Valley, according to Army Corps of Engineers information provided by Diaz. In a hearing Monday held by the U.S. House Rules Committee, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., pointed out that American taxpayers are footing the tab for the border wall work, not Mexico as Trump had promised. That's a point that should be debated and could be if the border wall funding was given it's own vote, he said. ``This is a rigged process,'' McGovern said. With Congress closing in on a summer recess, the House is trying to push through a batch of four spending bills the GOP has said are critical for security. But the GOP plan to include $1.6 million for 74 miles of President Donald Trump's border ``wall'' means those who oppose the border wall funding have to vote against the military spending. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, who chairs the Rules Committee, said Monday he made the amendment providing the border wall money ``self-executing,'' setting up the dilemma for opponents of the wall funding. ``You are dadgum right I put it in there,'' Sessions said. ``We are going to comply with allowing the president to have things he wants also,'' he said. Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., called the move ``sneaky'' and said House Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP House members were doing Trump's ``dirty work.'' ``They want to make sure Trump can build his wall, but they also want desperately to avoid a clean up or down vote on the issue,'' Gallego told reporters in a call Monday. Ashlee Strong, a spokeswoman for Ryan, said in an email that House and Senate Republicans' agenda includes a commitment to increased border security ``and we are following through on that promise.''

Mr. McGOVERN. I include in the Record a fact sheet by the Washington Office on Latin America entitled: ``Key points about the $1.6 billion border wall.'' July 24, 2017. Please find below a rigorously sourced analysis of the $1.6 billion in funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The border wall funding is expected to be attached to the appropriations ``minibus'' in the Rules Committee later this week. As a leading research and advocacy organization with years of field research and experience working on migration and border security issues, WOLA (the Washington Office on Latin America) outlines a number of reasons why this proposal will be costly, ineffective, and divisive. WOLA believes that these are overwhelming reasons to oppose President Trump's request for a border wall and to vote against its inclusion in a bill claiming to fund national security. Regardless of party, it is clear that $1.6 billion spent to start building the wall is money wasted. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions or would like more information. Best regards, Adam Isacson. [From the Washington Office on Latin America, July 24, 2017] Key Points about the $1.6 Billion Border Wall A Costly, Ineffective, and Divisive Border Wall Doesn't Belong in a ``National Security'' Appropriation The House of Representatives is rushing to the floor four Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 appropriations bills related to national security, which will be combined into a so-called ``minibus.'' In addition, the House Republican leadership is expected to carve out the most controversial part of the Homeland Security appropriations bill--President Trump's full request to fund the border wall--and use a procedural maneuver in the Rules Committee to attach it to this week's funding bill. Along with money for our military, veterans, and other defense-related items, the House is expected to consider $1.6 billion to start building President Trump's proposed border wall. The border wall would be costly The bill would fund the Trump administration's full request for $1.6 billion to build 60 miles of new border wall and fortify 14 miles of existing wall. That comes out to $21.2 million per mile. This is more than four times the $4.84 million per mile cost of fencing built since 2011. At the rate proposed by President Trump, building additional fencing along the 1,317 border miles that lack it would cost $28 billion. And that figure doesn't count the cost of building in more difficult terrain, access roads, maintenance, or acquiring land in Texas, where almost all border landholdings are privately held. Building the wall carries a huge opportunity cost. $1.6 billion could support many more important border security priorities. These include upgrading and hiring more personnel for ports of entry, the main vector for illegal drugs. The ports have $5 billion in unmet infrastructure needs. They could include more technology so that border-security agencies have a better idea of what is happening along the border. This would make continued National Guard deployments unnecessary. They could include greatly increased investment in moving costs and bonuses for Border Patrol agents who agree to relocate from quieter border sectors to busier ones in need of manpower. The border wall would be ineffective The proposed border wall will not stop drug trafficking. To understand drug trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border, it's first necessary to understand the difference between ``ports of entry''--the 44 official land border crossings--and the vast spaces between them, where fencing exists or where Trump's wall would be built. The ports of entry are where U.S. border authorities seize the majority of heroin and opioids, methamphetamine, and cocaine. ``The big issue, really, right now on drugs coming into the United States is the ports of entry,'' Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told a Senate committee in April. Building a wall would have no effect on smuggling at ports of entry. Meanwhile, in the rural border areas where the White House proposes to build, a wall really isn't much of a barrier. It slows individuals down for the 10 or 15 minutes it takes to climb over. In a populated area, where authorities can respond quickly, that 10 or 15 minutes makes a big difference. But almost all of these areas already have high fences, because of the hundreds of miles of building that followed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. In emptier areas, reducing a border crosser's head start by 10 to 15 minutes is hardly a deterrent--and in Texas, the Rio Grande already serves that purpose. The border wall would be dangerous More wall-building could have tragic consequences. Violence, poverty, and family ties ensure that migrants will continue attempting the risky journey through the border region's inhospitable wilderness zones. Every year, U.S. authorities find the remains of hundreds of migrants, dead of dehydration and exposure in deserts and scrublands. With more fencing, migrants may attempt the crossing in even more remote areas, where the probability of death will be even higher. The border wall would be divisive Building a wall sends a toxic message to one of our two closest neighbors, a country on whose cooperation the United States' national security and economic prosperity depends. Mexico is the United States' third-largest trading partner. Our common border is 1,970 miles long. Mexico collaborates on efforts to guard against extra-regional terrorists hypothetically using its territory to enter the United States. After 12 years of steadily declining migration, more Mexican citizens leave the United States than enter it each year. In January, it extradited its most notorious drug lord to the United States. It makes no sense to undermine this relationship by building a permanent barrier along our border with Mexico. It makes no sense to jeopardize badly needed cooperation by portraying Mexico as a sinister source of threats that should foot the bill for the wall (which, the 2018 appropriation makes clear, it will not have to do). Mexico certainly has problems, particularly corruption and human rights abuse. But these are aspects of the relationship the United States must work on, rather than push Mexico away with an aggressive construction project. The border wall should be rejected WOLA believes that these are overwhelming reasons to oppose President Trump's request for a border wall and to vote against its inclusion in a bill claiming to fund national security. Regardless of party, it is clear that $1.6 billion spent to start building the wall is money wasted. Let's stop this now before it becomes even larger, more costly, more counterproductive, and more divisive.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the funding for the wall from the League of United Latin American Citizens. League of United Latin American Citizens, Washington, DC, July 19, 2017. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the nation's oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization, I write to oppose any legislative attempts to keep funding the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, the expansion of a Trump deportation force, and the increase of detention beds in immigrant incarceration centers. As the House moves to consider the Fiscal Year 18 Department of Homeland Security Appropriation bill, and other security related bills, LULAC is deeply concerned about language that would provide billions for the construction of a costly and divisive wall along the Southern border, as well as hundreds of millions to hire a deportation force and expand immigrant incarceration. The continued criminalization of immigrants, militarization of the border, and rush to build a costly, ineffective, and destructive wall on the U.S.-Mexico border are aims of radical politicians seeking to advance a xenophobic, anti- Latino agenda in this Congress. Unfortunately, this administration has failed to focus on legitimate staffing concerns at ports of entry, rebuilding port infrastructure, and protecting the land, water, and environment of the border. Instead, it is looking to seize the private property of border residents, destroy the natural habitat and wildlife in border communities, endanger border water supplies, and turn immigrant neighbors, families, and children into criminals who merit incarceration and deportation. The House of Representatives should not enable these aims and should oppose any language seeking to advance the radical right-wing agenda of demonizing border communities and scapegoating immigrants. LULAC opposes any DHS appropriation bill, or any other appropriation vehicle, that funds border walls/levees, the hiring of Trump's deportation force and the continued expansion immigrant incarceration. Sincerely, Roger C. Rocha, Jr., LULAC National President.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a letter from Amnesty International rejecting the border wall funding. Amnesty International, Washington, DC, July 26, 2017. Amnesty International USA Urges House to Reject Southern Border Wall Funding Dear Representative: On behalf of Amnesty International USA and our more than one million members and supporters nationwide, we strongly urge you to reject any and all requests included in H.R. 3219 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018 AKA Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018) for the funding of a southern border wall. The construction of such a wall would pose serious human rights consequences and would violate international law and standards in two major ways. First, Congress should not approve funding for a wall that will cut through tribal land unless the U.S. government first obtains the free, prior, and informed consent of affected Nations, as prescribed by Article 19 of the United Nations (``UN'') Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The U.S. must consult in good faith with Native American Nations who would be impacted by the construction of the proposed wall. The National Congress of American Indians and the Legislative Council of the Tohono O'odham, the second-largest tribe in the United States by land holdings, have both passed resolutions opposing the construction of the wall without tribal consent. Without the free, prior, and informed consent of affected Native American Nations, the House cannot approve border wall funding without violating the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Second, the construction of a border wall risks escalation of the already serious violations experienced by asylum seekers seeking to enter the U.S. In order to provide a fair asylum process, the U.S. must ensure the existence of sufficiently located, secure, regulated border crossing points for asylum seekers. This is essential to ensure that the U.S. government does not violate the principle of non- refoulement, which is enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and binding on States Party to the 1967 Protocol. Amnesty International strongly urges you to reject funding for a southern border wall, in order to uphold U.S. obligations with respect to Native Americans and arriving asylum seekers. Sincerely, Joanne Lin, Senior Managing Director, Advocacy and Government Relations.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from Oklahoma: The Republicans presided over the most closed Congress in history in the last session. In history. And this year you are on your way to beating that record. The gentleman talks about exceptional speed in which we are moving these appropriations bills to the floor. I am not so much impressed with exceptional speed when it comes to the spending of billions of taxpayer dollars. I want to make sure we get it right. That is why we are asking for an open process. The gentleman talked about poison pills. Let me go back to the Barbara Lee AUMF amendment. I hardly consider that a poison pill when it was unanimously approved in the Appropriations Committee, and the gentleman even voted for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).