Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, finally, I include in the Record a letter sent to my colleagues in opposition to this bill from American Federation of Teachers. American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC, July 26, 2017. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members of the American Federation of Teachers, I write to express our strong opposition to the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 3219), the fiscal year 2018 appropriations ``minibus'' bill that bundles together the appropriations bills for defense, energy and water development, military construction, Veterans Affairs and the legislative branch. We oppose this bill because it moves in the wrong direction by failing to lift the sequester caps in a manner that maintains parity between defense and nondefense discretionary funding, and by including ideological poison pill riders. Our national security is critical, but it requires investments that help working families seize the opportunities they need and deserve, and appropriations bills must invest in critical public services that enable these opportunities. Sequester caps have unduly restricted these kinds of foundational investments; without removing arbitrary caps, crucial investments will suffer. Yet instead of working toward a bipartisan deal to lift these punitive funding caps in a way that treats nondefense discretionary funding equitably, the speaker is moving forward with a minibus package that promotes a strategy to drastically cut nondefense programs as a means to increase defense funding. This must not be an either-or choice: National security requires strength at home and opportunities for our next generation, not the elimination of the funding they need to create those opportunities. In addition, the well-being of the nation is further undermined in this bill by the inclusion of ideological poison pill policy riders. We particularly object to the inclusion of funding for an ill-conceived and mean-spirited border wall that is unrelated to any of the four appropriations bills included in the minibus. As the defense portion of this bill violates the Budget Control Act, the increases in funding proposed by this bill are imaginary. The cuts this bill proposes are not. I urge you to reject this bill and work to raise the sequester caps, to allow balanced funding bills--ones that adequately invest in the health, safety and education of our nation, and do not include ideological poison pill policy riders--to move forward. Until this has been accomplished, we urge you to oppose this bill. Sincerely, Randi Weingarten, President.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition on Human Needs against this minibus. Coalition on Human Needs, Washington, DC, July 25, 2017. Dear Representative: On behalf of the Coalition on Human Needs, I strongly urge you to vote against the package of military-related appropriations bills expected to come to the House floor this week. These appropriations bills--including those for Defense, Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water--should not be taken up until there is a bipartisan agreement to lift the sequestration caps called for in the Budget Control Act in a way that provides for increased funding for domestic and international (non-defense discretionary, or NDD) appropriations, not just for the military. As you know, defense appropriations exceed the Budget Control Act cap for FY 2018 by $72 billion. Without legislation to raise the caps, sequestration will eliminate that increase through across-the-board cuts to military programs. Legislation to lift the caps requires bipartisan support, and we expect that support will not be forthcoming without an agreement to raise the caps for non-defense discretionary spending as well. The Coalition on Human Needs, which is made up of organizations representing millions of human service providers, faith organizations, policy experts, civil rights, labor, and other advocates concerned with meeting the needs of low-income and vulnerable people, strongly believes that our national security depends on a balanced approach that invests in our domestic needs. Our people gain economic security from access to education and training, affordable housing, a reliable and modern infrastructure, and child care and other work supports. We need public health protections from epidemics and environmental protections to ensure clean air and water and to protect against climate disasters. Stopping the erosion in domestic human needs programs is necessary for our security and our future. NDD programs apart from Veterans Affairs will be cut by $22 billion in FY 2018, 5 percent below the previous year and 17 percent below the level in FY 2010, taking inflation into account. This harsh cut abandons previous congressional commitments to provide defense and non-defense programs with equal relief from sequestration. We urge you to vote against this package of defense-related bills because they should not be considered without a comprehensive agreement to lift the caps for all the programs that contribute to our security. We also ask you to vote against this package of appropriations bills because it includes wasteful funding for the border wall that will not increase our security, and to oppose extraneous and irresponsible policy riders such as those restricting opportunities for young people in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to enter the military or weakening the Congressional Budget Office. Please vote no on this package of appropriations bills, and instead make it a top priority to achieve a bipartisan agreement to lift sequestration caps for non-defense programs, not solely for the military. Sincerely yours, Deborah Weinstein, Executive Director.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 18 environmental groups opposed to H.R. 3219. July 26, 2017. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 3219, the so-called Make American Secure Appropriations Act, 2018, which includes the Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water funding bills. This package includes provisions that are harmful to water and ocean resources, cuts funding for clean energy innovation, undermines safe nuclear waste storage, and attacks border communities. Furthermore, this bill continues the House Leadership's pattern of adding harmful policy riders into spending bills in an attempt to avoid regular order. Lastly, the inclusion of $1.6 billion for the continued construction of a failed, divisive, and anti- environmental wall along the southern border of the United States would be the latest example of inserting harmful, controversial and even radical policy proposals onto spending bills, which undermines the legislative process and the already complex budget process. This bill reflects a set of values that is not shared by the American people--one of clean air and clean water, one of equity and prosperity, one of safety and security. Border Wall Provisions The border wall is a powerful symbol of hatred toward immigrants and undermines the civil rights of communities along our southern border, and it would increase the environmental and natural disaster risks to border communities, harm wildlife, and waste billions of taxpayer dollars on an ineffective border security tool. The current proposal would lead to the construction of 60 miles of new border wall to be built in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, including levee-border walls and 2.9 miles built within the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is home to diverse wildlife species, ecotourism opportunities, and rich natural beauty. When levee-border walls are constructed, they negatively impact wildlife migration, pose severe flooding risks, destroy natural habitats, and can increase the risk of wildlife extinctions occurring. In order to construct existing border walls, dozens of laws protecting our environment, public health, and sacred natural lands were waived. Our nation's natural habitats, vibrant wildlife, and healthy ecosystems are an unacceptable sacrifice to make for ineffective security measures. Water Provisions The Energy and Water Appropriations division includes damaging policy riders and report language in contravention of regular order. Specifically, Sec. 108(a) aims to allow the Trump administration to disregard countless laws as it carries out a scheme to undermine clean water safeguards. The provision would authorize EPA and the Army Corps to repeal the Clean Water Rule without following basic and longstanding processes aimed at giving people a voice in their government's actions. For instance, a repeal could ignore Clean Water Act and Administrative Procedure Act requirements to meaningfully consider public comment. It could also interfere with the courts' ability to review if the withdrawal is ``arbitrary or capricious.'' This fact reveals the real motivation for the rider--its proponents want to shield the Trump administration's repeal of carefully- developed clean water protections from public scrutiny and from independent judicial review. Without the Clean Water Rule, the streams that help supply public drinking water systems serving one in three Americans will remain at risk. Additionally, Sec. 107 would exempt certain discharges of dredged or fill material from Army Corps' permitting under the Clean Water Act. The Act already exempts these kinds of activities from such permits, but requires permitting when the impacts to waterways would be more harmful. This rider would have the effect of nullifying Congress's direction to subject those nonexempt discharges to pollution control officials' review. Another rider would undermine the restoration of the San Joaquin River, the second longest river in California. Sec. 203 would prohibit spending any funds to implement the legal settlement between the United States, fishing and conservation groups, and Friant water users regarding the restoration of the river. The settlement ended 20 years of litigation and continues to be supported by water users, conservation and fishing groups, and state and federal governments. Finally, the bill also includes a provision to halt implementation of the National Ocean Policy (Sec. 505), an important planning tool to coordinate the work of dozens of federal and state agencies with overlapping and sometimes conflicting responsibilities for addressing ocean development. These riders, and any further damaging policy provisions that will be offered, undercut the public process for determining how to implement the laws that Congress has passed. They are bad policies that will put American's health and safety at risk and they have no place on a funding bill. Energy Provisions The bill also dramatically cuts federal clean energy spending, which has consistently proven its worth by directing RD&D funds that drive job creation, economic growth and reduce health and environmental costs. The committee bill cuts funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by $1 billion (48% reduction) hurting important programs that support the development and deployment of wind energy, solar energy, advanced manufacturing, sustainable transportation technologies, and building technologies. Recklessly, the bill eliminates funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) and the Title 17 loan guarantee program. Defunding ARPA-E cripples our ability to commercialize new technologies that will serve to meet our future clean energy needs. Furthermore, the Title 17 loan guarantee program has a strong track record of lowering the risks on deploying projects that can make cleaner and cheaper energy a reality. The bill also includes $120 million in a continued attempt to push the unworkable, long ago rejected proposal to dispose of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. It also includes a rider in Sec. 507 that prevents funds being used to close the facility. Decades from now others will face the precise predicament we find ourselves in today if Congress tries to ram through unworkable nuclear waste solutions contentiously opposed by States, lacking a sound legal structure of science-based foundation, and devoid of public understanding and consent. The current efforts to quickly open Yucca Mountain and an interim storage facility simply will not work. This bill also rejects the sensible plan to cancel the risky and enormously costly mixed oxide (MOX) program, intended to dispose of excess plutonium from the U.S. nuclear weapons program by turning it into nuclear reactor fuel. Instead this bill mandates that the Department of Energy waste an additional $340 million on construction of the MOX fuel fabrication plant. Congress should reject the MOX program and support an improved approach for disposing of excess plutonium. We strongly oppose this minibus package, which would put our energy future at risk and would harm border communities, and it includes poison pill riders that will harm our nation's public health, air, water, lands, and wildlife. We also urge opposition to any amendments that would harm health and the environment. Sincerely, Alaska Wilderness League, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environment America, Environmental Protection Information Center, Klamath Forest Alliance, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, NextGen, Public Citizen, Restore America's Estuaries, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Save EPA, Sierra Club, Western Environmental Law Center, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Network.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by a number of civil rights groups, education groups, environmental groups, and women's groups in opposition to this minibus. July 25, 2017. Re Oppose H.R. 3219 Security Minibus--Vote No on Border wall. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of our coalition of almost 90 environmental, faith, immigration, and civil rights organizations, we are writing to strongly urge you to oppose funding for the continued construction of a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The construction of a border wall serves as a symbol of hostility towards immigrants, and undermines the civil rights of communities living along our southern border. It also imposes environmental costs and natural disaster threats on border communities, especially indigenous communities, harms native wildlife and wastes tens of billions in taxpayer dollars. As the House moves to consider the Fiscal Year 2018 Security Minibus, H.R. 3219, we are profoundly concerned about the inclusion of $1.6 billion slated for border wall. In addition to spending billions of taxpayer dollars, adding funding for the border wall in this legislative package undermines a fair and transparent legislative process. Instead of allowing legislators and the public to fully consider the impacts of funding wall construction, the Majority is using rushed and underhanded legislative maneuvers to circumvent the vast and legitimate opposition that exists for this measure, even within their own party. Including border wall funding in a Security Minibus is based on the false premise that our borders are somehow violent and insecure. This false premise has been used to justify and advance anti-immigrant, anti-border, pro- criminalization, and anti-environment legislation that has negative economic and civil rights impacts on border communities. The fact is that communities along the border are some of the safest in the country. According to the FBI's Uniformed Crime Reports, cities on the border are safer than cities away from the border. Places like El Paso, Texas have long topped the lists of safest cities for their low crime and violence. Additionally, according to the American Immigration Council, communities with more immigrants are likely to be safer than places with fewer immigrants. Border walls are an ineffective tool in curbing undocumented migration between the United States and nations south of the border. Rather than deter migration, the current 650-mile barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border has forced vulnerable migrant populations to pursue more dangerous routes of travel. The continued construction of a border wall portrays an attitude of hatred and animosity towards our neighboring nations. Additionally, construction of this wall would undermine indigenous border communities, potentially destroying elements of their history, archeology, and culture. Border security measures must consider the historic Tribal lands and families occupying the southern border. Finally, the current proposal in Fiscal Year 2018 Security Minibus calls for the construction of 60 miles of levee border wall in the South Texas Rio Grande Valley; 28 miles would be levee-border wall, with 2.9 miles slated to be built in the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge. This Refuge is home to diverse wildlife species, ecotourism opportunities, and rich natural beauty. When levee border walls are constructed, they negatively impact wildlife migration, pose severe flooding risks, destroy natural habitats, and lead to potential increased extinction rates. In order to construct existing border-walls, dozens of laws protecting our environment, public health, and sacred natural lands were waived. Our nation's natural habitats, vibrant wildlife, and healthy ecosystems are an unacceptable sacrifice to make for ineffective security measures. For all of the above reasons, we strongly urge you to vote NO on the Fiscal Year 2018 Security Minibus, and oppose funding for border walls, levees, or additional infrastructure along the southern border of the United States. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Civil Rights Mi Familia Vota, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), HONOR PAC, UnidosUS (formerly NCLR), American Civil Liberties Union, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Atlanta, The City Project, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA), League of United Latin American Citizens, EPCF. Community Groups Southern Border Communities Coalition, Indivisible, SER Jobs for Progress National Inc., Junta for Progressive Action, National Black Justice Coalition. Education/Higher Education National Education Association, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU). Environmental/Environmental Justice Earthjustice, Wildlands Network, Sierra Club, International League of Conservation Photographers, Students for a Just and Stable Future, Earthworks, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Protection Information Center, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Center for Biological Diversity, Jesus People Against Pollution, Food Empowerment Project. San Juan Citizens Alliance, Ocean Futures Society, SustainUS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Southwest Environmental Center, Conservationist Wilderness Areas Committee, Defenders of Wildlife, Clean Water Action, West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, NextGen America, La Union Hace La Fuerza, Comite Civico del Valle. Religious/Faith Organizations American Friends Service Committee, Frontera de Cristo, Friends Committee on National Legislation, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Ajo Samaritans, Francscian Action Network, Franciscan Peace Center, American Friends Service Committee, Reformed Church of Highland Park, Cruzando Fronteras, Southern Arizona Interfaith, Southside Presbyterian Church, Church World Service. School Sisters of Notre Dame, Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas-- Institute Justice Team, National Justice for Our Neighbors, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach, Latino Commission on AIDS, Hispanic Health Network. Human Rights/Women's Rights National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, OneAmerica, Green Valley/Sahuarita Samaritans, Coalicion Derechos Humanos, National Immigrant Justice Center, No More Deaths, Architects, Designers, Planners For Social Responsibility (ADPSR), Lidia' DelPiccolo--Morris, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), Tucson Samaritans, People Helping People in the Border Zone, Friends of Broward Detainees. Immigrant Rights Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, Detention Watch Network, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, End Streamline Coalition. Labor/Workers Rights Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA), Jobs With Justice, Arkansas United Community Coalition. Latino Civil/Human rights/Latino Labor Hispanic Federation, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latinos for a Secure Retirement. LGBTQ Rights National Center for Transgender Equality, Equality California, Entre Hermanos.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised to have ``a process that is more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, and more participatory.'' My friends like to highlight a number of amendments made in order today as if this is a good process. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, rather than taking up one issue at a time, this is a rule for three appropriations bills. I say to my friends, you guys are worse than you used to be. There are 10 amendments allowed for the Legislative Branch. Last year you made in order 13. We have fewer amendments this year. For the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, there are 16 amendments. Just a short time ago, in fiscal year 2016, we had a modified open rule. This rule is clearly much worse. We have the same situation with the Energy and Water bill. We have a structured rule this year, while we had a modified open rule just 2 years ago. The process in the House is getting worse. For the first time in history, we have a Speaker of the House who has never allowed a truly open rule. Now, we were not perfect, Mr. Speaker, but Speaker Pelosi allowed the Rules Committee to report open rules. Speaker Boehner allowed open rules. Every Speaker in modern history allowed some open rules, but we don't even get modified open rules anymore. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing an alarming rise in the number of self- executing rules, what Republicans used to call ``deem and pass rules.'' Now, let me explain what that is. In his book, ``Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders,'' our dear Speaker, Mr. Ryan, described the self-execution process. This is on page 98, if you are following along. But he called this process, ``legislative trickery to enact legislation that does not have majority backing.'' Now, sometime today we are going to go back up to the Rules Committee to do a little legislative trickery to fund the President's border wall. News flash: Mexico is not paying for the wall. The language that the Speaker intends to deem passed without a vote uses good old-fashioned American greenbacks to pay for Trump's wall. The American taxpayers are going to be stuck with this bill for this ridiculous wall. Mr. Speaker, this process is not good; it is not a better way; it is rotten; and the rule the majority will put on this floor tomorrow will be even worse. We are jamming through these important appropriation bills together, limiting debate, and moving further away from regular order. We don't need this rule, and we don't need a self-executing rule tomorrow. Now, if we defeat the previous question on this rule, I will offer an amendment to open up this process and consider the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Energy and Water Appropriation bills each under an open rule. 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 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) so he may respond.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just conclude with this, Mr. Speaker: Members have a chance to vote for an open amendment process on these appropriations bills. That is what this PQ vote is about. Republicans will not control this House forever, and I hope that no Member who votes against this open rule amendment today will have the audacity to criticize any future Democratic majorities. If they do, Mr. Speaker, I assure you, we will remind them of this vote. To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just remind my colleagues here that we are debating the rule, and this is about process. The gentleman from Oklahoma earlier talked about waivers and that the Lee AUMF language would be subject to a point of order. Well, the language that my Republican friends replaced the Lee amendment with is protected by a waiver of all points of order because it was also legislating on an appropriations bill. As I pointed out last night in the Rules Committee, you made in order amendment No. 19 by Mr. Griffith, which violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, and you provided a waiver for that. My Republican friends routinely grant waivers in bills that come before the Rules Committee. The problem is that the waivers are only granted for your amendments and never for our amendments, and that is just not fair and that is not right. So if your policy is going to be we are going to grant no waivers, then it ought to apply not just to Democrats; it ought to apply to Republicans, too. But there is this double standard here, and voices that you disagree with always seem to end up being cut off. So, Mr. Speaker, I just point that out because this process and the reason why so many of us are angry about this process is it is so blatantly unfair. The gentleman from Alabama talked about how we all want to commit to upholding the national security of this Nation. I agree with him, but I would say we are not doing our jobs if this floor is not a place where we can have a free-flowing debate, where Members can offer different ideas and be able to have a vote on them. I would just say, with all due respect to my Republican colleagues, you do not have a monopoly on all good ideas. You know, we have a couple of good ideas, too, and maybe some of your Members agree with that as well. The other thing we are going to object to is, again, the way my Republican friends self-execute controversial measures like this border wall at $1.6 billion, basically denying an up-or-down vote. Maybe it is to protect your Members in swing districts; I have no idea. Maybe you don't think you have the votes to do it. But if you don't have the votes to do it, it ought not to be in this bill. That is just, to me, a sound way to approach legislating. All the normal rules seem to be thrown out the window here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin, because this process is so lousy, but I want to rise today in opposition to this rule and the so-called underlying bill, H.R. 3219, the GOP fiscal year 2018 so-called security minibus appropriations bill. This rule makes in order 72 amendments for debate on the House floor, blocking 100 amendments. It continues the terrible closed process that this Republican majority has used since they took control of the House in 2011. When Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised a fair and open process with regular order where both the majority and the minority would have the opportunity to have their voices heard, and I am happy to provide the full text of that speech to my Republican friends. I guess we were misinformed, because our collective voices are repeatedly silenced in this Chamber, not just Democrats, but Republicans as well. Speaker Ryan's broken promise was clearly on display last week when he waited until the dead of night to strip out of the Defense Appropriations bill a provision requiring Congress to debate the issue of the 2001 AUMF. That provision was adopted by the full House Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis as an amendment offered by our respected colleague, Representative Barbara Lee. The bipartisan Lee amendment would sunset the outdated 2001 AUMF and give Congress 8 months to enact a new one, ensuring that Congress finally debate and vote on the many wars in which the United States is engaged. If the Republican leadership doesn't like the lead provision, then the Rules Committee could have made in order an amendment to strike it from the bill. That would have given Members the chance to vote up or down either to keep or remove the provision. That would have been regular order, that would have been fair, that would have been open, but, instead, House Republican leadership took it upon themselves to replace Ms. Lee's provision with alternative language calling upon the administration to produce a report. Republicans on the Rules Committee defended this action, saying that the Lee amendment legislated on an appropriations bill. The trouble with that logic, Mr. Speaker, is that the language that replaced Ms. Lee's amendment also legislates on an appropriations bill. That is right. House Republicans put in an amendment that violates the same rule. If this leadership is going to silence Members on flimsy procedural grounds, they probably shouldn't break those same rules on the same day. Even more shameful, the Republican leadership's continued actions to block every effort and refuse to allow Congress to debate and vote on these wars, I believe, is an insult to the men and women in uniform, who put their lives on the line every day to protect our country, and to their families. Americans deserve better, and the bipartisan voices calling for action will not be silenced, but this is just one example of regular order being abandoned in order to advance an extreme agenda. Tomorrow, House Republicans will use another legislative trick, the self-executing rule, to stick taxpayers with a $1.6 billion bill for President Trump's reckless and ineffective border wall with Mexico. Now, instead of bringing that measure to the floor for an up-or-down vote in an open process where all voices could be heard, the Republican leadership is sticking this provision into the rule so that as soon as the rule is approved, the measure will automatically become part of the bill. President Trump, as you may recall, promised the American people that he would make Mexico pay for this wall. He repeated it over and over and over again during the campaign. But now, House Republicans want to take $1.6 billion of hard-earned tax dollars from millions of Americans to fund it. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, this $1.6 billion is only targeted at 74 miles of the border: two small tracts in Texas and one small tract in California. And how did this provision on the border wall make its way into this minibus of appropriations bills? It was literally lifted out of the Homeland Security appropriations bill and its few sentences air-dropped into this package. Where is the rest of the Homeland Security bill, Mr. Speaker? Sitting in limbo, that is where it is. I guess there weren't any other national security priorities in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill that merited the very special treatment that the 74 miles of this lousy wall seem to be getting. I see that the only priority that matters for my Republican friends when it comes to the security of our Nation is 74 miles of wall costing $1.6 billion. Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace. This is just a disgrace. And then, because it will be part of a self-executing rule, Republicans won't even have to vote on this Republican priority. They will just vote on the rule and, bingo, it is all taken care of. There will be no separate vote on this. You get the funding for the wall, but nothing on record that says you voted to waste $1.6 billion on 74 miles of border wall. Republicans can go home and say they delivered on the wall. I guess they better hope that their constituents don't ask them to show them the vote. But as I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace on funding. It is a disgrace on funding priorities, and it is a real disgrace on process. I mean, we should be ashamed of the process in which this bill is being brought to the floor. I wish I could say that I am surprised by all of this, but the fact is that House Republicans have been doing this kind of thing for quite some time now. This week, you may have read about this: Kellyanne Conway claimed that even if President Trump says something that isn't true, it is not a lie if he believes it. Well, you can't make this stuff up. Well, I take that back. I guess you can make everything up. It seems clear that this warped logic has infected this Chamber, with the House Republican leadership employing this same kind of thinking and underhanded methods on a regular basis. They defend a process that is indefensible, plain and simple. This is a rigged process. Let's be honest. This is a rigged process. Is this really how we want Congress and this House to conduct the business of the American people? Is this how we will conduct the appropriations process not only now, but in the future: no debate for individual appropriations bills and severely limiting amendments overall? no regular order and a subversion the committee process? Soon, maybe there will be no amendments on appropriations bills at all. This is a slippery slope, and I urge my Republican colleagues to carefully consider the dangerous road that we are going down. Americans deserve better from their leaders in Congress, especially when it comes to deciding how the American people's hard-earned tax dollars will be spent. Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but what I see here today is another reckless and bloated budget proposal that empties the Treasury vaults for wasteful military spending when we have so many critical priorities here at home that are in desperate need of funding. Now, apparently, House Republicans have no problem with spending $1.6 billion on President Trump's border wall with Mexico, but when it comes to investing in our own communities here at home, they can't be bothered. How about investing in our kids' schools? Why aren't we doing more to ensure that our young people have the resources and the support they need to get additional education? Make college more affordable, for example. Wouldn't that be a radical idea? Republicans love to talk about personal responsibility and the need for Americans to work. Why aren't we investing $1.6 billion more in job training programs and finding ways to increase wages? We should be making sure that more families have access to good jobs and that no one in America who works full-time has to raise their family in poverty. President Trump had what feels like countless infrastructure weeks, but we have yet to see Republicans propose any legislation to make good on their promise to finally invest in America's infrastructure and finally fix our Nation's crumbling roads and bridges. Instead of making any of these policies the top priorities that they should be in this Congress, Republicans are just offering more of the same: empty rhetoric and broken promises. Now, to be clear, the legislation that we will consider today, H.R. 3219, does fund some important priorities. Our national security must be our number one priority with policies that are both strong and smart. I strongly support our men and women in uniform and believe that Congress should provide our troops everything that they need. Yet Republicans have deliberately created a security bill that raises serious concerns. Let's recap for a second, Mr. Speaker. The final version of this bill will include $1.6 billion for the President's useless and immoral border wall. It strips out the bipartisan Lee amendment that would have ensured Congress finally grapples with the wars that we are sending our troops to fight instead of continuing to write the White House a series of blank checks. And to top it all off, Mr. Speaker, the four bills contained in H.R. 3219 blow through the Budget Control Act cap on defense spending by $72 billion, threatening a 13 percent sequester cut to all defense accounts. While obliterating the defense spending cap, House Republicans have proposed reducing nondefense spending to $5 billion below its cap. It is legislative malpractice that Republicans have ignored this reality and have done nothing to work with Democrats to write a new bipartisan budget agreement to raise the Budget Control Act caps for both defense and nondefense spending. Republicans are setting us up for a train wreck, a government shutdown, or worse. This is not good, Mr. Speaker. This should concern every single Member of this Chamber, both Democrat and Republican. And so I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and finally take a stand against this process, which is rigged and closed and restrictive, and to oppose the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Ryszard ``Richard'' Laba, a longtime resident of Northbridge, Massachusetts who served as a United States Army Military Policeman in Vietnam. Mr. Laba was born in Poland and moved to the United States at 16 to live with his brother in Worcester, Massachusetts. At 21, he was drafted into the Army and served honorably in Vietnam between 1967 and 1969. Wounded in combat and exposed to the dangerous chemical Agent Orange, Mr. Laba returned home to Massachusetts. Back home, Mr. Laba was a hard worker and a family man who loved his community. He served as an assistant foreman at the Worcester Gear Company for 39 years, retiring in 2003. He passed away on September 10, 2012 at the age of 66. He is survived by his wife Margaret, who has worked tirelessly to raise awareness about Vietnam veterans, like her husband, who have experienced the debilitating effects of Agent Orange. Mr. Laba may not have been born an American, but he was so proud of his adopted country. His selflessness is an example for all who aspire to public service. Mr. Speaker, while we cannot change the past, we can make every effort to express our most sincere gratitude to all Vietnam veterans and their families that are with us today. On behalf of the people of Massachusetts, please join me in extending my deepest thanks to Richard Laba for his courageous service to our country. It is imperative that we continue to remind future generations of the character and integrity of those who served during the Vietnam War. I know my House colleagues will join me in remembering Richard, along with all those who served with him in Vietnam.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dan Morgado, who has been Town Manager of Shrewsbury, Massachusetts for the past 20 years. Anyone who serves in this chamber will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our local public servants are the unsung heroes that keep our democracy running. Public servants like Dan wake up every day in cities and towns across America asking how they can help their neighbors, strengthen their communities, and build better places for all of us to live and work. However, Mr. Speaker, Dan was no ordinary public servant. Under his leadership, an incredible amount has been accomplished in Shrewsbury. A new senior center, high school and middle school were built. Two new fire stations went up--and a third was rebuilt. Millions of dollars in improvements to water and sewer infrastructure were completed, along with a renovation to the town library. Town center traffic and beautification projects were successfully finished. Mr. Speaker, Dan has left an indelible mark on the Town of Shrewsbury. However, it isn't only what Dan accomplished in Shrewsbury that brings me here today, it's how he did it. From candid conversations that brought everyone to the table to stabilize health insurance costs--to making the hard decision to fully fund pension obligations and put Shrewsbury on track towards fiscal responsibility--Dan's impeccable character, calm demeanor, and selfless values serve as a model for others to follow. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Shrewsbury, the residents of Massachusetts, and everyone who he has touched through years of dedicated service, thank you to Dan Morgado. We owe you a heartfelt debt of gratitude for all you have done and wish you great satisfaction in your endeavors to come.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3364--but with reservations. I strongly support the section of this bill that provides a role for the Congress before any president may waive sanctions or provide relief from sanctions against Russia. Russia sought to undermine America's 2016 election. It attempted to subvert our democracy. It did so deliberately, methodically, and ruthlessly, spreading lies and misinformation and exploiting weaknesses in computer systems and records to steal private information and release it in sensationalistic fashion. These attacks against our democracy were and are totally unacceptable and must be condemned. I remain bewildered that the current president of the United States still fails to acknowledge that these actions happened and that the Russian government, at the very highest level, is responsible--even though there is a consensus among all U.S. domestic and international intelligence and law enforcement agencies that this is the case. Sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration in response to this multifaceted operation were lifted by President Trump. This legislation rectifies that situation by re-imposing those sanctions and ensuring that they cannot be removed without congressional consultation and consent. In addition, Russia continues to threaten its neighbors, especially Ukraine, for which economic and military sanctions are now in place. But I am somewhat reluctant in my support for this legislation because of the provisions included on Iran. Like all my colleagues, I am worried about Iran's continued testing and development of ballistic missile technology. It is threatening and provocative to Iran's neighbors and the region. I also oppose Iran's support for regional militant and terrorist organizations, and for choosing to side with the brutal regime of Bashir al-Assad in the Syrian conflict, as did Russia. I do support, however, Iran's continuing compliance with the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)--or the Iran nuclear deal. I worry that the sanctions against Iran included in this bill will be used and manipulated to undermine the JCPOA. I am worried that we now have a president and an Administration actively seeking to abrogate this international nuclear agreement. And I strongly oppose any action that would violate, let alone abandon, the JCPOA. The Trump Administration--and the White House in particular--seem hell-bent on putting us on a path that leads to yet another costly war in the Middle East and to a nuclear-armed Iran. This would be a calamity of the greatest order, one that would place our friends and allies in the region in even greater danger than what they now face. We must not go there. While I will vote in favor of H.R. 3364, I do so with grave misgivings about how President Trump will seek to exploit the sanctions against Iran provided in this bill to violate U.S. obligations under the JCPOA, which will, in turn, give permission to Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and bring us all to the brink of war in the Middle East.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just weeks after President Trump released his devastating budget which guts SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger, House Republicans have joined in that effort, proposing drastic cuts to our anti-hunger safety net in the budget that they marked up last week. In their budget, House Republicans have laid out their dangerous agenda: dramatic increases in defense spending and tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations--all paid for by cuts to programs that help working families and those struggling to make ends meet. Among the proposed cuts, House Republicans are seeking $160 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, over 10 years. $150 billion of these cuts come from structural changes to SNAP and harsher work requirements and time limits, and an additional $10 billion would be fast-tracked through the reconciliation process. Mr. Speaker, SNAP is not an ATM. It is not money to be used for tax breaks for the wealthy, additional weapons systems, or any corporate handouts. It is intended to help our most vulnerable neighbors purchase groceries and put food on the table when times are tough. Simply put, SNAP helps people eat. For a meager $1.40 per person, per meal, SNAP helps alleviate poverty, reduce hunger, and improve nutrition. It is one of the most efficient and effective Federal programs. But it is only $1.40 per person, per meal. And my friends are proposing more cuts in this program? Mr. Speaker, I serve as the ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee, Subcommittee on Nutrition. Since 2015, the committee has held 23 hearings on SNAP. In our hearings, we have heard from over 80 witnesses--Republican and Democrat--about ways to make SNAP even better. But none of these witnesses--not one--ever suggested changes like the ones proposed by President Trump and House Republicans. These Republican proposals are mean-spirited, and they are just as heartless as they are reckless. They do not reflect the realities of the program or seek to understand the challenges faced by those living in poverty. They don't help struggling Americans find work, and they certainly don't help address the ``benefit cliff,'' as some of my Republican colleagues have proposed doing. If Republicans were genuinely interested in helping struggling families rise out of poverty, they would join Democrats in advocating for higher wages, more jobs, and better work supports like childcare and transportation. They would address affordable housing shortages and help to improve access to healthcare. They would increase investments in job training and career and technical education. They would finally work with us to make college more affordable. But instead of working on these priorities, House Republicans are hell-bent on pursuing an agenda that belittles the struggles of the working poor and tears apart our safety net. Their awful budget is no exception. Under the guise of ``State flexibility,'' their budget proposes a block grant-like approach to administering SNAP. Make no mistake, block-granting SNAP would make hunger worse in this country, plain and simple. It would undermine the successful structure of SNAP--its ability to expand as the economy struggles and contract in times of economic prosperity. The proposed structural changes would likely result in drastic funding cuts and reduced eligibility for the program. If State flexibility is the true goal, then my Republican friends are in luck. SNAP already has a number of options that States can adopt. What is ironic is some of these State exceptions are exactly the provisions House Republicans are seeking to do away with. The Republican budget also calls for additional work requirements of SNAP, relying on dangerous rhetoric that suggests that hardworking families who rely on modest food benefits don't want to work or are somehow lazy. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I would like to point out that the majority of people on SNAP who can work, do work. Most people on SNAP are not expected to work or cannot work--they are kids, senior citizens, and people who are disabled. But that is exactly who Republicans will hurt if these dangerous proposals advance. If we are talking about how we can help transition people who can work into the workforce, you don't do that by cutting the program by billions of dollars or by cutting people off from food aid. That does nothing to help people find jobs. It only makes people hungry. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to join me in rejecting these damaging cuts, and to support investments in our anti-hunger safety net that will help end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McGovern- Emmer amendment, which would simply create a service medal to be awarded to atomic veterans or their surviving family members in honor of their service and sacrifice to our Nation. Between 1945 and 1962, about 225,000 members of our Armed Forces participated in hundreds of nuclear weapons tests. Now known as atomic veterans, these GIs were placed in extremely dangerous areas and were constantly exposed to potentially dangerous levels of radiation in the performance of their duties. They were sworn to secrecy, unable to even talk to their doctors about their past exposure to radiation. Thankfully, Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush recognized the atomic veterans' value and service and acted to provide specialized care and compensation for their harrowing duty. In 2007, our allies, Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, enacted their versions of this amendment by authorizing a medal to honor their atomic veterans who served with the United States. Regrettably, the Pentagon remains silent on honoring the service of our atomic veterans, arguing that to do so would diminish the service of other military personnel who are tasked with dangerous missions. Mr. Chairman, this is a pitiful excuse. Tragically, more than 75 percent of atomic veterans have already passed away, never having received this recognition. They served honorably and kept a code of silence. Because of that, it most certainly led to many of these veterans passing away prematurely. Past administrations and Congresses have dealt with the thornier issues of legality in compensation. What remains is recognizing these veterans' duty, honor, and faithful service to our Nation. Time is running out. That is what this amendment seeks to do. I call upon my House colleagues to support this amendment that I, along with my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), have introduced. We owe it to our veterans to recognize their selfless service to our Nation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Emmer for his support, and I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for their support in the past. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has stated, the House has, by voice vote, approved this twice before in the NDAA bills. Unfortunately, the Senate has chosen to not respect the wishes of the House, so I think it is important that we show a strong bipartisan vote on this. So I will ask for a recorded vote because I think it is important to send a signal to the Senate that we are serious about this and we are serious about honoring our Atomic Veterans. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the war and the authorization that the gentleman was talking about is 2001. We have been there for 16 years. In 2001 we were going after al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is gone. We are now fighting the Taliban and propping up one of the most corrupt governments in the world. Our mission continues to change. The idea that we should be operating in Afghanistan under an AUMF from 2001, that somehow nothing has changed, is ludicrous. And the idea that we are using that authorization to justify our military operations in Syria and a whole bunch of other places in the world is ludicrous. Enough. Enough. This Chamber needs to do its job, and this leadership needs to get out of the way, and Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans-- need to come together and debate these issues seriously. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter to all Representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to the Hartzler amendment, which it deems as discriminatory and unconstitutional. American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, July 13, 2017. Vote NO on Hartzler Amendment No. 315 to the NDAA-- Discriminatory and Unconstitutional. Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is strongly opposed to Hartzler Amendment No. 315 to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (NDAA), H.R. 2810. This amendment would bar transgender members of the Armed Forces and military families from receiving appropriate and medically necessary health care. This is a discriminatory, unconstitutional attack on transgender service members and their families, plain and simple. It should be overwhelmingly rejected by members of the House of Representatives. Barring access to appropriate and medically necessary health care, including transition-related care, for transgender service members and their families is not only discriminatory, but runs counter to scientific evidence and contemporary medical standards of care. It also puts the health of certain service members at needless risk and undermines the ability of military medical professionals to provide necessary care for their patients. There is a clear and overwhelming consensus among the leading medical organizations--including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association--that transition-related care is safe, effective, non-experimental, and medically necessary. If a military doctor determines that transition- related care (e.g. hormone therapy) is medically necessary for a transgender service member, then that treatment should be provided just as it would be for any other medical condition for any other service member. Members of the House of Representatives should overwhelmingly reject this discriminatory attempt to deny necessary health care to certain service members and their families. All of the members of our Armed Forces willingly put their lives on the line in defense of our nation. The least that Congress can do is ensure that the health care needs of our service members and their families are being met. Accordingly, the ACLU is strongly opposed to Hartzler Amendment No. 315 to the NDAA and urges all members to vote NO on it. Please contact Ian Thompson, legislative representative. Sincerely, Faiz Shakir, National Political Director. Ian Thompson, Legislative Representative.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to me that we have time to debate a bill that discriminates against transgender members of the Armed Forces and military families, but we can't find the time to debate war. It really is sad. It is a sad commentary on the way the Rules Committee conducted itself last night. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman believes that what we are doing in Afghanistan is consistent with what was envisioned 16 years ago, he can go on thinking that, but it isn't. And if he thinks it is okay that that authorization is used to justify every military involvement we have all around the world, he can go ahead and think that way. I think he is very much mistaken. Mr. Speaker, Congress has to stop kicking the can down the road. It is unconscionable that the Republican leadership continues to prevent meaningful debate on these wars. But let me say one thing about why our House colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, keep bringing these issues up, despite the opposition from the Republican leadership. And that is because it is our job. The American people sent us to Washington to debate the uncomfortable issues and to take difficult votes. Now, there were some in Congress-- maybe my friend is included in that--who think that it is acceptable to give this administration a blank check to continue these endless wars. Why anybody--no matter who is President, but especially with this President--would feel comfortable giving him a blank check is beyond my comprehension. There are others who would like to end them and bring our servicemen and -women home. And then there are others who look for a different policy somewhere between these two positions. This is why we need to debate these wars. This is why we need to bring updated AUMFs to the floor for a vote. If that is a debate that you would rather not have, if that is a vote that you would rather not take, then Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that you should look for a new job. You should go into a different vocation. I am sure that I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that protecting the lives and well-being of our uniform men and women is one of the highest priorities, if not the highest priorities, of this Congress. But they deserve more than a ``thank you'' on Veterans Day. We do not respect their service and sacrifice and that of their families when we refuse to debate and take any responsibility for sending them year after year into war. They deserve a thoughtful, reasoned, and engaged debate. They deserve a debate. They deserve a little attention in this Chamber, not excuses and not more reports and not more, ``We will get to it in the future.'' And that is why, along with many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues, we will continue to demand that the Republican leadership of this House allow a debate and a vote on the future of these wars. I just want to say, finally, Mr. Speaker, I have been raising this issue not just when Republicans have been President, but when Democrats have been President. I really believe that Congress has forfeited its constitutional responsibilities. We have abrogated our constitutional responsibilities. We have acquiesced time and time again to Democratic and Republican administrations when it comes to war. We can't allow that to happen. That is not responsible governing. We have an obligation to make sure that whatever we are doing with regard to our military, that it is the right thing to do. The idea that we once again come to the floor with the National Defense Authorization bill and we are told we cannot debate any of these things, we can't vote on any of these things, I mean, give me a break. What are you thinking? Why is this such a big, difficult thing to overcome with the leadership? Again, if my friends don't want to take uncomfortable votes, then do something else. Don't vote. But it is not the right thing to do. We should be ashamed of this process. There is no justifying shutting out debate on war. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and vote ``no'' on the rule, too. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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