Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, isn't it customary, when we debate a rule, that the hour is divided 30 minutes on each side?

Mr. McGOVERN. I had a parliamentary inquiry, which I was not recognized for, wanting to know where our 30 minutes was in the debate.

Mr. McGOVERN. Absolutely, but I would like to know where our 30 minutes are. recorded vote

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McGOVERN. Does House Resolution 797 provide for any debate time at all on a conference report that we just received a few hours ago, that is quite lengthy?

Mr. McGOVERN. I think I have stated----

Mr. McGOVERN. Well, when I read the rule, apparently we don't, so we are locked out of everything, if I am understanding the rule correctly. This is a lousy process, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, again, I would just say to my colleagues that this is about our respecting the Constitution of the United States. This is about respecting the service of our men and women whom we have put in harm's way. We all know we should be doing this. We have to have the guts and the courage to do it. I urge the passage of my amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have been reengaged in Iraq since June of 2014. We have been in Syria since September of 2014. And, quite frankly, the time to have debated an AUMF was before we became militarily engaged in these two countries. We have repeatedly heard from the leaders in this House that Congress does, indeed, have a constitutional duty to do an AUMF and it would be considered, but we have not done so. I believe that, barring the passage of this amendment, which would force Congress to do the right thing, we will never do an AUMF. Perhaps we lack the courage, or perhaps we are satisfied to allow these wars to run on automatic pilot. Our inaction is wrong. It is an insult to our troops. Whether you want to expand these wars or end these wars, we should all agree that we should vote on an AUMF. This amendment simply says that if there is no AUMF, then there is no money for combat operations. That gives us ample time during the rest of this year to vote on an AUMF. There are no more excuses. Please, please stop making excuses. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, to justify wars in 2016 on an AUMF in 2001 is ludicrous. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), one of the sponsors of this amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding because this is debate, quite frankly, that we need to have, and we need to have it in more than 10 minutes. If one supports this amendment, we will have that debate. Mr. Chair, this amendment is not about cutting out funds to our troops. The underlying bill, interestingly, already does that come next April. This amendment is about the dereliction of duty by Congress. If Congress keeps voting for the money to send our men and women in uniform to fight and die in Iraq and Syria, then it should have the courage to debate and vote on an AUMF for those missions as the Constitution of the United States demands of us. It is that simple. We have heard from leaders of this Chamber over and over and over again that they agree that we ought to debate an AUMF, but every time we try to force the issue, there is another excuse. We are told that we have to wait for the White House to propose an AUMF. They did. I don't particularly like it--some may like it, and some may not--but we ought to bring it to the floor. We ought to debate it and amend it and vote on it. That is what we are supposed to do. There is something very, very wrong about the fact that we have so many men and women in harm's way right now--some of them who are losing their lives because of their deployments--and we are content to do nothing. We don't even talk about what is happening in Iraq and Syria. We don't have these debates that we should be having. All we are saying--and I don't care what your views are on these wars--is that you ought to agree that we ought to have a debate. That is what the McGovern-Jones-Lee-Amash-Garamendi amendment is all about. America's men and women in uniform are doing their duty, and I respectfully ask my colleagues to do theirs.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, our ranking member, for yielding me the time. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this restrictive rule. The gentleman from Alabama talks about a poison pill. The poison pill amendment he is talking about is an amendment that would prohibit discrimination against the LGBT community. That is the poison pill. It is pathetic that an anti-discrimination measure would be considered a poison pill, but only in this Republican-controlled House would that be the case. I would also say to the gentleman that the last time I checked, Republicans have the majority in this place. You have 247; we have 188. You can do whatever you want to do. That is why we see these restrictive rules one after another after another coming before the House. When I hear that we are limiting the appropriations amendment process only to get rid of poison pills, there are other amendments that I don't think would be considered poison pills that were denied. My colleague from California, Jackie Speier, had an amendment dealing with littoral combat ships. That was not made in order. If we had an open rule under the appropriations process that we should have had, that we were promised, she could have offered her amendment. But that was denied as well. In terms of how the whole bill is funded with this overseas contingency account, it is one gimmick after another. It is embarrassing to try to defend this OCO account and how my colleagues have tried to get around the budget caps by going in and taking money to lift up the overall amounts in the base bill. But here is the deal: I will say that I am grateful that an amendment was made in order that I authored along with Congressman Jones and many of my other colleagues that would basically say that it is about time Congress has a debate and a vote on an AUMF. We are at war in Syria, and we are at war in Iraq again. Our troops are in combat situations. That is the way the Secretary of Defense describes it. Our troops are being wounded. We have lost soldiers in these recent battles, and we have not had the courage in this institution to actually debate these wars and to vote up or down on whether we should continue these wars. My friends have all kinds of excuses why we can't do this. First they say: Well, the White House has to come up with a plan. The White House did. Now it is: Well, we can't debate this because it is a delicate time. We should have debated these wars before we entered these wars, yet the leadership of this House prevented us time and time again. Now we have 10 minutes, 5 on both sides, to debate this amendment. But my amendment is very simple. It basically says no AUMF, no money. If we don't have the courage to have this debate and to authorize these wars, then our troops ought to come home. It is that simple. It is very, very straightforward. For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would vote against this.

Mr. McGOVERN. If some of my colleagues want to expand these wars, then this is the opportunity for you to do it. If some of my colleagues, like me, want to lessen our military footprint in the Middle East, this is the opportunity. But to do nothing is unconscionable, and voting for this would force us--would force us--to do our job and to live up to our constitutional responsibility. We cannot hide behind all these excuses anymore. There is no more excuse. Our brave men and women are in harm's way. The least we can do is show them that we care enough about what is going on to have this debate and vote on an AUMF. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote for the McGovern-Jones amendment. Vote to force this House to have a debate and a vote on an AUMF. If not, let us bring our troops back home to safety with their families.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of the rule and the underlying bills that the rule would allow to be considered, I do want to take a moment to reflect on what happened yesterday here in the House of Representatives. In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy in Orlando, the Speaker of the House asked for a moment of silence to pray for the victims: those who lost their lives, those who were injured, and their families. We stood here and, for 10 seconds, had a moment of silence. One of our leaders, Mr. Clyburn, sought to get the Speaker's attention to ask a question. Basically, the question was: Is that it? What about legislation? What about action to prevent these types of tragedies from happening in the future? He was gaveled down. There was a lot of outrage here on the House floor, and I think justifiably so. We have been on this floor calling for moments of silence after terrible tragedies like the one in Orlando again and again and again. It is not enough. Surely, this Congress, Democrats and Republicans, can come together and do more than just have a moment of silence. Mr. Clyburn was asking about whether or not we could bring to the floor the bill that basically says that, if you are a suspected terrorist and you are on the FBI's no-fly list, then you ought not to be able to go into a gun store and buy a weapon of war, could that come up for a debate and could we have a vote on that. He was also going to raise the issue about whether or not we can revisit legislation that would call for a ban on assault weapons. The weapon that this killer used was an assault weapon, and it was perfectly legal for him to buy. Is it worth a discussion as to whether or not we ought to place limits on the purchase of such weapons? He was also going to raise the issue about whether or not we could pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that would prevent criminals who have been convicted of misdemeanor assaults against a victim based on his or her race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability from causing further harm with a gun. This is common sense, and both parties need to come together and take action. For the life of me, I can't understand why there is a hesitancy by the leadership of this House to grapple with some of these issues. It is just not enough to come here after terrible tragedies like the one in Orlando, where 49 people lost their lives and 53 were wounded, and just have a moment of silence. It is becoming an empty gesture. We need to follow it up with action. The American people, I don't care what their political ideology or political party may be, want us to do something. Instead, all we can do is have a moment of silence. I would just say to my colleagues: It is not enough. It is time for action. Mr. Speaker, getting to this rule, I rise in strong opposition to the rule, which provides for consideration of H.R. 5053, the so-called Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act, under a completely closed process. No amendments can be made in order. The rule also provides for general debate of H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2017, and we expect the Rules Committee to report a structured rule later today for consideration of amendments to that legislation. When Speaker Ryan was elected to preside over the House, he made a promise to return to regular order. He promised to fix this broken House by making changes to the process by which the House does business. He promised to ``open up the process,'' to ``let people participate.'' He said it would be a ``relief'' to the American people if we were to get our act together. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are light-years away from regular order and have yet to get our act together. We are here on the floor of this House considering another two pieces of legislation under rules that violate the Speaker's promise of an open process for both the majority and the minority. This week, the Republican leadership has chosen to shut down the appropriations process even further, with the majority on the Rules Committee indicating that they will issue a structured rule for consideration of amendments to the FY17 Defense Appropriations bill. Now I am saddened by the recent events that have led to the shutdown of the appropriations process, and by the fact that my conservative Republican colleagues voted down their own appropriations bill because it included an amendment to protect LGBT rights, which was adopted during consideration of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill a few weeks ago. But I shouldn't be surprised. Last summer, the appropriations process was upended because some of my conservative colleagues refused to vote for legislation that banned the display of the Confederate flag. So this is just more of the same dysfunction and misplaced priorities from this Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have yet to issue a single open rule this Congress, and we are now beginning a process that further restricts what little opportunity we once had to offer amendments under a modified-open appropriations process. And let me say a few words about the Department of Defense Appropriations Act bill that we are set to consider this week. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I oppose and I have been deeply troubled by these endless wars, by continuing to send tens of billions of dollars each year to fund U.S. military operations and wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere. In the cases of Afghanistan, and especially Iraq and Syria, I believe that this Congress has failed in its most solemn constitutional duty to debate and approve an authorization for the use of military force. I believe that without Congress approving an AUMF, our troops should not be there, quite frankly. For me, this is not just a matter of principle, it is a matter of the Constitution of the United States and the role and responsibility of the United States Congress. It is also the duty that we owe every single one of our men and women in uniform, to either formally authorize their mission, or to bring them back home to the comfort and security of their families. Over the years, we have had a few debates on this serious issue, and often those opposed to bringing forward an AUMF will argue that we can't put in jeopardy the support of our troops. Well, Mr. Speaker, for those Members who are concerned about cutting off funds for our troops, they must stand up and be counted and oppose this rule and the underlying Defense Appropriations bill. H.R. 5293 cuts the funds in the overseas contingency operations account so badly that it is estimated that all funds for all U.S. military engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere will run out on or around the end of next April. Now, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that the defense authorization bill actually sets a date for this national security disaster: April 30, 2017. And while the authors of the Defense Appropriations bill are too coy to name a date, the amount of money is so limited that it is guaranteed to run out just about this time. Now the Republican leadership is gambling that the next President and the next Congress will pass a supplemental appropriations bill to fund all these wars through the remainder of fiscal year 2017, just scarcely 2 months after being sworn into office. Even I, as someone who does not support these wars, can see that this is crazy. How can anyone stand up and say that they support the troops, and then support a bill that knowingly, deliberately, willfully cuts them off at the knees at the beginning of next year? And why did the Republican majority, with eyes wide open, take such a calculated move? Well, they did it to pump up the funding of some of their favorite pet projects in the defense base budget. They stole $15.17 billion of OCO funds--that is nearly 27 percent of the OCO budget--funds that were supposed to fund our troops, their equipment, and their supplies for an entire fiscal year, and boosted the base budget. To take this hypocrisy another step further, the rule that we are debating right now forbids any amendments from being offered that would take money from the base budget and put it back into OCO, not even to fund our troops for 5 months until the end of the fiscal year. This is ludicrous. This is a disgrace. And this is just one more dishonorable act perpetrated by this Congress against our men and women in uniform. We won't formally authorize their missions overseas, and now we are not going to fund them for an entire year. Now, the last piece of irony to this disgusting set of gimmicks is that this type of prohibition in a rule is rarely, if ever, seen. Why, you ask, Mr. Speaker? Well, because that type of guidance is generally outlined in a budget resolution. You know, Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that the Republican leadership hasn't brought to the House floor this year because it can't get a consensus out of its cantankerous caucus, and can't corral enough votes to even pass a budget resolution. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. We need to bring forward an AUMF for Iraq and Syria, and if we continue to fail to do so, then we should bring our troops home. If the Members of this House can sit here safe and sound, then so should our troops. And we should stop purposely robbing the funding for our troops and using that money for their pet projects and weapons systems in the base budget. Lastly, let me just say a few words about the other bill that we are considering this week, to constrain the Internal Revenue Service's ability to enforce our tax laws and reduce transparency. H.R. 5053 removes one of the only tools available to ensuring that foreign money is not illegally spent by tax-exempt groups in our elections, and I strongly oppose this most recent effort to unleash a new flood of unlimited, anonymous, unaccountable money into our political system. My colleague mentioned that this was about people being able to give freely to charitable organizations. The charitable organizations that they are referring to are groups like Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, American Future Fund, funded by--these are the groups headed by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers sent a nice letter to all of us asking us to support this legislation with one goal in mind, to basically keep the American people in the dark. They don't want you to know all the money that is being pumped in to influence our elections and who is giving that money. They want to keep the American people in the dark. I think the one lesson on both the Democratic side and the Republican side during this Presidential campaign that is clear, people want us to open up the process. They think this process has been corrupted by money. And rather than opening up the process, this is shutting the process down, shutting transparency, and I think that goes against what both Democrats and Republicans want. I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will read the opening paragraph: ``It is plainly illegal for foreigners to contribute to American political campaigns. But reform groups are warning that the ban would be gravely undermined by a little-noticed bill''--which is this bill--``advanced Thursday by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee.'' This is basically saying that this opens up a loophole that, quite frankly, can be very, very dangerous. So I urge my colleagues that if this rule gets passed, that they would vote against this bill. Again, as I mentioned on the Defense Appropriations bill, it is a bill that is based on budget gimmicks, and it is also a bill that continues to fund endless wars without having any authorization from this Congress. We have not voted on an AUMF for the most recent war in Iraq and in Syria. I find it unconscionable that we have no problem just putting these wars on automatic pilot and having our brave men and women in uniform in harm's way, and we don't even have the guts to debate it. We have tried and tried and tried and tried on various bills--on authorization bills and on appropriations bills--to be able to have that debate. There is always an excuse--oh, it is a different committee jurisdiction; oh, we have to give it more than 10 minutes; oh, we have to do this, we have to do that--but this is our constitutional responsibility. We have time to vote on all these other bills that, quite frankly, are going nowhere that are political messaging pieces written at the National Republican Congressional Committee, but we can't find the time to debate these wars to clarify what our mission is--these wars that our brave men and women in uniform have been put in harm's way to deal with? Come on. At some point, we have to find the courage to debate this. If people think these wars are the right way to go or they want to expand Presidential authority, then that is how you do it. If people like me think our military footprint is too big in the Middle East and that we need to have a more clearly defined mission about what we are doing, then that is the forum in which we restrain these wars. But to do nothing--to do nothing--is cowardly. It is just wrong. I am hoping in the amendment process that we will have the opportunity to debate some of these issues. But if history is any indication, the answer is probably not. Finally, I am urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question. Quite frankly, instead of these flawed bills, we should be debating how to prevent more tragedies like the one that took place in Orlando. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up a bill that is a bipartisan bill that would simply say that, if you are on an FBI watch list so you are unable to fly, then you should be unable to buy a gun at a gun store. It is that simple. I don't quite understand why that is such a big deal. If the FBI believes that you are potentially dangerous so that they will not allow you to fly on an airplane, then how in the world can we allow that person to go into a gun store and buy a gun? And not just any gun; they can buy an assault weapon. It is crazy. We have tried, on numerous occasions, to bring this issue to the floor, and House Republicans have voted 11 times--11 times--to block the bipartisan No Fly, No Buy legislation that was originally authored by my Republican colleague, Congressman Peter King. Since taking control of the House in 2011, my Republican friends have drastically cut the resources available for law enforcement, slashing the COPS program, which includes COPS hiring, COPS technology, interoperability, et cetera, by 64 percent. We need to respond to these terrible tragedies and make sure that our communities have what they need to keep people safe. According to the Government Accountability Office, as my colleague from California (Mr. Thompson) pointed out, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list have successfully purchased weapons in the United States--more than 2,000. These are people who can't fly on airplanes because they are suspected of being terrorists, but they can go in and buy a firearm. More than 90 percent of all suspected terrorists who attempted to purchase guns in the last 11 years walked away with the weapon they wanted, with just 190 rejected, despite their ominous history. This legislation that we want to bring to the floor--just so there is no misunderstanding here--was originally crafted in 2007 and endorsed by President Bush's Justice Department. It has bipartisan support in the House and is supported by prominent Republicans and counterterrorism and law enforcement experts. Yet we can't find the time to bring it to the floor. All we can do in the aftermath of terrible massacres like the one in Orlando is come to the floor and have a moment of silence for 10 seconds, and that is it. That is our obligation. It is awful that we can't deal in a responsible way with legislation like the bills that I have mentioned here. I think the American people--and this goes beyond political affiliation--are getting sick of our inaction on this stuff. I should just say, if my friends are afraid of the NRA, according to a 2012 poll, 71 percent of current or former NRA members and 80 percent of other gun owners support preventing people on a terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. I don't know what it is going to take, but I will tell you this: the outrage is already beyond description here on the House floor of people who are simply tired of our inaction. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat the previous question so we can actually have a debate and vote on something that might save some lives, and also vote against the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.