Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the best we get from the gentleman is whataboutism. He can criticize President Biden, but he can't bring himself to criticize President Trump. He is afraid, and that is the problem. All my Republican friends are in fear that if they question anything that this guy does that somehow they themselves will be punished. However, he didn't even get his facts right on the Peltier issue. The former U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Mr. Peltier wrote in a letter to President Biden: ``The prosecution and continued incarceration of Mr. Peltier was and is unjust.'' He also said: ``I believe that a grant of executive clemency would serve the best interest of justice and the best interest of our country.'' Again, this is coming from the man who prosecuted him. He also said that we were not able to prove that Mr. Peltier personally committed any of the offenses that happened on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with the Nation's seeing the criminals that Trump pardoned assault cops on live TV. Please, I ask my friends across the aisle: Find me one prosecutor of one of the cop beaters whom Trump pardoned who regret their conviction. Which one of Trump's pardoned criminals have already served nearly 50 years in prison? By the way, Peltier is 80 years old, and he is dying. He was not pardoned, by the way. The gentleman is wrong on that. His sentence was commuted so he could die at home with an ankle bracelet on. This was done only after faith and human rights leaders like the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, and Pope Francis begged for release for years. So to say that this is remotely the same is a joke. Why can't my Republican friends just say that what Trump did by pardoning vicious, violent criminals was wrong? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, not a word about what happened in this place on January 6. They just can't bring themselves to do it. Mr. Speaker, I have a question, and that is: Why won't you install the plaque honoring the brave members of law enforcement who protected us on January 6? A lot of my colleagues don't know this, but Congress actually passed a law, Public Law 117-103, on requiring the plaque to be installed on the west front of the Capitol before March 15, 2023. So for 21 months now, almost 2 years, this Speaker has refused to honor the Capitol Police and other law enforcement by installing the plaque that we all voted for. I know it exists, Mr. Speaker. I have actually seen photos of it, so I know it exists. I have seen photos. Why the delay? Why won't you put it up, Mr. Speaker? I think I know why. It is because Republicans don't want to honor the police who were hurt and who died after that attack. Maybe the gentleman from Georgia can explain why the plaque is yet to be installed. I won't hold my breath, but instead let me read the plaque, Mr. Speaker, so Speaker Johnson and others know what it says. It says: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.'' Because Republicans will not, I want to take a moment to thank all the agencies that are listed on this plaque who are being disrespected by this leadership by refusing to honor them. I want to say thank you to: the United States Capitol Police. I also want to thank the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia; Arlington County Police Department in Virginia; Fairfax County Police Department in Virginia; Maryland Department of State Police; Metro Transit Police Department; Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Montgomery County Department of Police in Maryland; New Jersey State Police; Prince George's County Police Department in Maryland; Prince William County Police Department in Virginia; Virginia State Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives; Department of Health and Human Services; Department of Homeland Security; Federal Bureau of Investigation; National Guard Bureau; Pentagon Force Protection Agency; United States Marshals Service; United States Park Police; and United States Secret Service. I say thank you to all of the officers from all of those agencies who were here that day to protect our country and to protect all of us. I appreciate you, and you should know that a lot of Americans have your back, even if this President and the Republicans do not. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that to say what he just said but not reference what happened that day and not acknowledge the pain that has caused so many families and so many people whom we work with every day to protect us, I have to say that is a little bit much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Wall Street Journal today entitled: ``Trump Pardons the Jan. 6 Cop Beaters.'' The editorial reads: ``Law and order? Back the blue? What happened to that GOP?''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman thanking, in general, our law enforcement officials, but it is troubling that he can't bring himself to address what happened that day. My Republican friends are afraid to debate and to discuss what happened on that day. It is so disappointing in so many ways. Mr. Speaker, January 6 was not a tourist day. It was a horrific attack on the police who protect our country. I saw with my own eyes the officers with blood on their faces, battered and bruised from fighting off a violent mob. So many of them had to go to the hospital to get stitches and to get medical care. They were severely wounded. I will never forget the smell of tear gas or the horror on people's faces as we were rushed out of this Chamber. I watched from the Speaker's chair as Republicans cowered and hid for their lives that day, letting the Capitol Police run to the front lines to protect them. On Monday, Republicans let out the violent political extremists who did all of this. Republicans let them back out onto the streets. Trump called them patriots. He called them hostages. There is nothing patriotic about beating police officers with flagpoles, Mr. Speaker. The patriots were the law enforcement officers who protected this institution. There is nothing patriotic about the KKK, the Oath Keepers, or the Proud Boys. Trump pardoned them. There is nothing patriotic about viciously assaulting police officers. There is nothing patriotic about bashing heads and breaking into the Capitol Building because of a deranged fantasy about overthrowing the government. There is nothing patriotic about any of that, but Donald Trump doesn't care. He pardoned them because he only cares about himself. Mr. Speaker, where is your outrage over any of this? Where is your spine? To be silent after these pardons is terrible, and it speaks for itself. As for me, I stand with the police officers who were here that day. I stand with the officers who were trying to maintain law and order. I stand with the people who are disgusted that Donald Trump is opening the doors and letting out the criminals who attacked them. I don't hear a single Republican brave enough to come to this floor and condemn these pardons. I don't hear a single one. It is cowardice. It is hypocrisy. They are rewarding political violence and setting the stage for much, much worse things to come. My colleagues heard Representative Scanlon. Some of them are bragging about how they are going out to buy more guns. What is that about? Violent, dangerous people who beat cops, who tried to kill Members of this body, and who tried to kill our staff were let back out onto the streets by Donald Trump. It is a disgrace. The Speaker should be ashamed. The Speaker owns this now. The Speaker knows that, and the law enforcement officers of this country know it, too. They are watching, and they will remember. There is a great conservative, Edmund Burke, who once said that all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing, to be silent. Well, I, for one, am not going to be silent. We are going to continue to talk about this until we get it right in this country and this Chamber. I can't speak for my friends on the other side of the aisle, but if today is any indication, Republicans are just hoping and praying that it goes away and that everybody forgets. We will never forget what happened here on January 6. The American people won't ever forget. The American people did not vote for this. They did not vote to let these violent criminals back onto the streets. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the Republican Party of Matt Gaetz and former GOP Speaker Dennis Hastert is the same party that is obsessed with passing a bill today which I call the child predator empowerment act. Republicans are passing a bill that allows any adult in a school to inspect the genitals of our kids before they are allowed to play sports. That is right, Republicans' creepy, weird obsession with your kids' private parts now means they are passing bills that let them inspect what is in your kids' pants. What is wrong with them? As a parent, I find this terrifying and downright sick. Let me be clear, every kid should be able to play sports, and this bill is just a mean, cruel bullying tactic. My Republican colleagues are obsessed with passing a bill to protect predators. How about they pass a bill to protect jobs or pass a bill to fight wildfires or lower grocery prices? No, no, no, Republicans are weirdly obsessed with talking about transgender people and using that as an excuse to protect and even empower child predators. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we all know the reason why.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans leaked their plans for how they are going to cut taxes for their rich friends at the expense of regular working people. News flash: It is awful, awful, awful. A recent analysis of the Trump tax plan found that it would, on average, cut taxes for the richest 5 percent of Americans and raise taxes on everyone else, the 95 percent of the population who do not hang out at Mar-a-Lago. To pay for this sick and twisted plan that screws over regular people, they want to totally gut the Federal programs that help regular people. They want to cut the SNAP benefits by hundreds of billions of dollars, slashing the food budgets of millions of Americans by nearly a third. They want to rip healthcare away from people and block access to economic security programs for hardworking American families. That is the Republican playbook: Attack regular people and shower corporations and the ultrarich with tax breaks and hope that it trickles down. Let's reject this disgusting plan and invest in our anti-poverty safety net. Let's support our middle class and let's end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, criminals are stealing SNAP benefits from hungry families, leaving them without enough money to buy food. That is why I worked with Speaker Emerita Pelosi and leaders at the House Agriculture Committee to write a law reimbursing these families who were the victims of theft through no fault of their own. Since the law was enacted in 2022, over 20,000 families in my home State of Massachusetts have gotten their benefits back. That is a huge success. Sadly, the law expired at the end of last year. We won a hard-fought extension in the continuing resolution to ensure that no families fall through the cracks, but this is one of the provisions billionaire Elon Musk ordered the Republicans to take out of the bill, and families are now left on the hook. The stories are heartbreaking, Mr. Speaker. One mother said: We aren't going to be able to survive like this. Enough is enough. Let's extend the law and end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from Florida for his opening and congratulate him on his new chairmanship. I hope that there will be occasions where we can work together on issues that will advance the cause of human rights and promote stability in the world, but unfortunately, today is not one of those occasions. Mr. Speaker, of all the ways that Republicans have shown this country how messed up and backward their priorities are, I have to say that this bill that we are debating today to sanction the International Criminal Court, the ICC, really takes the cake. We have a natural disaster unfolding in California right this second as 100,000 people are fleeing a climate change-driven fire that is burning up entire neighborhoods. We have a gun violence epidemic, as we see massacres in our schools nearly every single day. Families are unable to make ends meet because they are being ripped off by billionaire corporations that don't care about anything but the bottom line. There are over 40 million hungry people in this country who don't know where their next meal is going to come from. There are 40 million hungry people in the richest country on Earth. All those challenges and this is what the out-of-touch, elitist, billionaire Republican Party wants to waste time on, sanctioning the ICC. I actually listen to people in my district, Mr. Speaker, and I ask them what they want Congress to work on. Not once, never ever, have I heard them talk about sanctioning the ICC as one of their priorities. They talk about their bills. They talk about healthcare costs. The farmers in my district talk to me about climate change. They talk about global problems, but they don't talk about sanctioning the ICC. Republicans think this is so very important, such an emergency, that we have to debate it during the first week of Congress--during Jimmy Carter's funeral, by the way, which is offensive considering his record on actually standing up for human rights, which is the opposite of what this bill does. I would say to America, no, don't worry about climate change because Republicans are going to sanction the janitors at the ICC. While they are at it, they are going to rename the Gulf of Mexico. That is really going to help people pay bills and keep the lights on. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not what America voted for. This Republican majority is not what people asked for in the last election. Maybe that is why Republicans lost multiple seats, because they keep bringing up lousy bills like this one. Nonetheless, let's talk about the matter at hand. Mr. Speaker, the terror attacks on October 7 were unconscionable and unacceptable. The victims on that dark day were overwhelmingly civilians, 62 of whom are still being held illegally as hostages in unknown circumstances. I would hope that every single Member of this Chamber would demand their immediate and unconditional release. It was an attack, I think, that rises to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That is the reason that the International Criminal Court applied for arrest warrants against three Hamas leaders in May 2024. No one seemed to criticize the ICC for that decision. Now, Republicans want to sanction the ICC simply because they don't want the rules to apply to everyone. I want to be very clear here, Mr. Speaker. Prime Minister Netanyahu has an absolute right to defend his people, but there is no international right to vengeance, and what we are seeing in Gaza is vengeance. I mean, where is our humanity? Have we just given up on the idea of human rights? At least 45,000 people have been killed in the war in Gaza, and I fear that number is much higher. Mr. Speaker, 85 percent of the people there have been forcibly displaced, often repeatedly. Last September, a group of physicians estimated 62,000 had died of starvation. Hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, and libraries have all been destroyed. Food is not getting in. Water is not getting in. Medicine is not getting in. People are dying. Children are dying. Babies are dying, some of them from the bombs, some from starvation, some from the cold. The war has not shrunk. It expanded to Lebanon, where I hope the recent truce continues to hold. Mr. Speaker, I have sharply critiqued my own government for our conduct when we have been at war because right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter what side you are on. What is going on in Gaza right now is wrong, and I especially call it out because if we stand for freedom and human rights, then we need to stand for freedom and human rights all the time, not just when it is convenient. That is why the nations of the world set up the International Criminal Court in the first place. This is an institution designed to make sure the horrors that we saw all too often in the 20th century do not repeat themselves in the 21st century. We have international humanitarian law to prevent this kind and this scale of destruction. Just because someone doesn't like the law doesn't mean they get to break the law. As a court of last resort, the ICC can only become involved when and where a country has demonstrated unwillingness or inability to hold its people to account for crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction. When the warrants were issued, the ICC appealed to the Israeli courts to take up and investigate these charges under their own jurisdiction. There is still time for the Israeli courts to do that. In fact, my understanding is that the Israeli Government is appealing these arrest warrants at the ICC. Ironically, these sanctions could actually undermine those efforts. Mr. Speaker, I want the United States and Israel to have an amazing relationship and friendship, but friendship means we tell the truth. It means we hold ourselves and our allies to the same high standards. I understand why people want vengeance. I have been to the region that Hamas attacked. I have met with the families of hostages and the victims of October 7 whose lives have been destroyed by what happened; many, by the way, who are furious at Prime Minister Netanyahu for the way he has conducted this war and for his failure to bring home their loved ones. I have met with people in my district who have been deeply impacted by this horrific tragedy, including too many who are justifiably afraid about the rise of anti-Semitism in this country and around the world. The overwhelming majority of this Congress, Mr. Speaker, has voted to support basically unlimited military assistance and offensive weapons to Mr. Netanyahu, but even if someone approves of that military assistance, they should vote against this bill. I have long considered myself a friend of Israel. I have traveled there. I believe Israelis deserve security. They deserve peace. They deserve safety. However, turning a blind eye to what is happening in Gaza and saying that all these civilian casualties are somehow okay, in my opinion, does not make Israel more safe. It makes Israel less safe, less secure. Sanctioning and attacking the ICC is not only bad for Israel, but it is bad for the United States. It is bad for the world. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, to the gentleman from Texas, yeah, I don't know how the vote on this will come out. I am sure some Democrats may vote for it. Actually, on our side, we welcome debate, and we welcome ways to improve the legislation. I am told that there were negotiations going on to try to actually improve this legislation, and then the Speaker made a unilateral decision to go with the most extreme version. This was not marked up in committee, and there were no amendments to this. It didn't come to the Rules Committee, so nobody can offer an amendment, nobody can make a suggestion. It is take it or leave it. I mean, I guess that is the way the Republicans are going to want to run the House. To the distinguished chairman of the committee, I think he must have misinterpreted me. He said something like: This is the people's House, so let me translate what the gentleman, meaning me, just said in my opening remarks. He said bringing the hostages home should not be a priority. Now, I know I am from Massachusetts and you may have a tough time understanding my accent, but the bottom line is, that is not what I said. In fact, I said very clearly that the taking of hostages is a war crime. What I said very clearly is that the hostages should be released immediately and unconditionally. I have said that over and over and over again. I don't think, like many of the families of the hostages have expressed to me, that increased bombing is going to result in getting their loved ones home. That is the message that many of them have delivered to me personally when they have visited here in Washington. Again, please don't kind of manipulate what I have said here today. The taking of these hostages is horrific, and they must be released immediately and unconditionally. I hope that nobody disagrees with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I am going to respond to the chairman of the committee. Yeah, we do disagree on the impact of this bill. I disagree that this bill is going to do anything to get the hostages released. Every time we have seen hostages released, it has been during a cease- fire and not in the middle of intense bombing. Again, as many families of the hostages have expressed to me directly, they worry very much about the Prime Minister's continued policy of all-in in terms of military attacks in Gaza because they worry very much that it decreases the likelihood that their loved ones will be freed. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, that was a great speech for social media, but it will do nothing to get the hostages released, just like this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I just want the record to reflect that I remember hearing widespread support from many of my Republican colleagues when the ICC issued a warrant against Vladimir Putin for the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, as well as when they issued a warrant against Bashir for genocide in Sudan. I guess what we are hearing here is that we want to pick and choose on their side how we are going to react to the ICC based on what they do. I mean, the bottom line is this is the beginning of a process. It is not the end of a process. This bill will do nothing to help get the release of our hostages, including those Americans who are held hostage, and it will isolate us within the world community, especially with many of our allies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, two things to the gentleman who just spoke: The reason why my colleagues are not here is because the Republicans scheduled this debate during President Carter's funeral, which I find to be incredibly disappointing given President Carter's stature in this country and his commitment to human rights. To the chairman of the committee, I was a little bit startled when he said get with the American team; because we have a disagreement, that somehow I am not with the American team. Last time I checked, we are still a democracy, at least for the time being. You can have disagreements on this issue, and we can still respect each other's point of view. If I thought for one second that this bill that we are debating today would help get the release of the hostages and the American hostages, I would be with you, but it won't. It complicates things even further, and it isolates us in the world community at a time, quite frankly, when we need allies, and we need everybody working to try to resolve the conflict in the Middle East, to get all the hostages released, to ensure that Israel has its security, and to ensure that the Palestinians have a future, as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as I close debate, I want to reiterate my opposition to this misguided legislation. The International Criminal Court exists to hold the world accountable to prevent atrocities and to serve as a reminder that no one is above the law. Abandoning the ICC, as H.R. 23 proposes, undermines our values, undermines our alliances, and undermines our credibility on the world stage. This is a moment to reaffirm our commitment to human rights, to international law, and to the partnerships that have defined American leadership, and this bill fails that test. By sanctioning officials of the ICC and anyone who has done business with them, this bill would have a chilling effect on America's work to support human rights and rule of law around the world. It would hamper the ICC's efforts to prosecute serious atrocities that have wrecked lives and destabilized countries in many places around the world, from Ukraine to Uganda to Darfur. NGOs would be chilled from sharing evidence of the grave crimes committed in these places. Many of us celebrated in March of 2023 when the ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and another senior Russian official for abducting thousands of Ukrainian children. Mr. Speaker, Congress even passed legislation to enable the United States to provide financial support to and share information with the ICC to investigate and prosecute Putin and his regime for his heinous crimes in Ukraine. The bill we are considering today would undermine that work and rob it of its legitimacy. If passed, this misguided legislation would bluntly curtail our ability to engage the ICC, to advance our interests in supporting justice and accountability, and, crucially, to share relevant information with our partners and allies. Speaking of our allies, this bill is so absurdly broad that it would sanction our own allies. Read the bill. Our allies would be sanctioned for supporting the ICC if this were to pass. The largest funders of the ICC are America's closest allies: the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Japan. As drafted, the leaders of these countries would be sanctioned for providing material assistance to the ICC. That is truly nuts. It doesn't make any sense to me. The legislative bodies of these countries could also be sanctioned for appropriating funds for the ICC. By some interpretations, interparliamentary travel to Europe could become a sanctionable activity. Did anybody think this through? Is sanctioning the leaders of our closest friends and allies really the best we can do here? Not only that, this sanctions over 900 members from approximately 100 countries at the court, from judges and prosecutors to administrative staff, including nationals of close U.S. allies and partners who collectively work to prosecute war criminals all around the globe. The language in this bill is so broad that even cafeteria workers and janitors and their families could be construed as having supported or ``materially assisted'' in these prosecutions by providing services to the ICC. This is nuts. Mr. Speaker, what would happen next? I can tell you. American companies would be banned from doing business with the ICC if its top officials are sanctioned, and their Chinese competitors would rush in to fill the gap. Not only does this undermine America's interests, but it bolsters Russia and helps China. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. Not only is it a bad bill, but nobody had any opportunity at all to amend it. This has been brought to the floor under a completely closed process. We can't address all the faults that I have just outlined. We can't address them because of the way this majority is bringing this bill to the floor. Zero amendments are allowed because Republicans brought it up under a closed rule-- again, another wasted opportunity. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. In my opinion, behind-the-scenes diplomacy with the International Criminal Court, alongside our partners, is far more likely to yield a result than the approach put forward by this bill. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if the United States of America stands for anything, we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. That means we have to hold ourselves accountable, our allies accountable, and our adversaries accountable when they don't live up to those standards. The International Criminal Court is there to hold countries accountable and to hold entities accountable when they commit human rights crimes. They are there to investigate, and they are there to prosecute. For us in Congress to get involved in sanctioning the ICC because we don't like the fact that they are pointing out some of the serious issues in Gaza committed by one of our closest allies, for us to sanction them because of that, undermines the court, undermines our credibility in the world, and undermines our credibility on human rights. Why would we do that? This bill does nothing to help get the hostages released. It does nothing at all. Again, let me be clear: All of us should be saying as loudly as we possibly can that all the hostages should be released immediately and unconditionally. They have arrest warrants out for the leadership of Hamas precisely because of what happened on October 7. The ICC wants to hold them accountable. What we are doing here doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me. Again, the bill as it is written is so flawed. If it went through regular order, if you brought it to the Rules Committee and we made a few amendments in order, we might be able to fix some of the flaws I pointed out. Instead, keeping to the tradition of this Republican leadership, which oversaw the closest Congress in the history of the United States in the last session, I guess we are going to expect more of the same-- take it or leave it, my way or the highway. This is about a sound bite, I guess, more than it is about trying to achieve peace in the Middle East, trying to get the release of our hostages, or trying to uphold a high standard of human rights. I find this really disappointing. I really do. Again, I said at the opening of my statement to the new chairman that I hope we can find areas where we can work together to help improve the quality of life for people all around the world. This bill is not going to do that. I think we can do so much better here. This is not about whether you support Israel or not. This is a whole different discussion that we are having here today. This is about whether you want to delegitimize the International Criminal Court, a court, by the way, which many Republicans supported when it went after al-Bashir in Darfur and Putin for kidnapping children. Again, we are entering a very dangerous time when we are bringing legislation to the floor to demagogue issues rather than to be constructive. We have to take a deep breath around here because some of the stuff that has come to this floor is really beneath this institution. Again, I regret that we are doing this here today. I urge everybody, and I hope some of my Republican colleagues will join with us, to oppose this legislation. We can do better. We need to do better. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor to send one straightforward message to President Biden: Providing U.S. arms and military aid to the Netanyahu government for use in Gaza violates U.S. law. The devastation, human suffering, and Palestinian civilian deaths and injuries are unmatched in scale by any other conflict. This is the conclusion reached last week by Airwars, the British NGO that documents civilian casualties in 21st century conflicts. Before anybody rejects this detailed report, I would like to note that Airwars is known for its exacting, thorough research. Its referrals prompted more than 70 percent of the Pentagon's investigations into incidents of civilian harm during the U.S.-led air campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Madam Speaker, this is just the latest in a series of reports from human rights, humanitarian, and defense reports documenting the civilian harm and deprivations in Gaza. Israel, Madam Speaker, absolutely has a right to defend itself. I support military operations to dismantle and destroy Hamas' military capabilities and other terrorist organizations operating inside Gaza that have launched vicious attacks against Israeli civilians and have badly mistreated the Palestinian population, but Israeli air and ground campaigns must abide by U.S. law and international humanitarian law, also known as the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war. States are required to take every precaution to minimize civilian harm, avoid destruction of lifesaving civilian infrastructure, guarantee unimpeded access and delivery of humanitarian aid, and ensure the life and security of humanitarian aid workers. Specifically, I am talking about section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act, also known as the Humanitarian Corridor Act, which states: ``No assistance shall be furnished under this act or the Arms Export Control Act to any country when it is made known to the President that the government of such country prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.'' We all know that the Netanyahu government has frustrated the delivery of such aid to the people in Gaza. The Netanyahu government has also violated its assurance under President Biden's own National Security Memorandum 20, which requires U.S. military assistance, arms sales, and arms transfers not to be used contrary to U.S. law and international humanitarian law. According to an October 30 Washington Post report: ``The Biden administration has received nearly 500 reports alleging that Israel used U.S.-supplied weapons for attacks that caused unnecessary harm to civilians in the Gaza Strip, but it has failed to comply with its own policies requiring swift investigation of such claims.'' The Biden administration already knew this. On October 13, Secretary of State Blinken and Defense Secretary Austin sent a detailed letter to the Netanyahu government describing Israel's arbitrary, deliberate, and consistent obstruction of humanitarian aid to the suffering Palestinian people in Gaza. They detailed how U.S. law and international law were being violated. They gave Netanyahu 30 days to deliver results. The 30 days have come and gone with no change to U.S. arms transfers or military assistance. Once again, the Netanyahu government called the bluff of the Biden administration. Once again, the Netanyahu government frustrated U.S. efforts to get humanitarian aid delivered and safeguard innocent civilians. It is not too late for the U.S. to use all of its leverage, including the suspension of U.S. offensive arms transfers to pressure the Netanyahu government to open up the humanitarian aid corridors and allow hundreds and hundreds of trucks to deliver lifesaving aid. It is not too late for the U.S. to use all its leverage to press Israel to reach a cease-fire, secure the release of all the hostages, and create a viable path for a secure and dignified future for Gaza's Palestinians that guarantees Israel's security. It is not too late for the Biden administration to comply with U.S. law. It is not too late for the Biden administration to stand up for America's own values and interests. It is not too late for all of us to reinforce our commitment to human rights and peace. It is not too late, Madam Speaker. It is not too late. I include in the Record a Washington Post article titled: ``U.S. inundated with claims that American arms killed Gaza civilians.'' [From the Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2024 U.S. Inundated With Claims That American Arms Killed Gaza Civilians (By Abigail Hauslohner and Michael Birnbaum) The Biden administration has received nearly 500 reports alleging that Israel used U.S.-supplied weapons for attacks that caused unnecessary harm to civilians in the Gaza Strip, but it has failed to comply with its own policies requiring swift investigations of such claims, according to people familiar with the matter. At least some of these cases presented to the State Department over the past year probably amount to violations of U.S. and international law, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss internal deliberations. The reports are received from across the U.S. government, international aid organizations, nonprofits, media reports and other eyewitnesses. Dozens include photo documentation of U.S.-made bomb fragments at sites where scores of children were killed, according to human rights advocates briefed on the process. Yet despite the State Department's internal Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance, which directs officials to complete an investigation and recommend action within two months of launching an inquiry, no single case has reached the ``action'' stage, current and former officials told The Washington Post, More than two-thirds of cases remain unresolved, they said, with many pending response from the Israeli government, which the State Department consults to verify each case's circumstances. Critics of the Biden administration's consistent provision of arms to Israel, now about 13 months into a war that has killed at least 43,000 people, according to Gaza's health authorities, say the handling of these reports is another illustration of the administration's unwillingness to hold its close ally accountable for the conflict's staggering toll. ``They're ignoring evidence of widespread civilian harm and atrocities to maintain a policy of virtually unconditional weapons transfers to the Netanyahu government,'' said John Ramming Chappell, a legal and policy adviser focused on U.S. security assistance and arms sales at the Center for Civilians in Conflict. ``When it comes to the Biden administration's arms policies, everything looks good on paper but has turned out meaningless in practice when it comes to Israel.'' The State Department declined to detail the volume of incidents under investigation. A spokesman, Matthew Miller, confirmed on Wednesday during a news conference held after the publication of this report that officials are reviewing ``a number of incidents'' and that ``we have not yet gotten to the point with any of them that we've been able to make final determinations.'' Based on ``the overall scope of the damage and the number of civilian lives that have been lost,'' Miller said that it is ``reasonable'' to assess that Israel may have violated international law but that reaching such a conclusion is ``incredibly difficult.'' ``It takes gathering facts. It takes gathering information. And it takes ultimately making legal judgments about those facts. And, often times, you have conflicting accounts of what happened, and it is our job to try to sort through that the best we can,'' he said. On Tuesday, after an Israeli strike on an apartment building killed more than 90 people, including 25 children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, the State Department said Washington was seeking a ``full explanation'' from Israel. The Israeli military said it was ``aware of reports that civilians were harmed.'' Oren Marmorstein, a spokesman for Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, declined to discuss the U.S. inquiries or Washington's efforts to limit civilian harm. ``As part of the close alliance between Israel and the United States, there is continuous and close contact with the American administration regarding Israel's struggle against terrorist attacks against its citizens,'' Marmorstein said in a statement. The Israeli military says it makes ``significant efforts'' to avoid civilian harm but has cited the presence of Hamas fighters hiding among civilians as justification to carry out bombings on schools, hospitals, mosques and tent encampments. Gaza's Health Ministry says the majority of the dead have been women and children. Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin sent a letter to the Israeli government threatening vague policy ``implications'' if Israel did not immediately allow more aid into Gaza, where doctors and analysts say thousands have starved to death. The warning was widely interpreted to mean Washington may consider withholding arms transfers unless the humanitarian situation markedly improves. In their letter, Blinken and Austin also acknowledged the failure of U.S. efforts to mitigate Israel's civilian causalities. ``It is vitally important that our governments establish a new channel through which we can raise and discuss civilian harm incidents. Our engagements to date have not produced the necessary outcomes,'' they wrote. They gave Israel 30 days to deliver results, which would delay any action until after next week's U.S. presidential election. The State Department's civilian harm guidance, unveiled by the Biden administration in August 2023 in response to congressional concerns about Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates' bombardment of Yemen, instructs the agency in how to assess whether a foreign military has violated any one of an assortment of U.S. laws and makes clear recommendations for action. By investigating such cases, officials should be able to ``identify, recommend, and document what actions the Department can and will take in response to such incidents,'' according to the 21-page policy document, a copy of which was obtained by The Post but has not been made public. Current and former U.S. officials described a process that, while detailed and deliberate on paper, has become functionally irrelevant with more-senior leaders at the State Department broadly dismissive of non-Israeli sources and unwilling to sign off on action plans. Some U.S. officials and congressional Democrats have been frustrated by the State Department's apparent tendency to rely on Israel to substantiate the allegations against it. Mike Casey, who worked on Gaza issues at the State Department's Office of Palestinian Affairs in Jerusalem, said senior officials routinely gave the impression that their goal in discussing any alleged abuse by Israel was to figure out how to frame it in a less negative light. ``There's this sense of: `How do we make this okay?' '' said Casey, who resigned in July. ``There's not, `How do we get to the real truth of what's going on here?' '' Senior officials, he said, often dismissed the credibility of Palestinian sources, eyewitness accounts, nongovernmental organizations, and official accounts from the Palestinian Authority and even the United Nations. A U.S. official who addressed questions about the administration's handling of these reports said that the State Department considers both Palestinian and Israeli voices as it assesses allegations of civilian harm. People familiar with the process said that at least one- quarter of cases have been dismissed in the first of three investigative stages, either because they were deemed not credible or because there was no indication of U.S. weapons use. The majority have proceeded to the ``verification'' stage, whereby, ``We ask the [government of Israel] about the cases: Did you forewarn? Why did you hit this school or safe road or safe zone?'' said one former official. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), who has met with administration officials on several occasions to discuss the issue, said he has been deeply frustrated by what he called a lack of follow-through. ``There's no set timeline for getting responses to the many ad hoc inquiries that have been made,'' Van Hollen said. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. military aid since World War II, and the Biden administration has provided it with at least $17.9 billion in U.S. military assistance in the past year alone, according to a recent study by Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. But despite deepening alarm among administration officials and lawmakers over Israel's conduct of the Gaza war, nearly all military assistance, apart from a delayed shipment of 2,000-pound bombs, has continued to flow without interruption. The pace and volume of weaponry have meant that U.S. munitions make up a substantial portion of Israel's arsenal, with an American made fleet of warplanes to deliver the heaviest bombs to their targets, analysts say. William D. Hartung, a co-author of the Watson Institute report and an expert on the arms industry and the U.S. military budget at the Quincy Institute, said ``it's almost impossible'' that Israel is not violating U.S. law, ``given the level of slaughter that's going on and the preponderance of U.S. weapons.'' Among the cases submitted to the State Department, according to people familiar with the matter, are the January killing of a 6 year-old girl and her family in their car, with pieces of a U.S.-made 120mm tank round purportedly found at the scene. There were shards of American-made small- diameter bombs photographed at a family's home and at a school sheltering displaced civilians after airstrikes in May killed dozens of women and children. And there was the tail fin of a Boeing-manufactured Joint Direct Attack Munition on the scene of a July airstrike that killed at least 90 Palestinians. ``The U.S. is the biggest donor to Israel with these weapons,'' said Sarah Yager, the Washington director at Human Rights Watch. ``And it's a year in. When is the United States going to put its foot down?''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, imagine dumping over 30 percent of the food in our refrigerators into the garbage every week. That is what we, as a country, have been doing for decades with the nearly 80 million tons of food that goes to waste every year. That is enough food for nearly 149 billion meals. Food waste costs families, businesses, and municipalities money. It produces greenhouse gases that drive climate change, and it means fewer people have access to nutritious food. I am proud to be from Massachusetts, a State who is taking this problem seriously. A study recently published in the Journal of Science called my home State a benchmark for success in reducing food waste through our successful commercial food waste ban, extensive infrastructure network, and robust inspection program. Last month, Boston Mayor Wu's Office of Food Justice issued a report to bolster food recovery efforts and improve food security. I urge my colleagues from across the country to learn more about our efforts in Massachusetts to reduce food waste and end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I will take a moment to recognize my colleague, Chairman Michael Burgess. First, I will let him know that he and his family will remain in our prayers during the difficult time that he is now dealing with, and we all will keep your daughter in our prayers, as well. As he also mentioned in his opening remarks, this is the last time that he will be managing a rule on the House floor before his retirement. While it is no secret that Congressman Burgess and I have rarely agreed on issues before us--we probably can't even agree on what to have for lunch--I have always respected his dedication. I have always respected his diligence and his service to this institution, and I know how much he loves this country. I know I speak for all of us when I say that we appreciate his years of hard work and we wish him all the very, very best. We look forward to working with him in other capacities. He has placed his official portrait right in front of me in the Rules Committee, so I will constantly think of him. In any event, Mr. Speaker, now for the matter at hand while we are all on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could stand here today under different circumstances and I wish I didn't have to open my remarks with the news of another senseless tragedy, but here we are again. Yet another school shooting, this time at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin. Innocent people killed; innocent people injured just days before Christmas. Let's think about that for a moment. Innocent people killed and injured while the Republican leadership in this Congress does absolutely nothing about the epidemic of gun violence in this country. Nothing at all. It is shameful. How many times are we going to let this happen? How many more shootings before we decide enough is enough? This House should be moving heaven and earth to pass legislation to save lives. Instead, Republicans are wasting more time on yet another bill that does nothing and will go absolutely nowhere. This so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act that we are considering is not about helping the American people. It is not about protecting kids from gun violence. It is not about making our communities safer. This bill is about one thing only: giving handouts to corporate special interests. Republicans are gutting critical protections that keep our air clean, water safe, and economy fair because they want to give corporate special interests free rein to pollute, cheat, and exploit the system. This is about helping billionaires and big donors at the expense of everyone else. While we waste time on this nonsense, kids continue to die in classrooms and parents continue to live in fear every time they drop their children off at school. We should be voting on the assault weapons ban. We should be voting on universal background checks. We should be closing dangerous loopholes that allow deadly weapons to fall into the wrong hands. Republicans don't want to do any of that. Why? Follow the money. Follow the money. Look at who the NRA donates to. That is how Washington works. It is all one big giveaway for the special interests and those at the top who want to profit off gun sales. I find it shameful. It is horrific that Republicans refuse to break free from the grip of the gun lobby. Instead, we are here debating a bill that helps billionaire corporations and hurts everyday Americans. That is what we are doing in this Chamber today. What a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, since this is possibly the last time the Rules Committee will be on the House floor for this Congress, I wanted to take a moment to review some things--the dysfunction, the chaos, the incompetence, the extremism, and the broken promises that have become the new norm under this failed Republican majority. Republicans came into power talking about openness, transparency, and regular order. Regular order, my foot. All they have done is delivered a master class in dysfunction, extremism, and behind-closed-doors lawmaking. They promised openness and debate, and they basically broke that promise the moment they took power. They presided over the most closed, the most undemocratic, and the most restrictive House of Representatives certainly since I have been here and probably ever. Republicans shattered their own record for closed rules, 115 closed rules in total. Fifty-seven percent of the rules advanced by this committee were closed. That is a 29 percent increase over the last Congress, which they had the gall to criticize at the time. Understand that a closed rule means no amendments--no amendments, no debate, no nothing. A bill goes to the floor, and we take it or leave it. Closed rules may be appropriate at some times, but the unprecedented number of closed rules here isn't just a failure of process. It is a deliberate choice by Republican leaders to silence the voices of Members on both sides of the aisle. All told, this majority rejected nearly 6,000 amendments in Congress. Eighty-two percent of them were Democratic amendments blocked by Republicans. It didn't stop there. Sixty-seven percent of bipartisan amendments, proposals that could have brought this House together and delivered results for the American people, were blocked by the Republicans. They actively rejected bipartisanship. Here is the most shocking number: Republicans blocked 57 percent of their own amendments. They didn't just box out Democrats. They boxed out a lot of their own people who wanted to bring amendments to the floor and have debates and votes. They blocked more than half of their own amendments. If I were a Republican, I would be asking: What the hell is going on around here? Why is this majority so afraid of debate? We haven't even touched on their incompetence and dysfunction yet. Multiple times this Congress, we heard from Republican witnesses on bills that they never brought to the floor. Multiple times they would pass something through the Rules Committee only to never bring it up for a vote on final passage. They still have not sent 13 bills they passed over to the Senate. Do these guys need to watch ``Schoolhouse Rock!''? I mean, a bill can't become law if you don't send it over to the Senate. They are half-passing their crappy bills. You literally can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. They have waived regular order dozens and dozens of times, skipping hearings and markups and sidelining committees of jurisdiction that have extensive expertise on policy matters. Let's not forget how we started this Congress--with 5 days and 15 ballots just to elect a Speaker, a Speaker who handed over his gavel to the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. Then, 9 months later, the MAGA extremists fired him anyway. They fired him anyway, and they plunged the House into 3 weeks of complete paralysis and total chaos; 3 weeks where Congress couldn't move, couldn't legislate, couldn't do anything all because of Republican incompetence; 3 weeks where Republicans sat around and argued with themselves and did nothing at all about the urgent crises facing this country. That is beyond dysfunction, Mr. Speaker. It is more than a waste of time. It is pathetic. If this were the private sector, they would all be fired. Republicans sat around and did nothing for weeks on end while Democrats pleaded with them to do something, anything, and they did nothing. Then, somehow, things got worse because Speaker Johnson didn't end the dysfunction. He doubled down. Under his leadership, Republicans issued 56 closed rules in his first 9 months. Things went from bad to worse. Rule votes failed time and again, a stunning humiliation for this Republican leadership. For context, Mr. Speaker, before this Congress, the last time a rule failed on the House floor was over 20 years ago, in 2002. Now, it is becoming routine because Republicans can't even pass their own bills. They said they would complete all 12 appropriations bills before the August 2023 recess--another broken promise. They said this year that they would finally get their act together--another broken promise because here they are, the week before Christmas, trying to pass another stopgap funding bill that nobody has even seen the text for. Where is it? Where is it? Is it hiding behind a desk somewhere in the Chamber? Is it under the Christmas tree? With Republicans in charge of this place, maybe the Grinch stole it. Maybe we will see the text before we get to vote on it. Who knows with this majority. It is just astounding, astounding incompetence and chaos. It is honestly pathetic. Republicans have run this place like a dictatorship, Mr. Speaker, and they don't even have anything to show for it. This has been the most ineffective Congress in American history, the fewest laws passed in the first year of any Congress since the Great Depression. Maybe, just maybe, it is because Republicans prioritize extremism and handouts for corporations and billionaires over solutions for everyday people. Even when they did work to address real challenges, like avoiding a catastrophic debt default, keeping the government open, or delivering essential foreign aid, it was Democrats who stepped up every time and got those bills over the finish line. They needed our votes every time. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that Republicans end this Congress the way they began it: Shutting down voices, shutting down ideas, and shutting off debate. The American people deserve better. I think that is why the other side actually lost seats in this election. Control of this Chamber was decided by 7,309 votes across three districts out of 148 million votes cast for House candidates nationwide. That is not a mandate for chaos, Mr. Speaker, it is an indictment of this majority's failed leadership, and I shudder to think of how bad things will get next year if Republicans don't change things up. Given their razor-thin margin next Congress, the way for them to do that is pretty obvious to me: They need to stop the extremism. They need to stop the extremism, and they need to get to work with Democrats to get stuff done. That is the path ahead. That is what the American people want, and I hope my Republican friends will take it so we can work together for the good of the American people. All of us in this Chamber should be disappointed in the record of this Congress. My Republican friends, in particular, should be disappointed with their failed leadership. That has to change. People have to come first. We have to solve the problems that are facing average people in this country, and we have an opportunity to do that. It is to turn away from the practices of this past Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.