Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted No on Roll Call No. 285 and No on Roll Call No. 286. Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I recently visited the Union Square Greenmarket in New York with Chef Evan Handczor, founder of Little Egg in Brooklyn. Evan is a chef-ambassador for Chefs for Healthy Soil, a coalition that promotes the connection between sustainable agriculture and the foods that sustain us. We spoke with farmers who produce nutritious, locally grown food by focusing on soil health and sustainability. They understand the deep connection between the quality of delicious food at restaurants like Little Egg and the quality of the environment in which that food was grown. Access to food is a fundamental human right. Americans deserve a food system that secures that right for everyone while doing right by farmers, food workers, and the planet. Supporting our farmers as they protect soil health and sustain local food systems is one of the best tools we have to end hunger now. I thank Chef Evan and everyone at Union Square Greenmarket for introducing me to this important work.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Gaetz-Jacobs amendment to prohibit the transfer of cluster munitions. Given their impact on civilians during and after a conflict and the dangers they pose to children and vulnerable populations, it is a matter of principle to limit or prohibit the transfer, export, sale, and production of these weapons. Since 2001, U.S. policy, law or both have prohibited the sales, exports and transfers of cluster munitions that have a failure rate exceeding 1 percent. Regrettably, the Pentagon insists that the U.S. should have the ability to use millions of stockpiled cluster munitions that have estimated failure rates of 5 to 20 percent. This was supposed to end in 2018, but it didn't. I believe strongly that the United States should be an international leader in ending the terrible toll on civilians caused by the high failure rate of these weapons, including those we are currently providing to Ukraine for its defense against Russian aggression. There will always be those who will argue against such changes in military policy and practice, who will say this can't be done. If those voices had their way, we would still be using mustard gas and chemical weapons. Even during this time of great conflict, we can make sure that U.S. cluster munitions have less than a 1 percent failure rate. In fact, it would be better for Ukraine and its people if we did. Until the Pentagon assures us those are the only weapons being transferred, Congress must act and prohibit any further transfers of this devastating weapon. I urge my colleagues to support the Gaetz-Jacobs amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I recently visited a visionary school meals program in Auburn, Massachusetts, that is providing students with nutritious, scratch-cooked meals and teaching them how to grow food using hydroponics. Under the leadership of Superintendent Elizabeth Chamberland, Principal Gregg Desto, Food Services Director Brianne Pulver, and with the support from the Auburn School Committee, Auburn Middle School is showing all of us how transformative school meal programs can be in nourishing minds and educating students. Utilizing a Federal Farm to School grant, AMS is prioritizing locally sourced foods. On May 8, they celebrated the 508 Day, our area code in central Massachusetts, where they serve meals prepared entirely from locally grown and produced foods. They have recently started a food recovery program to reduce waste. It is incredible. On my visit, I also learned that, since Massachusetts adopted universal free school meals, even more kids are taking advantage of nutritious options at schools. The kids were happy, and the food looked delicious. Let's expand this kind of programming to all schools in order to promote better nutrition and to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of final passage of the Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act, legislation that I was proud to have authored. This House took the lead in considering this bill, passed it with an overwhelming majority last February, and sent it to the Senate. The Senate, in its wisdom, changed only one paragraph. So the bill has come back to this Chamber for final passage. I thank my incredible co-lead, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman McCaul, and Ranking Member Meeks for bringing this bill to the floor and all of their incredible advocacy on behalf of the Tibetan community. I welcome the opportunity to shine a light on this legislation, once more, as we send it on its way to the President's desk. It has been more than 60 years since the People's Republic of China forced the 14th Dalai Lama into exile and took control of Tibet against the will of the people. The dispute between the Chinese and the Tibetans over governance of Tibet has persisted ever since, even though the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people have repeatedly expressed their willingness to engage in dialogue. Meanwhile, the PRC has done everything it can to erode Tibetan history, language, culture, and religion, in other words, to erase the Tibetans as a people. This bill seeks to end that in the following ways: one, by explicitly recognizing that the Tibetan people are a people with a distinct religious, cultural, linguistic, and historical identity; two, by reminding everyone concerned that the Tibetan people have a right to self-determination under international human rights law; and three, by requiring the U.S. Government to actively counter the PRC's propaganda about Tibet, like the false claim that Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times, a position that the United States has never accepted. With this bill, we hope to restart dialogue between Tibet and China in keeping with longstanding U.S. policy. Mr. Speaker, the world is awash in conflict. At the heart of many conflicts lies the systematic denial of a people's human rights. The decades-old dispute between Tibet and China started as an armed conflict of invasion, resistance, and insurgency. In the long run, the only guarantee against the resumption of violence is for the People's Republic of China to fully respect the human rights and dignity of the Tibetan people. A vote for this bill is a vote to recognize the rights of the Tibetan people, and it is a vote to insist on resolving the dispute between Tibet and the People's Republic of China peacefully, in accordance with international law, through dialogue, and without preconditions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please join me and the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. McCaul, in sending these important messages in solidarity with the Tibetan people. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I begin as well to take a moment to recognize Kelly Dixon Chambers, the staff director for the House Rules Committee Republicans whose last week on the Hill is this week. There is no doubt that she is an extraordinary, exceptional, incredible public servant. I said last night in the Rules Committee, she is a master legislative strategist. She knows everything about everything about rules and procedures. She spent her time here on Capitol Hill working to improve this institution and to uphold the traditions of the Rules Committee. She has also done a lot to foster an environment of mutual respect and camaraderie behind the scenes, which we all benefit from and appreciate, especially during these very polarizing times. In short, she is one of the most effective people I have ever worked with on Capitol Hill, and all I have to say is that I love her and I respect her a whole lot. All of us on this side of the aisle will genuinely miss her. I also said last night that my only problem with Kelly is that she isn't a Democrat, but I don't hold that against her. In fact, she has made me sharper and better at my job because I know she always brings her A-game to everything that she does. Mr. Speaker, I thank Kelly for all that she has done for Congress and for this country. She has put people over politics. She cares. She has accomplished a whole lot up here. She should be proud of her time serving in the people's House. For the people here who call her a friend and mentor, as I know I do, we wish her all the very best as she steps into a new chapter in her life and her career. Moving on, let me get to the rule here. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be managing this rule. I am glad that I am allowed to speak on the floor again. As you remember, I was silenced 2 weeks ago for simply speaking the truth. That is right. I was muzzled from that very rostrum for daring to recite facts, and I can think of at least 34 new facts that could get my words taken down today, but I won't go there because I want to be allowed to say a few things without being canceled by the Republican majority for the high crime of merely speaking the truth. This rule contains two bills, both of which I think are lousy. First, is the House Republicans' Military Construction appropriations proposal for fiscal year 2025. This should be one of the least controversial funding bills Congress passes each year, but, this year, House Republicans are loading their funding bills with more culture war nonsense: the same attacks on abortion access, attacks on the LGBTQ+ community, and attacks on diversity and inclusion efforts. We are talking about more narrow-minded, hateful MAGA riders that inject partisan politics into what should be a bipartisan bill. This bill also holds the VA back from protecting struggling veterans who may pose a danger to themselves or others. It would hamper efforts to prevent Veterans from dying by suicide. This bill zeroes out funding for climate change and resilience projects, something that will jeopardize our national security because it means our military installations will not be prepared for the realities of the climate crisis. At the end of the day, this funding bill is full of poison pills that endanger our national security and threaten the quality of life for veterans, those who serve, and their families. Again, this should have been easy. This should have been a bipartisan bill where there would be very little debate or little dissension, and they turned it into this horrific culture war bill filled with things that, quite frankly, are very divisive and have no business being in the Military Construction appropriations bill. Second on the agenda is H.R. 8282, a bill that imposes sanctions on the good people who work for the International Criminal Court and their families. I know Members have a variety of thoughts on this measure, but, frankly, I think this is a bad, bad bill. The idea that the ICC is some evil institution is totally contrary to fact. The International Criminal Court is an important institution, and it is not in America's moral or strategic interest to attack the court for doing its job. The U.S. recognizes the jurisdiction and the legitimacy of the ICC and cooperates with the ICC in cases ranging from Sudan to Ukraine and Russia, to the Lord's Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony. Fundamentally, this bill says that human rights don't matter. In fact, it totally undermines the rules-based international order that America helped build. Let me be clear: I am already being challenged to explain U.S. double standards every time I meet with representatives of foreign governments. When I meet with human rights advocates from abroad, they are gutted, first, by the brutality and the inhumanity of the war in Gaza, and, second, by America's inexplicable abandonment of its commitment of human rights and justice for all. What better gift to China or Russia, our most significant adversaries, than for us to undermine the international rule of law and gut institutions of accountability that the U.S. helped create and worked to consolidate for more than 75 years. What better gift than to say: Yes, it is just fine to ignore or redefine human rights and international humanitarian law for reasons of political convenience. What should our reaction be? First, we should read the evidence contained in the ICC filing. Second, we should wait for the judges to actually rule on the warrant applications. We don't know what their decision will be. When it comes down, if we disagree with it, we can say so. What is not okay is to attack the court's existence or threaten its personnel and their families. Republicans are already doing that in New York. It is wrong there and it is wrong here. Finally, we should insist on credible, independent investigations of the crimes the ICC has alleged, which include, by the way, the unspeakable crimes committed by Hamas on October 7. Surely, I hope everybody here supports the ICC's effort to hold Hamas accountable. We should also recognize the ICC's action for what it is. It is an urgent attempt at prevention. The ICC is urging Israel to change course and to stop the carnage against Palestinian civilians. It is calling upon the independent Israeli judiciary to investigate these alleged crimes and follow the evidence, no matter where it leads, before the worst unimaginable criminal charges become inevitable. Should this bill pass, it would completely isolate us internationally, including and especially from our closest allies. It would deepen accusations of hypocrisy that have already caused a mind- boggling level of damage to the reputation of the United States, our diplomacy, and the entire range of our soft power capabilities. I am just completely astounded by how little my Republican colleagues seem to even care about the massive ramifications of this bill. There was no hearing. There was no hearing at all. There were no witnesses, no markup, no nothing. The Republican who testified last night in the Rules Committee had no clue what was even in the bill. He told us he wasn't on the committee of jurisdiction but he is. He didn't even know what the text of the bill was because the text kept on changing multiple times. Is that how you conduct business in the people's House? My Republican colleagues have turned this place into a joke. They are making a complete and total mockery of the committee process. On top of it all, we have another closed rule. How pathetic. I mean, I get that the Republicans may not care about the implications of some of the things that they say or what they bring on the floor, but at least try to go through the motions. Let's at least have a hearing. Let's have witnesses. The Republicans could make believe they care about the facts and that they are serious about legislating. Again, it is sad that this is the process that brings this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania made a point when he got up that I was somehow trying to hide behind process. It is clear he wasn't listening to my very substantive speech in which I actually talked about the policy implications of what my Republican friends were doing. Since he brought up process, and I think this is an important point to emphasize here because we are on the Rules Committee, I want to point out that sometimes I call the Rules Committee, under the Republicans, the break the rules committee. Let's look at some of the rules that are being ignored today. This is from the official Republican Committee Report. Maybe the gentleman doesn't read it, but I do. Let me quote: This waives ``all points of order against provisions in H.R. 8580, as amended,'' which includes ``Clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill.'' The gentleman who just spoke routinely talks about how he is opposed to unauthorized appropriations and appropriations bills, yet that rule was waived by the Republicans. ``Clause 5(a) of rule XXI, which prohibits a bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure from being reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures.'' That was ruled waived. Here is the big one: ``Clause 12 of rule XXI, which prohibits consideration of a bill or joint resolution pursuant to a special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules that has not been reported by a committee.'' That is what is known, for my friends on the other side of the aisle, as the McGovern rule. When I was chairman of the Rules Committee, we actually put this in place, that bills that come before the Rules Committee ought to have a hearing and a markup by a committee of jurisdiction. We weren't always perfect, but we really tried to be. We really tried to be. Why did they waive the McGovern rule? The reason why is because they short-circuited the legislative process. There were no hearings and no markup on the ICC bill, none, not at all, and no one can amend it, as well. No amendments are made in order. Again, what was really puzzling to me was the Republican witness who came before the Rules Committee couldn't even tell us what the accurate text of the bill that we were considering was because it had been changed so many times. It was astonishing to watch this in action. Rules and process matter because when you ignore the process, you get lousy bills, and nobody even knows what the implications of the ICC bill are. Again, you didn't have time for a hearing? You could have done an emergency hearing in the committee of jurisdiction. You could have done an emergency markup before it came to the Rules Committee. You bypassed everything and kept on changing the text of the bill. That is a lousy way to legislate. I will tell you, I can't wait until after November and my friends are no longer in charge because we can then demonstrate not only to my Republican friends but to the American people how a legislative process should work, how to get things done, how to be effective. This is irresponsible legislating. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who commented on my last comments where I conceded that we weren't perfect in following the McGovern rule, but I thank him for conceding that we followed it the overwhelming majority of the time. Again, I find it really stunning that on a bill that has implications that my friends can't even respond to, they decided to not only forgo a hearing and a markup, but they kept on changing the text at the last minute. He also was critical of President Biden and his foreign policy, but I want to correct the record on that as well. When the other guy was President, I will remind the gentleman, Iran didn't just attack Israeli troops, they attacked U.S. troops. They attacked us. The gentleman wants to talk about supporting our allies. His side held up aid for Ukraine for 9 months because their side bought into Kremlin propaganda. They were more interested in pleasing Vladimir Putin than they were in standing by our allies in Ukraine. It was their side, a Republican President, who went to North Korea and tried to get a brutal dictator to like him. He tried to kowtow to Kim Jong-Un. It was their side, a Republican President, who tried to extort our Ukrainian allies by withholding U.S. aid, and then he was impeached over that. It was his Republican candidate for President who praises Putin, fawns over Xi Jinping, says Viktor Orban is fantastic, and sends love letters to Kim Jong-Un. It was a Republican President, the previous guy, who stood with America's adversaries. Contrast that with President Joe Biden. President Biden rallied the world to Ukraine's defense. President Biden has defended our ally Israel and their airspace, and President Biden has rebuilt America's image on the world stage by standing up for democracy and human rights. I am happy to compare President Biden's record to the other guy who they seem so in awe of and afraid of every single day of the week. I would, again, remind my colleagues that the bill on the International Criminal Court had no hearing, no markup, no witnesses, no amendments, closed rule, nothing, and they can't even explain it. They couldn't even explain it in the Rules Committee last night. 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, we are different. I would just say to the gentleman that is why I am glad the ICC is actually going after Hamas and holding Hamas accountable. That is a good thing. I am sorry the gentleman doesn't agree with that. As far as his numbers go on the rules, that was the most roundabout, crazy characterization and reconfiguration of numbers to essentially say and justify the fact that the Republicans are so ineffective and incompetent in the Rules Committee. I mean, they have lost seven rules. That has got to be a record. Seven of their own rules--they are in charge--have gone down. It is amazing when you listen to the gentleman try to rationalize all that is so irrational about the way the Republicans are running this place. I would also say, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned now because I was admonished, again, for referring to the former President and mentioning a process that the United States Congress actually put forward. I don't even know what I can say anymore when it comes to the former President because everything is out of order. My friends on the other side of the aisle can say whatever they want about President Biden. They can say whatever they want about anything they want, and there seems to be no accountability. I am just referring to facts, and I get admonished. I don't understand this. In any event, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment from the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) which is germane and is compliant with the rules. That amendment would strike anti-trans, antigay, and anti-veteran provisions from the MILCON-VA appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that over 1 million American veterans are part of the LGBTQ+ community, including 134,000 veterans who are transgender. We know the Republicans have been fighting to kick trans people out of the military. Now it is 2024, and it is Pride Month, and what are House Republicans focused on? They want to deny these veterans, after they have selflessly defended our Nation, from receiving the medical care and support that they need. They are spending time trying to prevent the VA from flying Pride flags. With all the discrimination members of the LGBTQ community have had to endure, Republicans in this bill protect those who discriminate against same-sex marriages. Of course, this is happening during Pride Month. The cruelty is the point, Mr. Speaker. My amendment would simply allow a vote in the House to strike these backward policy riders from this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, enough with these Republican attacks on the LGBTQ+ community. Enough with the bigotry. Enough with the hate. Enough with the MAGA extremism. We are better than this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I say to the gentleman, again, we are talking about today, and my point was that we have a bill that the witnesses that came before the Rules Committee couldn't even accurately describe what was in the bill. They had no idea because it changed so many times, couldn't really respond to questions about what the implications of the bill would be, and we are simply pointing out the fact that there was not a single hearing in the committee of jurisdiction on the legislation, not a single markup, no witnesses. My friends bring this to the floor under a completely closed process so nobody can amend it. Nobody can change anything. Nobody can change a comma. That is how the Republicans are running this House of Representatives, and it is pathetic, quite frankly. It is not the way the people's House should be run, and it shows disrespect for this institution. They do that day in and day out. Mr. Speaker, once again, the contrast is very clear for the American people. Democrats stand up for traditional American values like freedom, and Republicans are going all in on authoritarianism. Democrats want to fight for our democracy. We believe it is worth fighting for and preserving. Republicans want to attack LGBTQ rights, women's rights, civil rights, and voting rights. Now they even want to attack IVF in their quest to control women's bodies. We had a Republican come before the Rules Committee advocating for that last night. It was scary, quite frankly. Democrats believe in science, and Republicans spent the day yesterday spreading conspiracy theories about COVID and attacking Dr. Fauci. Democrats stand for our Constitution and the rule of law. Republicans are falling over themselves to get in the good graces of their presumptive nominee, a candidate for President who brags on social media about how he wants a unified Reich. Who says that? This is a candidate I can't even tell the truth about on the House floor because he is being treated like a king. Now, we know someone was convicted of 34 felonies, but we aren't even allowed to say who. Republicans are spending so much time circling the wagons around he who must not be named that they are neglecting the job that the American people sent them here to do. This Republican Party is totally lost. They are totally disconnected from what this country is about, and it is a national embarrassment. Democrats are putting people first. It is as simple as that. Republicans are putting politics first, and they are running one of the most incompetent, ineffective sessions of Congress, maybe in American history, and certainly since I have been here. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say. I am afraid to say anything more because I am afraid my words will be taken down, and I will be silenced because this place is becoming so controlled, we have to be very, very careful of every single word we say here. I will just conclude by saying this is an awful process. These bills that are being brought before us are not worthy of all this time and attention. They are poorly drafted, and the appropriations bill, which should be totally bipartisan, they have loaded up with all kinds of MAGA extremist garbage, and we know it is going nowhere. What a waste of time. What a waste of time. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts, I had the incredible honor of joining Congregation Beth Israel, under the leadership of Rabbi Aviva Fellman, to celebrate 100 years of faith, community, and service. As Worcester's longest continuously operating synagogue, Beth Israel has been a beacon of hope, education, and charity. The congregants have made Beth Israel not just a place of spiritual renewal and worship but a hub of cultural activity and social justice. They represent the best of our community and all that is good. Across faiths, Scripture teaches us that our values are not just theoretical but are lived through acts of kindness, community, service, and advocacy for justice. Congregation Beth Israel in Worcester exemplifies these values every day. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Congregation Beth Israel's centennial.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is really not much to say. If you were to listen to my friend on the other side, you would think these bills are going to change the world the second the ink dries, but they are not. This is just another week of wasted time, more of the same from the Republican leadership here in Congress that is completely out of touch with what the American people actually care about. H.R. 192 is another GOP attempt to meddle in D.C. politics. They spend more time worrying about Washington, D.C., than they do about their own constituents. It is astounding to me that the party that claims to care about small government and local control wants to have the Federal Government tell local leaders here in D.C. how to run their local elections. Apparently, they are all for local control unless it is local control by Democrats--in which case, never mind. To hear anybody on the Republican side talk about election integrity is rich, especially from a party that is filled with election deniers. We are also here to consider H.R. 4763, a bill that provides an upper hand to the crypto industry instead of meaningfully addressing gaps in digital asset regulation. Finally, we will meet on H.R. 5403, a bill that prevents the U.S. from exploring digital currency. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are afraid of innovation, but 130 countries representing 98 percent of global GDP are looking into digital currency. Maybe, just maybe, it is something we should look into as well. Unfortunately, I think some of my friends on the other side want to go back to stone tablets. It is our job in Congress to address the privacy concerns, not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend like the world isn't moving forward. Mr. Speaker, it is all stunts instead of solutions, extremism over bipartisanship, and it is really a shame. This narrow majority could have given us a chance to work together in a bipartisan way, but instead, my friends over on the other side of the aisle have pandered to their most extreme Members over and over and over again. They let the extremists kick out their own Speaker. They let the extremists dictate the agenda on the House floor. They let the extremists take down seven rule votes since January 2023, a stunning indictment of their ability to get anything done. Speaking of indictments, Republicans are skipping their real jobs to take day trips up to New York to try to undermine Donald Trump's criminal trial. Republicans have no time to work with Democrats but plenty of time to put on weird matching cult uniforms and stand behind President Trump with their bright red ties like pathetic props. Maybe they want to distract from the fact that their candidate for President has been indicted more times than he has been elected. Maybe they don't want to talk about the fact that the leader of their party is on trial for covering up hush-money payments to a porn star for political gain, not to mention three other criminal felony prosecutions he is facing. Now, I understand why my Republican friends want to distract from Donald Trump. They don't want to talk about how Trump had the worse jobs record since the Great Depression, how he sold out our allies and empowered our adversaries. They bring silly things like this to the floor to deflect blame and distract from the fact that they have no real vision, just division, and no real plans to make life better for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, I was admonished for stating the simple fact that the former President was indicted by a Grand Jury and is on trial in a court of law. That is not my opinion. It is just the truth. I have a parliamentarian inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, has the Chair determined it is unparliamentary to state a fact?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, that is unbelievable. Last week during debate, a Republican Member of this House said: ``Watch the former President of the United States being hauled into court day after day with a sham trial.'' He wasn't admonished. I just referenced the same trial, and I was. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask a further parliamentarian inquiry.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that Members of Congress can mention the trial of the presumptive nominee for President, call it a sham and question the integrity of the judge, but a reference to the mere existence of that same trial without any characterization, that is out of order?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have one last parliamentary inquiry. Is this restriction originally founded at least in part on the principle in Jefferson's Manual that ``in Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against the king is against order,'' is that what this is about? I have Jefferson's Manual here.

Mr. McGOVERN. So it is, in fact, based on what is in Jefferson's Manual. Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump might want to be a king, but he is not a king. He is not a presumptive king. He is not even the President. He is a presumptive nominee. And I know you are trying to do your job and follow precedent, but frankly, at some point it is time for this body to recognize that there is no precedent for this situation. * * *

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights expressed concern over the worsening of food insecurity in Cuba. They noted how this situation disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, including older people, pregnant women, children, and those with chronic illnesses. This is not a problem just in Havana. Most of Cuba's provinces are experiencing high levels of food insecurity. In March, the BBC reported that, for the first time, the Cuban Government has asked the World Food Programme for help amid food shortages. The WFP said it had received Cuba's request for help to provide powdered milk to children under age 7. According to the Inter-American Commission, the Cuban Government approached WFP for help to continue the monthly delivery of milk for children throughout the country and to help with the delivery of flour for subsidized bread in the basic food basket. The Commission went on to describe how hunger is increasing on the island due to a combination of low economic growth, high inflation, reduced food production and distribution, and infrastructure problems, especially interruptions in electricity. It also cited recent economic measures adopted by the Cuban Government, including higher prices for fuel and electricity, the elimination of subsidies for the basic food basket, and the devaluation of the country's currency. The Inter-American Commission and the Special Rapporteur then underscored that U.S. policies and sanctions are intensifying and worsening the social and economic condition throughout Cuba and especially affecting the Cuban people's access to food, medicines, and basic necessities. In brief, Mr. Speaker, the United States is increasing hunger and poverty in Cuba. This is being done deliberately and knowingly. It is a human rights violation. It also appears it is being done with a degree of indifference and callousness that I find shocking. It makes me ashamed. During all my time as a Member of Congress, I have fought to end hunger and food insecurity here at home and around the world. I do not believe that food and medicine should ever be used as weapons against innocent civilians, not in Sudan, not in Ukraine, not in Gaza, not anywhere. I have coordinated hearings that highlight how governments and armed actors use food as a weapon against civilian populations they view as adversaries. To see our own government deliberately imposing and maintaining sanctions that we know make hunger worse in Cuba is unconscionable to me. It is also unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, that some Members of Congress, who cling to Cold War policies, appear eager to support actions that punish and increase the suffering of ordinary people on the island. They actually raise money off the Cuban people's suffering. They say they care about human rights but contribute to making the human rights situation worse. They deliberately create chaos because they can, with absolutely no regard to how it hurts the Cuban people. Sadly, President Biden has adopted and maintained Donald Trump's policies against Cuba, policies that he rightly denounced as a candidate and when he was Vice President, policies that hurt the very people he says he most wants to help, like independent entrepreneurs, young people, Afro-Cubans, women, and the poor. President Biden knows that keeping Cuba on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list means no one in Cuba has access to the international financial system. Our European and Latin American friends and allies are unable to provide help to the Cuban people out of fear of being punished by U.S. sanctions. Then we wonder why hundreds of thousands of Cubans are leaving the island and migrating to our borders. I am puzzled and deeply disappointed by the President's inaction. The situation has become desperate, with little hope for a better future. U.S. stubbornness sends a clear signal to the Cuban people that there is no reason to believe that change will happen. President Biden, your policies are hurting not the Cuban Government but the Cuban people. Your policies are helping to drive mass migration from the island. Mr. President, stop increasing hunger and poverty in Cuba. Remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, and let's move toward normalizing relations between our two countries. It is in the interest of both our peoples. Take action and please do it now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as working families try to get ahead, billionaire food companies and grocery giants continue to engage in excessive price gouging. That is why I am joining my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren, to call them out. We heard good news this morning. Grocery prices are flat thanks to a rebounding economy under the leadership of President Biden, but times are still tough and grocery prices are still stubbornly high. Meanwhile, corporate CEOs are raking in profits and urging people to eat cereal for dinner and urging people to eat Doritos as a side dish to save money. It is absurd. Corporations can no longer hide behind the guise of inflation. At various points in recent years, grocery price increases have outpaced inflation, with families paying 25 percent more for groceries as compared to pre-pandemic. I applaud the Biden-Harris administration for the economic relief they have already delivered for working families. Now, we are putting billionaire corporations on notice. Their time of greed is coming to an end. We all need to work together to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have us here today considering eight measures that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Six of the eight measures that are being brought before this House are being brought forth under completely closed rules, which means nobody, not Democrats and not Republicans, can offer any amendments to change or improve those bills. So much for Republican promises of a more deliberative process or more openness or more fairness. That just went out the window. I don't think I have ever seen a group of people do so much and yet accomplish so little. Seven of these measures are supposedly about law enforcement. Madam Speaker, do you know how many of them will actually do something to help keep people safe? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Just a piece of free advice to my Republican friends: It is probably not the best idea to take direction on law and order from a guy who, as we speak, is a defendant for covering up hush money payments to a porn star for political gain. That is not even to mention the other three criminal felony prosecutions that he faces. Look at the cover of today's New York Times, Madam Speaker. This is unbelievable. Here is a picture of the Speaker of this House of Representatives, second in line to the Presidency, standing in front of a courthouse acting as a prop for Donald Trump trying to interfere with a criminal trial because, apparently, Republicans like law and order unless it applies to them. It is unbelievable. Madam Speaker, you can't make this stuff up. I will say to my colleagues that this stunt of the Speaker and Republican Members of Congress going to this courthouse diminishes this House of Representatives. Their candidate for President has been indicted more times than he has been elected.

Mr. McGOVERN. I didn't think I was. Somehow, Madam Speaker, they have the nerve to tell us about the criminal justice system? Give me a break. Their credibility on this issue has evaporated. It is pathetic. I could go through these bills one by one, but I think the American people would rather watch paint dry because none of these bills do anything. None of these bills will be passed by the Senate. None of them will do a damn thing to help the police. None of them will keep our communities safe. We have a ton of BS bills going out to immigrants. Let me just remind everyone: It was Republicans who killed their own bipartisan border security bill in the Senate, and it is Republicans in the House who refused to even bring it up for a vote. Why? It is because they are afraid it might pass. They are afraid they might lose a talking point. We have a nonbinding resolution about defund the police. Isn't it ironic that they all talk so much about defunding the police, but despite their rhetoric, Republicans are the ones who want to defund the police. Republicans support cutting the COPS program, which hires police officers in every State in America. Get this, Madam Speaker: Republicans voted against awarding police officers who protected all of us on January 6 the Congressional Gold Medal. Let that sink in. Republicans voted to fire 2,000 Customs and Border Protection police officers. Republicans voted to cut Federal support for local law enforcement agencies in September of 2022. Republicans have called to abolish the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the ATF. At every single juncture, when Republicans have had a chance to put their money where their mouth is, they have shown that all their pro- police rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. They will say whatever they need to win political support from police and then hope the cops don't notice when they vote to cut their budgets. The eighth bill this rule would bring to the floor is the so-called Israel Security Assistance Support Act. This bill is a disaster. It basically gets rid of human rights checks and balances already in place on arms transfers, and it would interfere with any administration's ability to comply with U.S. obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. I think it is absurd that my Republican friends don't understand the difference between supporting Israel and writing Prime Minister Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants with U.S. weapons with no regard for civilian lives or for human rights. That is not even just the Democratic position, by the way. Three U.S. Presidents have threatened to pause military aid to Israel under similar circumstances. Who were they? They were Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. They were all Republicans, Madam Speaker. They were all Republicans. Please don't give me this partisan BS. Please. Please, spare us that. U.S. military assistance doesn't come with no conditions. If our taxpayers are paying for it, then they ought to have some level of assurance that it is not being used to indiscriminately bomb civilians or block the delivery of humanitarian aid to starving people. The bombs that the President is withholding, these 2-ton bombs, have a blast radius of one-quarter of a mile. That means, I would say to my friends, if you were standing in front of this Capitol and the bomb were dropped on the Republican congressional campaign headquarters or the Democratic congressional campaign headquarters, then we all would be dead if we were standing in front of the U.S. Capitol. The President is concerned that 2-ton bombs are being dropped on Rafah, a heavily populated area with over 1 million people. He believes that the civilian casualties are unacceptable. We all should care about the civilian casualties, especially if we claim to be a friend of Israel, because the more civilian casualties that are incurred, then the more difficulty Israel has in getting to a lasting peace. It is a real shame that this is what Republicans have decided we should spend our week doing, Madam Speaker. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that after the Democrats bailed out Speaker Mike Johnson last week that maybe, just maybe, we would see a change in the tone of this place. Maybe there would be more of an acknowledgment that we need to put people over politics and that we need to get stuff done, because that is what the American people want. I am disappointed to see that this week it is just more of the same old same old from this incompetent Republican leadership that has wasted away their time and power and accomplished nothing, not a single damn thing, during their time in their slim majority. The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than they are getting from my friends on the Republican side. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.