Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to my next speaker, I want to clarify for the record because I don't want to be misunderstood or mischaracterized because I have great respect for the gentleman. I never said the Defense appropriations bill was trivial. I said the Defense appropriations bill was bloated and filled with the kitchen sink of MAGA culture wars. On the second bill, the LNG bill, I said it was repetitive because we have passed it twice already. It is going nowhere. We are going to pass it a third time, and that is going nowhere at a time when our government is about to shut down. To take up a bill that is repetitive and that is going nowhere seems like not a good use of our time. I did say that the nonbinding resolution on guns was trivial because it doesn't do a damn thing. We are living in a country where we have massacres occur on a regular basis, and we can't get any legislation to the floor. The only bill we get to the floor on guns is a nonbinding resolution that does nothing and that doesn't even go anywhere. It doesn't go to the Senate. It doesn't go to the President. I want to be clear on what I said because I think it is important. I do believe that this bill, this nonbinding resolution, is an example of how trivial issues get debated passionately here and important ones not at all. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the concern we have over here on this side of the aisle is that there are Members on the Republican side who seem to be cheering on a shutdown. The other day, in an interview with ``PBS NewsHour,'' a fellow colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Norman of South Carolina, was asked how likely a shutdown is, and his response was: It is 100 percent. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Truth Social post from yesterday by Donald Trump opposing the GOP's continuing resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am not going to engage in the frivolous part of what this rule provides. I think Mr. Cole and I were having a serious debate about things that really matter here in terms of our economy and whether or not we can fund our government. I am not going to waste time talking about a nonbinding resolution that is nothing more than a press release. Mr. Speaker, let's be honest with each other. We are only a few days away from a shutdown, and we are in chaos because the Republican Party is in the middle of a civil war. That is just a fact. Speaker McCarthy cut a deal on spending levels back in May. That is what the Senate has acted on in a bipartisan way. The only people not holding up the bargain are House Republicans. Speaker McCarthy is breaking his word, and I get it. I mean, he handed over the gavel to the most extreme in his party. He put the patients in charge of the hospital, and now he is getting blackmailed. Good luck to him getting out of the mess that he has made. The American people deserve better, and they deserve to know that there is a difference here, a very clear difference. We may not always agree on every single issue, but Democrats come to this place every single day and we worry. We worry about making sure that people get better jobs. We worry because we want people to have better healthcare and we want people to have higher wages. We worry because we want to make sure that people have clean air and water and great schools where we know our kids will make it home from school that day, they will be safe, and we want to make sure that everybody has access to affordable housing. Republicans worry, too, but it seems that this Republican majority worries mostly about their own power. They worry about fighting with each other, trying to shut down the government, impeach the President, and remove their own Speaker. The Republican majority in this House is a joke. They wasted weeks talking about gas stoves, weeks arguing about book bans, weeks telling kids what soccer team they can play on, and now we are on the eve of a shutdown and they are doing nothing to stop it. In fact, they are moving in the wrong direction. We have Members on the other side of the aisle who go on network news and say ``shut it down,'' telling people that it is 100 percent certain that there will be a government shutdown. Who cares, they say. Really? Earlier, I talked about a seance. After looking at what is happening on the other side of the aisle, I think what this place needs is an exorcism. The Republican Party has gone to war with itself, and it doesn't matter which side wins because either way, they are not worried about anybody but themselves. This is a serious consequential moment for this Congress. There are real impacts if there is a government shutdown. There are impacts to our credit rating. There are impacts to job creation. There are impacts to a whole bunch of things. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, there are negative impacts for the people of this country. We have seen this movie before. It doesn't have a good ending. In these last few days that we have, rather than fighting amongst yourselves, why don't you try something radical, and that is sitting down in a bipartisan way and coming to a deal that will get a majority of votes in this House. It requires the Speaker of the House to stand up to the extremists. It requires him to demonstrate some leadership. That is what is needed. The Speaker of the House must lead. It is the obligation of everybody in this Chamber to, at a minimum, keep the lights on. This is the moment where we need some leadership, where the Speaker needs to stand up and tell the extremists no. I said before, it is like the clowns are running the circus, and there is no ringmaster. Enough of this. This is a bad movie. By the way, it is not just Democrats who are expressing concern about what is going on, and it is not just independents as well that are expressing concern, but I hear it from Members of their own Conference who have been on TV basically sounding the alarm bells saying, this is dysfunction, this is an unmitigated disaster. These are the words of Republican Members who are warning your leadership to get their act together. We will see how things work out this weekend, but if the reports that we are reading are true, we are going to see a CR come to the Rules Committee that is even more extreme than the extreme CR that we dealt with and that was pulled the other day.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the twice-impeached, four-times-indicted former President is weighing in on the funding fights within his party, and ultimately he is endorsing actions that will shut down the government. Now, I have a strange feeling my Republican counterparts will gladly comply at the expense of the American people because everybody on that side of the aisle is so frightened of him. The gentleman from Oklahoma was talking about a shutdown in 2018. I don't disagree with my friend that there was a brief shutdown in early 2018 that a lot of people don't remember because it was so short. I should point out that Republicans were in charge of the House and in charge of the Senate at the time. I know some Democrats were pushing to help Dreamers as part of a funding deal, but that brief, symbolic shutdown lasted less than 72 hours, mostly over the weekend and, if I remember correctly, had no lasting impact. Now, compare that to the 5-week Republican shutdown in 2018 which reduced economic output by $11 billion in the following 2 quarters, including $3 billion that the United States economy never regained. That was a partial shutdown. Then the 2013 full Republican shutdown reduced GDP growth by $20 billion, according to Moody's Analytics. $20 billion. I think it is a little more than unfair to play both sides of the card here, because it doesn't apply. Mr. Speaker, Republicans claim that they are trying to save money but continually weaken the United States Government's creditworthiness at a cost to the United States taxpayers. In August, Fitch cited a decline in governance as a key reason for the United States' downgrade due to repeated battles over the past two decades that have led to government shutdowns or even taken the government to the brink of a debt default. Republicans need to get serious about governing and protect the United States' creditworthiness. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the AP titled: ``The U.S. government's debt has been downgraded. Here's what to know.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there are consequences to these games that people on the right are playing, and the consequences are detrimental to our economy, which in turn are detrimental to the American people. The gentleman from Oklahoma also talked about the Senate. I wish we were behaving more like the Senate than behaving like we are here in the House. In the Senate, the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Murray, is actually working with the Republican Vice Chair, Senator Collins. There is a statement from Senator Murray saying: ``Vice Chair Collins and I have discussed how best to address these concerns, and we have agreed to make use of additional emergency appropriations--just as we do every year, and is fully allowed under the debt ceiling deal--to address in a bipartisan way some of the pressing challenges our Nation faces. ``In order to take these concerns regarding our defense and nondefense needs seriously, and to ensure we deliver the strongest bills possible with the broadest bipartisan support possible, Vice Chair Collins''--a Republican--``and I agreed to add $13.7 billion in additional emergency appropriations, including $8 billion for defense, and $5.7 billion for nondefense spread across four subcommittees, including the State/Foreign Ops bill we are considering today.'' This is in response to that. The bottom line is what they are doing in the Senate is what we should be doing here. Even though Democrats control the Senate, they are sitting down with Republicans and they are having conversations. They are trying to come to deals. They are trying to not only get a short-term bill done to keep our government from shutting down, they are trying to figure out a long-term way forward. The Senate has used the Fiscal Responsibility Act as a starting point for meaningful bipartisan dialogue and compromise. They reached an agreement to stay within the 1 percent of the Fiscal Responsibility Act and collaborated to report out 12 bills with near bipartisan unanimity. Meanwhile, House Republicans haven't taken a single meaningful step to engage Democrats on necessary compromise. They failed to garner a single Democratic vote for their bills in committee and haven't been able to bring two of their bills to the full committee for consideration because the cuts were too deep. Even moderates on your side don't want to vote for those things. This is about the Senate following a bipartisan, collaborative process versus House Republicans turning their backs on that process and negotiating amongst themselves to make their bills more partisan. There is a way to do this, but, unfortunately, you have a small group of the most extreme of the extreme calling all the shots. They are moving this place in the wrong direction. These are the people cheering for a government shutdown. These are the people who don't care how much they hurt the American people with across-the-board, mindless cuts in programs like Head Start and WIC and medical research and LIHEAP, cutting it by 65 percent. I come from a State up north, Massachusetts. Tell my constituents, who depend on LIHEAP to heat their homes, the thinking behind gutting LIHEAP by 65 percent. Talk about cruel. There are consequences to your actions. There are consequences to your words, the downgrading of our credit. If you succeed in getting some of these cuts, people are going to lose benefits that they not only rely on to do things like heat their homes, they need them to survive. Enough of the nonsense. Let's come together and let's stop wasting time bringing another extreme CR to the House Rules Committee to bring on this floor that makes the crummy bill you brought the other night look like it is reasonable. Come on. We are running out of time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I mean, at the end of the day, I think people need to know that, when you cut some of these programs, when you cut LIHEAP, that means there are people who will not be able to heat their homes in the wintertime. When you cut Head Start, that means there are countless kids who will not have an opportunity to succeed in the future. When you cut programs like WIC, it means that there are pregnant mothers and newborn babies that will not have access to good nutrition. When you cut medical research, you are not only putting farther off the day where we find a cure to some of these dreaded diseases that kill people, but you are also making it certain that the costs of healthcare will continue to rise. None of this makes any sense. I know that there are adults on the other side of the aisle that want to do the right thing. Again, I plead with my colleagues. We will go through this, whatever we are going to do, a bill that is nonbinding that means nothing, an LNG bill that we have done twice before that is going nowhere fast, and then we will do this Defense appropriations bill, again, that represents the kitchen sink of MAGA culture wars. We will go through all of that, but, while we are doing that, I hope that people are sitting down and getting serious to avoid a government shutdown, and then let's get together and do what the American people elected us to do. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the fourth annual Massachusetts Gold Star Mothers' Tribute at Blessed Sacrament Church in Worcester, Massachusetts on Sunday, September 24, 2023. The celebration will honor the families of servicemembers who lost their lives while serving the United States military. The tribute joins together several families from across the state to cherish the memories of their loved ones. Mr. Speaker, these veterans paid the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in defense of this country. We are each forever indebted to their service to keep us safe at home. However, it's far too easy to forget to cherish the family they left behind. That's why Cecelia M. Mason will gather these families in Worcester on Sunday. She knows that, through community, we can all feel the legacy of these servicemen and women. We can join them to thank and remember the families these heroes left behind. I am deeply thankful for the tireless work she has done to bring these families together. Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating the lives of our fallen neighbors and cherishing the Gold Star Mothers, Fathers, and Families who never cease celebrating the legacies of their loved ones. I thank the Blessed Sacrament Church in Worcester, Massachusetts in advance for holding such a beautiful event and reception.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Johnny Appleseed Arts and Cultural Festival in Leominster, Massachusetts on Saturday, September 23, 2023. While many have heard the tales of Johnny Appleseed--the American folk hero who wandered our early Nation planting apple seeds--not many know the man behind the story. John Chapman was born in Leominster, Massachusetts in 1774. From a young age, his father taught him to cultivate trees. That's where his story starts. Back then, frontier law allowed anyone to earn a claim to the land by developing a permanent homestead on it. Chapman established his homesteads by planting apple orchards, just like his father. He ventured more than 100,000 square miles from Massachusetts to Illinois, all the while planting apple seeds in his wake. At the time of his death in 1845, John Chapman owned over 1,200 acres of land, leaving behind hundreds of apple trees. Every year since 1993, thousands of people have gathered in Leominster to celebrate the life and work of John Chapman. Through live music and apple crisp, the festival aims to honor Chapman's legacy of abundance, bravery, and cultivation. Mr. Speaker, this year is special. Under the dedication and expertise of Festival Coordinator Rick Marchand, the event has blossomed year after year. This year, the festival will provide 1,000 complimentary meals to children and their families, accommodate 230 local vendors, and welcome several dozens of organizations and artists to interface with their community. The Johnny Appleseed Arts and Cultural Festival is a chance to celebrate our rich land across generations. Mr. Speaker, Johnny Appleseed is a treasured National figure that we in Central Massachusetts are proud to share. I commend the Johnny Appleseed Festival on its 30th anniversary and am proud of the staff, volunteers, and community members that work to make this such a beloved annual event. We look forward to welcoming tens of thousands of neighbors to this beloved festival.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we are 11 days--11 days--away from a government shutdown and the rightwing of the Republican Party is busy fighting with the far rightwing. The sham plan Republicans have cobbled together this week gets us nowhere closer to funding the government. It goes back on the bipartisan deal struck earlier this year and is dead on arrival in the Senate, and it shows where Republican priorities are. By imposing draconian cuts on domestic programs, their sham CR means massive cuts to programs for people living in poverty and everything from housing support to heating assistance to WIC benefits. Make no mistake: If we don't reject these cuts and if we don't fully fund the Biden administration's $1.4 billion supplemental WIC request, eligible low-income people, primarily toddlers, preschoolers, and postpartum moms could be turned away from food. I can't for the life of me think of a more rotten thing to do. Pregnant moms and their young families are counting on you, so let's drop the theatrics, come together, fully fund WIC, and work toward ending hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a bipartisan amendment that is made in order and will be offered by Representatives Gaetz and Jacobs to prohibit the transfer of cluster munitions. Since 2009, the United States has refused to use, produce, transfer, or sell cluster munitions. As a Nation, we could take pride in this decision. Cluster munitions are indiscriminate weapons. They explode when touched by a soldier, a farmer, or a child. They contaminate an entire field of combat, and they remain a deadly threat long past the end of a conflict. Rain and other events can move them from where they first landed to who knows where. Yet, the Biden administration recently chose to send cluster munitions to Ukraine. I condemn Russia's use of cluster munitions on Ukraine, but two evils do not add up to a greater good. The United States should not have provided cluster munitions to Ukraine, and this amendment is necessary to ensure such a transfer does not happen again. I also support this amendment because it is not specific to Ukraine. Now that the United States has opened the door to using cluster munitions, we have no idea where else the U.S. might decide to send them. An international treaty exists to ban cluster munitions. Mr. Speaker, 112 countries have ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions since May 2008, and 12 more have signed. Nigeria ratified the convention on February 28, and South Sudan did so on August 3. The United States and Russia are not parties to the treaty, and now each of us has brought these terrible weapons into play inside Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, the only thing that can undermine the ban on cluster munitions is the willingness of governments to use or transfer these terrible, indiscriminate weapons. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Gaetz-Jacobs amendment and prohibit the United States from any further transfers of cluster munitions.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding so I can vent a little bit. Mr. Speaker, I just saw a Roll Call story that is reporting that Republicans are pulling their continuing resolution today to weigh more cuts. I mean, are you kidding me? Their crummy CR contained an 8 percent across-the-board cut in almost every program that helps people, everything from medical research, WIC, Head Start, housing. Even border security is cut by 8 percent. The only thing that is exempt is the military budget, the biggest bureaucracy in our government. They are okay with cutting fuel assistance for poor people by 65 percent. Money to help people be able to heat their homes in the winter, they are okay with cutting that, but they believe you can't find one penny of savings in a missile system in the Pentagon with huge cost overruns. I mean, it is pathetic. As the Republican whip said: The patients are running the hospital around here. The gentleman from Oklahoma said this is about a negotiation. My Republican friends can't even negotiate with themselves, and we have 11 days to go before there is a shutdown, and they are going in the wrong direction. It has become more and more difficult to get to an agreement. Enough, I mean, enough. The Republican leadership of this House is incompetent. They are so incompetent; it takes my breath away. They are letting the clowns run the circus. It is time the Speaker of the House develop a spine and stand up to the most extreme elements on the Republican side and actually sit down and negotiate an agreement that deals with the reality of our government. The Republicans only control barely just one branch of our government, the House. The Senate is under Democratic control. The White House is run by a Democrat. You are going to have to negotiate, and you are moving in the wrong direction. Time is running out. Stop this nonsense. Get serious. Get to the negotiating table. Enough of this.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as we mark the second anniversary of the July 11, 2021, protest in Cuba, I call on the Cuban Government to release all those imprisoned for exercising their rights to protest, to freedom of expression, and association. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, Cubans took to the streets to demand better living conditions and more freedoms amid a grim economic crisis. There is no excuse for these largely peaceful protests to have been met with government repression, arrests, and internet blackouts. According to reputable reports, over 1,500 people were arrested in connection with these protests, and over 680 remain in prison. However, U.S. policies contribute directly to the hardships that Cubans endure, but the Cuban Government's repression only exacerbates the many challenges facing its people. Cuba should release all remaining protesters, and the United States of America should end all policies, including taking Cuba off the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, that only increase the suffering of the Cuban people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the ongoing political, human rights, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and its hemispheric consequences, including the arrival of 187,000 desperate Venezuelans at our southern border last year. This crisis has many causes, beginning with misguided and distorting economic policies implemented by successive Venezuelan Governments. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the maximum pressure secondary and sectoral sanctions policy put in place by former President Trump and continued by President Biden has deepened the economic pain and hardship suffered by the Venezuelan people. The goal of that policy was to remove Nicolas Maduro from power in Venezuela. It has not worked. Rather, as The New York Times editorial board wrote on July 22, that Maduro ``instead consolidated his grip on Venezuela, blamed its economic misery on American sanctions and drew his country closer to Russia and China.'' Throughout my time in Congress, I have strongly defended the idea that human rights should be at the center of U.S. foreign policy, and I have led many bills to redress human rights abuses, including the Global Magnitsky targeted sanctions legislation. Nevertheless, I don't support the use of sanctions to punish entire peoples for the actions of their leaders or to bludgeon an adversary into submission. This is why I have said that the Trump-era sanctions should already have been lifted by the Biden administration, and I continue to believe that. However, unfortunately, that has not happened, and it seems unlikely that it will in the near future. In the end, human rights advocacy is meant to improve and restore the lives of victims of abuses and to change conditions so that abuses will not recur. As a human rights advocate, I have a moral responsibility to do whatever I can to advance these goals. That is why I welcomed the administration's support for the resumption of negotiations between the Maduro government and Venezuelan opposition in Mexico last year. It is why I believe the social fund for the basic needs of the Venezuelan people, whose creation was agreed to during those negotiations, should be stood up as soon as possible. Additionally, it is why I was encouraged to see the statement of principles that came out of the International Conference on Venezuela convened by the Colombian government last April. The statement laid out three steps--the establishment of a chronogram for elections, the easing of sanctions in parallel as agreements are reached between the parties, and the continuation of the negotiations accompanied by accelerated implementation of the social fund--that, taken together, offer a real opportunity to begin to resolve Venezuela's crisis. These steps would empower and benefit all Venezuelans seeking to rebuild their country and their future. Everyone who is concerned about the human rights of the Venezuelan people should take advantage of this opportunity. I still believe the Trump-era sanctions should be lifted, and I will continue to urge the Biden administration to do so. Democracy and civil rights will not be advanced by maintaining punishing economic sanctions. All that does is continue to hurt innocent people. Nonetheless, we need to find a way to move the ball forward, and I believe there is an opportunity now. Time is short, and there is a lot of uncertainty, but there is also some hope, and that should guide us.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on July 12, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the FAO, released its annual assessment on the state of global food security. This year's report, titled ``The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023,'' confirmed that nearly 30 percent of humanity, or roughly 2.4 billion people, lacked access to adequate food in 2022. A greater number, 3.1 billion, were unable to afford a healthy diet. The report paints a world where hundreds of millions of people face more precarious circumstances, deepened by the ravages of climate change, regional turmoil, and rising food costs. It describes how the recovery from the global coronavirus pandemic has been uneven and how the war in Ukraine has affected access to food, especially nutritious food. Last year, UNICEF reported that 148 million children under the age of 5 were stunted, meaning that their inadequate diets impaired their growth. The FAO director general called this the ``new normal,'' where climate change, conflict, and economic instability are pushing those on the margins over the edge. Mr. Speaker, as someone who believes food is a fundamental human right for everyone on this planet, I believe the American people can and should be proud of the leadership the United States has shown in addressing the global crisis. We have provided billions in aid to those most affected by droughts, natural disasters, violence, and conflict. We have literally saved millions of lives. Our farmers have provided food--wheat, soy, corn, rice, beans, lentils, peas, and cooking oil--to those most in need around the world. Our peanut farmers and specialty processors have provided therapeutic foods for severely malnourished children. Our NGOs are on the ground in many of the most desperate regions of the world. They make sure that food is provided to those most in need and work with local communities to build resilience to survive future economic and extreme weather shocks. Yet, we must all do more. I recently met with the new executive director of the World Food Programme, Cindy McCain. She took over the reins in April and is determined to strengthen efficiency and transparency at the WFP, to stretch every dollar and every food contribution to its maximum. She needs to make those donations stretch because she is facing an impossible task, too many crises, too many people in need, and not enough money. The WFP has already been forced to cut food rations and the number of people it serves all over the world, including in places like Syria and Haiti. Unlike the U.S., too many donors have yet to respond and too many nations like the Gulf states and the Middle East have failed to contribute their fair share. The world cannot afford to stand by when heat waves, heavy rains, and flooding are wrecking crops and casting more uncertainty over the availability and cost of food. I know that many fear a global migration as millions are forced to abandon their homes and livelihoods. For me, a greater concern is how massive internal displacement within countries, from rural areas to cities, might undermine agriculture, food security, and economic and social stability inside those nations and regions. The internal movement, that instability, is not in the best interest of anyone, including the United States. I know from experience that the U.S. and the global community can respond effectively to this crisis if we have the political will to do so. Even now, we see improvements happening in Latin America and Asia, so there is hope. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am so dismayed by efforts inside this Congress to undermine or even eliminate the very programs that contribute to alleviating the suffering of hunger, famine, and food insecurity around the world, including among children. Like our farmers, like our NGOs, and like the WFP and countless other nations and groups, we in Congress must do our part. We must make sure these programs are well funded so that the United States has the resources it needs to lead the world in ending global hunger.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have their priorities all screwed up. It is a national disgrace how many hungry kids there are in America, yet Republicans are passing bills out of the Education Committee not about hunger in our schools but about demonizing immigrants. Republican Governors lie to migrants and ship them to States like Massachusetts with no help, no notification, no nothing. Now, they have the gall to threaten public school funding for communities that respond to their cruelty by caring for these poor migrants? Under Republican rule, the House Education Committee hasn't had a single markup or hearing on raising teacher pay. No hearings or markups on school shootings or reducing hunger in schools. Yet, we are bringing to the floor an immigration bill from the Education Committee while over 9 million kids in this country--that is 1 in 8 kids, for God's sake--go hungry. I am begging Republicans: Stop pushing divisive culture war messaging bills, and let's focus on making sure every kid has a healthy breakfast and lunch at school every day. Food ought to be a fundamental human right for every single person in this country.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this process has shown us the priorities of the Republican majority; protecting the reputation of confederate leaders, banning books because they want to rewrite history, controlling women's bodies. Overturning Roe v. Wade wasn't enough. They want to ban abortion nationwide. They want to restrict a servicemember's ability to get travel expenses covered, attacking LGBTQ+ servicemembers, cutting off aid to Ukraine in the middle of their fight against Putin, stifling diversity and equity in the military, and shrugging off climate change, which the Department of Defense says poses a direct threat to our national security. You can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. The thing is, many Republicans know that these amendments are offensive. They know these plans and these ideas are unpopular. That is why there has been so much whiplash the last few days to get this rule to the floor today. What was not on their priority list in this bill? I will tell you what was not on their priority list; reducing the NDAA top line, which is far too high and wastes taxpayer dollars. In the appropriations process, they are cutting moneys from WIC and from Meals on Wheels, but they boost up the defense budget. What is not on their list is helping our veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. They rejected an amendment on that yesterday in the Rules Committee. What is not on their list is protecting access to reproductive healthcare or ensuring the ability for transgender individuals to serve their country or encouraging diversity and equity in all military ranks or preventing the transfer of cluster munitions to all countries. That is not even to mention the dozens of noncontroversial Democratic amendments that would simply authorize reports on our national defense. This is ridiculous. Let me again remind everybody in this rule, there are 70 Republican amendments, 6 bipartisan amendments, and 4 Democratic amendments. On what planet is that even considered reasonably fair? This is outrageous. Again, a big chunk of the Democratic amendments, you may not agree with them, but we ought to have 10 minutes of debate and a vote up or down on them. As they say, this is about getting ``woke'' out of the military. They blocked my amendment to help homeless vets get rides to medical appointments. What the hell is woke about that? They blocked it because it was woke. I mean, I don't even know what they are thinking. Look, if the extreme MAGA amendments pass and this NDAA bill passes on a partisan vote, it should not be seen as a victory for Speaker McCarthy. Barely passing a bill that usually passes with a supermajority is not a victory. I wish him luck in negotiations with the Senate where some of these policies will be nonstarters. The Speaker of the House needs to grow a spine, not for his own reputation but for the good of this country. This is a terrible, terrible process. These amendments are pathetic that have been made in order. They are offensive. It disrespects and diminishes this institution. It is sad to see the small group of extremists calling the shots here, but that is what is happening right now. They have turned this defense bill into a place for them to launch their culture wars. What a disservice to our country; what an insult to the Members of this Chamber; what an insult to the men and women who serve our country that these are the priorities that we are debating here today. I mean, give me a break. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I light up the Republican Conference for an absolutely awful process that made a series of offensive amendments in order and blocked some very reasonable amendments, I want the record to reflect that I have the deepest respect and affection for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole). He always sounds reasonable, in part, because he is a reasonable person. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by Members who are not reasonable, who are not rational, and who are not fair. Mr. Speaker, I return the compliment that he gave me. Dealing with him is always an exercise in civility and there is mutual respect here. I appreciate him. I appreciate the staff on both sides of the aisle who were up until 2:30 in the morning last night as we were dealing with this rule. I regret very much the process that has brought us to where we are right now. Mr. Speaker, for the second time this week the Rules Committee was unexpectedly called back at 11 o'clock last night. We sat and waited for over an hour for the meeting to actually get underway, all because Republicans couldn't get their act together. Republicans had to have yet another backroom meeting, another midnight seance to resurrect this rule because a dozen or so far right, MAGA wing nuts once again threw a fit and hijacked the bill when they realized they weren't going to get a bill that was perfect to them. It should go without saying, but it is outrageous that a tiny minority of Republicans is getting to dictate exactly what amendments come to the floor. It is outrageous that the Rules Committee last night managed to mess up a bipartisan bill and put it on a path toward becoming a hyperpartisan one by loading it up with every divisive social issue under the Sun. Here is my word of wisdom to Republican leadership: When you have a razor-thin margin in one-half of one branch of government, you don't get your way on everything. Democracy means compromise. Divided government means compromise. Compromise means you don't get everything you want. There has to be a give and take. I have to admit that I have never in all my time here experienced an NDAA process as outrageously bad as this one. This bill passed out of the House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 58-1. Let me repeat that. It passed with a bipartisan vote of 58-1. Looking at how extreme most of the Republican amendments are that were made in order, I would be surprised if this bill can even pass the House. I fear what this final bill is going to look like because of the amendments they are making in order today. This is honestly a disaster. I never ever want to hear lectures about process ever again. Mr. Speaker, when I was chairman, Democrats made in order over 650 amendments. Democrats made in order over half of all amendments submitted because we believed in the radical idea that we ought to actually do our job and debate things. Republicans in this NDAA have made in order fewer than a quarter of all the amendments submitted. In fact, despite a record number of amendment submissions this year, they made in order fewer amendments than every Democratic-led NDAA. What is worse, these are the worst of the worst amendments. They blocked dozens and dozens of commonsense ideas, but they paved the way for the most radical amendments. In the rule that we are considering today, they made in order 70 Republican amendments, 6 bipartisan amendments, and get this, drum roll, please, 4 Democratic amendments. Some of these amendments made in order were submitted minutes before we held our markup. For all my Republican friends who rant and rave about how important it is to provide enough time for members to read and understand what they are voting on, we had minutes. As I said, it is not just the number of amendments they are allowing to come to the floor, it is the type of amendments. The amendments this rule makes in order are so extreme that it will be a wonder how Republicans will pass this bill if the amendments are included in the final version. We are all supportive of putting more amendments up for votes. That is how this body should work. When Republicans block Democratic amendment after Democratic amendment after Democratic amendment, and then make in order dozens of the most extreme Republican proposals, they are not trying in good faith to pass a bipartisan bill. They are not being intellectually honest. They are merely serving up red meat to the most extreme fringe of the Republican base in this country. Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example. Many of us supported a bipartisan amendment to allow an up or down vote on whether or not the United States should transfer cluster bombs to other countries. I personally do not think this country should be giving cluster munitions to any country because they can harm civilians, and they do harm civilians. At the last second, our amendment was cut from the rule and replaced by an amendment that would only prevent the transfer of cluster bombs to Ukraine. That is really puzzling to me because when the Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee came to testify, and the ranking Democrat of the Armed Services Committee came to testify, I asked them a specific question: whether or not they would allow this bipartisan amendment banning cluster munitions to be made in order. Do you know what they said? They had no problem with making it in order. To have it all of a sudden removed is just puzzling to me. Why do we have hearings--why do we solicit answers on basic questions like: Do you think this would be a good thing to debate on? Are you okay debating on this amendment?--if these hearings mean nothing? Mr. Speaker, this amendment is being offered by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been vocal in her opposition to supporting Ukraine in their fight against Russian aggression. What is this all about? We want to prevent cluster munitions from going to any country, Ukraine and other countries. Why the narrowing down of this amendment? Why give this amendment to somebody who I don't believe cares about the impact of cluster munitions but is only interested in undermining our policy toward Ukraine? Forgive our skepticism in thinking that this isn't really about cluster bombs for the new amendment sponsor. Mr. Speaker, I asked for both amendments to be made in order. I thought that was a fair deal, right? Keep the amendment that we originally had dealing with you can't send cluster bombs anywhere, and you can keep the Marjorie Taylor Greene one. Let's have a debate on both. Let's see where people are. I was told ``no.'' In fact, every single Republican voted ``no.'' It is clear to me that this is about buying off Members of the MAGA fringe. It is about appeasing a small group of radical, hard-right Members, the MAGA circus I call them, a group that is extorting the Speaker of the House and threatening to take down the bill, and maybe threatening to take down his speakership if they don't get every single thing that they want. What they want is to load up the NDAA with every single divisive social issue under the sun. The group that is pushing these amendments is the so-called Freedom Caucus. I say so-called because they don't care about freedom. They are demanding amendments that threaten a woman's access to abortion. They are demanding amendments that roll back LGBTQIA+ rights. They are demanding amendments that undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The Freedom Caucus doesn't care about freedom when it is a woman's freedom to make their decisions about their own bodies or someone's freedom to love who they want or be who they are, or people's freedom to not get shot at school, a grocery store, or a mall. America needs to understand who the Freedom Caucus is and what they stand for. They do not care about your freedom. They care about their own freedom. They care about their freedom to do whatever the hell they want to do, the American people be damned. What an embarrassment. That is who Kevin McCarthy has put in charge. We are here debating social issues in a defense bill because the far right, the MAGA fringe, the Freedom Caucus are obsessed with these culture wars. They say Democrats are the ones injecting social issues into the military, but make no mistake, they are the ones who are doing that. Kevin McCarthy has ceded control of this body to the most extreme Members of his own Conference while hanging everyone else out to dry. It is all so that he can hold on to his power. I almost feel bad for our Republican colleagues who are closer to the center, if any of them still exist. Kevin McCarthy may be the MAGA ringmaster, but it is clear that the clowns have taken over the circus. Mr. Speaker, so many of the amendments this rule makes in order are simply offensive. They have the potential to really hurt people, and they are destructive. I hope that all my colleagues are well-read on what each does before they come to the floor over the next few days to vote. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has on his side?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I don't even know where to begin. I will just say to the gentleman that I actually do a lot of work on the issue of grandparents raising grandchildren because some kids don't have moms and dads. Aunts and uncles are raising their nieces and their nephews. So, I don't know even know what that rant was about. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order an amendment that prevents implementing the unanimous recommendations made by the bipartisan base renaming commission. The goal of the commission--for my colleagues to be informed--was to ensure that our bases do not celebrate Confederate officers who took up arms against the United States. That is right. The amendment actually stops us from implementing unanimous recommendations to rename bases named after Confederates, men who fought on the side of slavery. Contrast that with some of the amendments that my Republican colleagues blocked last night. An amendment to provide veterans with free mental health visits was blocked. An amendment to provide funding to organizations to assist the transition of servicemembers back to civilian life was blocked because it was too woke. On my amendment to provide ride-sharing transportation for homeless veterans, they all voted no. All of them were blocked, but this Confederate base renaming amendment was made in order. That is their priority, protecting the good name of Confederates, literal traitors to the United States? This is the big issue for the Republican Party on the NDAA. I will say to the gentleman from Texas who was just shouting on the floor that when he talks about this being a good process, again, in this rule that we are considering right now and bringing to the floor right now, there are 70 Republican amendments, 6 bipartisan amendments, and 4 Democratic amendments. How is that fair or reasonable under any measure? I could go on and on about how awful some of the Republican amendments are. Let me just highlight another one. Mr. Roy, a member of the Rules Committee, submitted an amendment that says that we are not allowed to teach people that any part of the Constitution has ever been racist. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I was a history major in college. Do I have to explain to people what the three-fifths compromise was? When the Constitution was written, it counted enslaved African Americans as three-fifths of a person, for God's sake. The Constitution literally said that Black people weren't full people when it was written. Does the author of this amendment just want us to pretend like it didn't happen? I am someone who actually is proud that America has made progress since then. I am proud of the work that so many have done to right these wrongs. I find this attempt to diminish that progress and to pretend as if there was never any racism in this country incredibly offensive. Slavery? Never happened. Jim Crow? What is that? Racism doesn't exist. Three-fifths compromise? Never heard of it. This is all just so, so wrong. For the record, it wasn't until the 14th Amendment passed in 1868 that the three-fifths compromise was explicitly repealed. So, what is the point of this amendment? To imply that slavery didn't happen? To imply that racism wasn't a problem? To rewrite history and gloss over the three-fifths compromise? There was a time when the racism of the Republican Party was more subtle. Now, it is just out in the open. They might as well have made in order an amendment to bring back the Confederacy. I find it incredibly, incredibly disgusting that this was made in order. This is wrong. It is racist. It is really offensive. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an incredible local business in Orange, Massachusetts, Dean's Beans Organic Coffee Company, as it embarks on an exciting change. Its founder, Dean Cycon, is retiring after 30 years of leading this people-focused business and turning the reins over to his employees. That is right. To end a successful career in the coffee business, Dean is giving control of the company to his employees who will share in its management, operations, and, of course, its profits. Dean's Beans already has a storied legacy, partnering closely with their farmers, sourcing organic coffee, and paying a living wage. Workers receive health insurance that covers premiums, copays, and deductibles. To many of us who know Dean, we are not surprised. He has led a career proving that you can make money, do good, and treat people with kindness, all while making a mean dark roast. That is why I toast my good friend, Dean Cycon, and the entire team at Dean's Beans. Here is to new stories and adventures and great cups of coffee along the way.