Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this rule makes in order a number of truly, truly offensive amendments. You know what? If the majority wants to do that and put this bipartisan bill at risk, that is their prerogative. It is, again, the contrast between what they are prioritizing and what they are blocking that astonishes me. For example, the rule makes in order an amendment to restrict servicewomen from accessing abortion care when 40 percent of Active Duty servicewomen now serve in States that have banned or restricted access to abortion. These servicewomen are stationed based on the needs of our Nation and not on personal preference and deserve access to crucial reproductive healthcare services. I look forward to voting ``no'' on that amendment, but an amendment I won't have a chance to vote on is my amendment that calls for an annual report to Congress on atrocity prevention and response in Sudan. Why does this rule make room for a controversial amendment to prevent abortion care, which might threaten the passage of this bill, by the way, but it blocks dozens and dozens of noncontroversial amendments like that one? What is wrong with a report on atrocity prevention? I genuinely do not understand, Mr. Speaker. There is only one explanation that I have, and that is that rational people are not calling the shots here. Mr. Speaker, rather than these culture wars designed to kind of relive the Confederacy that some of my colleagues seem hell-bent on doing, we ought to be talking about things that matter to the American people. We ought to be talking about how we protect Social Security and Medicare. I am going to urge a ``no'' vote so that we can bring up an amendment to get Members on record saying that they do want to protect Social Security and Medicare. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question and to speak on this amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).

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 thank my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I respect the gentleman, and I appreciate his remarks, his commitment to civility and decency and fairness. I know that he wants this House to run better and reflect the will of the Members. Quite frankly, I just don't believe what is happening in this Chamber lives up to the standard that he has set. Last night, the Rules Committee met at 11 p.m. to advance a rule, not for the whole National Defense Authorization Act, which we were supposed to start debating today, but for part of the National Defense Authorization Act. I get it. I have been in the majority before. I understand it is not always easy. What is happening today on the floor--not knowing when we are coming back to finish the second rule for this bill, or what offensive amendments will be included--is not just weird, it is nuts. A small group of radical, hard-right Members, the MAGA circus I call them, is threatening to take down the NDAA rule unless they get their way. The ``unless they get their way'' part is really becoming a theme in this Congress. I don't envy the gentleman from Oklahoma because what he is dealing with is truly bizarre. The MAGA circus wants to load up what could and should be a bipartisan bill--a bipartisan bill that passes every single year. They want to load it up with every single divisive social issue under the sun via the amendment process. Anti-abortion? Check. Anti- LGBTQ rights? Check. Anti-gun safety? Check. It is not just that they are demanding it, it is that Republican leadership is probably caving. It is embarrassing, but, quite frankly, it is not surprising. This is just the latest example of how Kevin McCarthy has ceded control of this body to the most extreme Members of his own caucus while hanging everyone else out to dry and cutting mainstream Members out of the process. Kevin McCarthy may be the ringmaster, Mr. Speaker, but the clowns have taken over the circus. This is a group of Members that are so far to the right that they have now begun purging Members from their own ranks for not being ideologically pure enough. It is honestly kind of scary. That is who is trying to write this year's defense bill. The party of single-issue bills wants to turn the NDAA into an anti- abortion, anti-LGBTQ bill that weighs in on every wedge issue and culture war from guns to border and beyond. Give me a break. If they want to do a single-issue bill, get this stuff out of here and pass a bipartisan NDAA bill. By the way, I would say that I find some of the amendments that have been introduced to this NDAA incredibly offensive. We have Members saying they want to get woke out of the military, but they can't even define ``woke.'' Was desegregating the military woke? Was allowing women in combat roles woke? Was repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell woke? That is what I want to ask some of my colleagues. I am pretty sure what their answer would be. Mr. Speaker, why all the backroom dealing and negotiating with MAGA clowns? By the way, I say that as somebody who has voted against the NDAA in the minority and in the majority because, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of sending blank checks to the Pentagon while we nickel and dime programs that help everyday people. Mr. Speaker, I wish the Republicans luck in trying to solve this internal power struggle. I have to say, I don't have a whole lot of faith that this is going to work out in a way that will be good for this country. I don't think it will work out in a way that will be good for most people in this country. This is an example. I think when people are watching these proceedings and are seeing the kind of extortion that the MAGA Republicans are exacting from the current leadership, this is what I think people look at and say: This is what is wrong with Washington. Mr. Speaker, I say this with no disrespect to the chairman, who I think is an example of what is right in this place. I will be voting ``no'' on this rule. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. I hope and pray that my Republican friends can get their act together so we can actually start doing the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we are really worried about where this is headed. The amendments that are contained in this first rule--most of them, I think, if not all of them--will probably pass with bipartisan support. Many of them are not controversial at all. It is what is coming next that has us concerned. What will the MAGA wing of the Republican Party extort from this leadership? What are the horrific policy items that they are going to demand to be put into this bill in order to get it through the House? Those are the things we are worried about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I would just say for the record that we are not objecting to more amendments being made in order. I will remind my colleagues that when I was chairman of the Rules Committee, we had made 650 amendments in order for the National Defense Authorization Act, which is far higher than the 290. We hope that you have at least 650, and maybe you can surpass us. That would be wonderful. We don't object to a process that allows for more amendments to be considered or more amendments to be made in order. What we object to is the extorting of your leadership by a small group of extremists in this House who are trying to force their rightwing and hard-line views on Congress and the people of this country. We are concerned, quite frankly, that some of these ideas that the MAGA circus is proposing couldn't even pass if it were brought up as a freestanding amendment. We are worried about a self-executing rule as part of the next rule that will make them part of the base bill. That is what we are concerned about. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, we want more amendments in order. We think that is a good thing. What we are worried about is what this small group of individuals that seems to be engaged in extortion on every single major bill that comes to this floor, what they will end up winning in this process. What they will win is not reflective of what I think the majority of this Chamber believes. That is deeply concerning to us. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's sacred responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for our future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs. 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, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman), to discuss that proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2670.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the administration supports this bill as it is written, but the statement also notes several concerns that the administration has with the bill, which they hope Congress will work with them to address. House Democrats are going to do what we can to fight against any attempts to push the bill to the extreme MAGA fringes. As I was saying earlier, we have no objection to making more amendments in order. Again, when I was chairman of the Rules Committee, we made a lot of amendments in order to the defense authorization bill. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, about some of the people who are not thinking in reality here. Last night, we had a Republican Member come up and testify about an amendment to withdraw us totally from NATO, a critical alliance between Europe and North America created after World War II that provides massive social, economic, and political benefits to its members in the face of an aggressive adversary. My Republican friends have their heads in the sand if this is the kind of thing that they think will make our country more safe, and this is exactly the kind of amendment that the fringe elements of the MAGA circus are supporting. By the way, the author of this amendment isn't extreme enough for the Freedom Caucus. They want her out of the Freedom Caucus because she is not pure enough or not extreme enough. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Foreign Policy titled: ``Why Americans Still Need NATO.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, ``A Pentagon study released earlier this year found major defense contractors flush with, `cash beyond their needs for operations or investment.' They have tens of billions of excess cash from Pentagon business to hand out to shareholders.'' I think it is outrageous that Republicans will happily line the pockets of these ultra wealthy contractors but pinch pennies when it comes to the American people. As I said earlier, we are talking about nearly a trillion-dollar Pentagon budget here. At the same time, appropriators led by Republicans are cutting programs like WIC and Meals on Wheels. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from CBS News titled, ``How the Pentagon falls victim to price gouging by military contractors.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is more ridiculous Republican infighting and wasting more time. That is what this is. They are bickering on everything, from spending levels to whose bill gets on the floor when. It distracts from the other very real work that Congress has the opportunity to do here. We should also be working to protect our constituents from gun violence. There were more than 17 mass shootings this past Fourth of July weekend that killed dozens of Americans, but Republicans are too busy fighting with Republicans. We should also pass bills to keep pollutants from clogging up our air and toxins from ruining our water, but Republicans are too busy fighting with Republicans. We should also do more to stop the opioid crisis and provide support for those struggling with their mental health, but Republicans are too busy fighting with Republicans. We should also make sure that every American has access to quality healthcare, the chance to receive a good education, or even the basic rights to housing and food, but Republicans are too busy fighting with Republicans. There is so, so much we should be doing, including passing this bipartisan defense budget, but Republican leadership is busy trying to cater to every whim of the MAGA circus. I will say it again, Kevin McCarthy may be the ringleader, but the clowns have taken over. It is no way to govern, and it continues to set a deeply dangerous precedent for how this body conducts business moving forward, including with the appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, let me explain why we are here right now, and why we are in this situation. We have passed a defense bill by huge margins every year for the past 63 years. Yet here we are with this stalling of moving the full bill forward because a small group of people who call themselves the Freedom Caucus have basically said that they will block passage of this bill if the Republican leadership doesn't cave to every one of their demands. They call themselves the Freedom Caucus. That seems like a strange name. I mean, are they for the freedom for people to read whatever books they want in the library? No. Are they for the freedom of women to be able to control their own bodies? No. Are they for the freedom for people to love who they want in this country? No. Are they for the freedom to protect people from gun violence in this country as we see the number of incidents involving guns in this country rise at this alarming rate? No. I think the only thing they are pro-freedom about is the freedom to harass the Republican leadership, the freedom to extort the leadership to cave to their ideas that, by the way, are deeply unpopular not only in this Chamber, that is sadly controlled by the Republicans, but views and ideas that are deeply unpopular throughout this country. Mr. Speaker, and I get it. They threaten the Speaker by saying that we will move to vacate the Chair. We will move to oust you as Speaker if you don't do everything we say. When they say jump, they want the Speaker to respond by saying, how high. This is a bad way to run this Congress. This is not what the American people expect from the House of Representatives. They certainly don't want ideas that are so extreme, so to the fringe, being shoved down their throats. At some point, the Speaker has to stand up to these people. At some point, he has to say no. At some point, he has to make it clear that what they are asking is beyond the pale. It is not only not good policy, but it is bad for this institution, and it is bad for this country. That is why we are here. We don't know when the Rules Committee will meet again. We don't know whether we are going to meet again this afternoon, tonight, tomorrow. We had one member of the Freedom Caucus say: Well, we can meet in August-- or after August. So this notion of everything being held hostage because of a small group of rightwing extremists just has to stop. Mr. Speaker, we are about to approach appropriations season. I don't know how the hell you are going to get appropriation bills through here with some of the stuff that is being forced onto those bills and some of the cuts that are being forced. As I said earlier, cuts in programs like WIC, Women, Infants and Children's program; Meals on Wheels. I mean, really? Those are the priorities of this Republican majority? This has to stop. This has to stop. So stay tuned, everybody, for how this all plays out. We don't know whether we are going to finish this bill this week or next week or sometime into the future, but this is not the way Congress should be run. Certainly, I would urge the Speaker to stand up to this small group of fringe lawmakers who are trying to extort unreasonable demands from him that are not in the interest of the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question because I believe it is important that we make it clear we don't want cuts in Social Security and Medicare. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Again, I hope and pray that my friends can get their act together in the very near future so we can actually move forward with a debate and a final determination on where people stand on this bill. 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, this week, in the name of ``national security,'' Congress will likely approve a nearly $1 trillion National Defense Authorization Act, but the 35 million Americans who don't know where their next meal is coming from won't feel any more security because for struggling families in this country, Republicans are cutting food benefits. I find it unconscionable that Members of Congress are okay cutting programs that help hungry kids, like SNAP and WIC, supposedly in the name of deficit reduction. Meanwhile, they are fine sending almost a trillion dollars to an agency that can't pass an audit and to defense contractors who pad their pockets by fleecing America's taxpayers. Let's broaden our definition of national security to include more than bullets and bombs. Let's include the security of our people, their health, well-being, and economic stability. True national security ought to mean that every American has enough to eat. No more blank checks to the Pentagon. Let's reinvest in our people to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Oh my God, Mr. Speaker. Let's get real here. Nothing about this is serious, not the process, not the intentions of the resolution's sponsor, not the impeachment case, not a single damn thing. Yesterday, Republicans dishonored this House and dishonored themselves by bringing to the floor a ridiculous censure resolution against Adam Schiff because Donald Trump told them to. Today, they are dishonoring this House and dishonoring themselves by bringing to the floor a ridiculous impeachment referral resolution against Joe Biden because Donald Trump told them to. This body has become a place where extreme, outlandish, and nutty issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. In short, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party is a joke. They talk about law and order when their frontrunner for President has been indicted on Federal charges. They talk about respecting law enforcement. Then, they come in here and downplay the rioters who came in here on January 6 and beat up cops with fire extinguishers. I don't even know how they look the Capitol Police officers in the eye when they walk into this place. They talk about how important it is that we follow a good process. Yet, the Rules Committee was called in late last night, literally at a moment's notice, where they deployed emergency procedures so we could refer this measure to a committee--what a spectacular emergency, truly something that needed to be done immediately. We all know the truth. The real emergency here was that the Georgia wing and the Colorado wing of the MAGA caucus got into a fight right over there on the House floor about who gets to impeach the President first. The truth is that Speaker McCarthy has lost control of this House, and it is being run by the MAGA fringe. This is nuts. Kids get shot in their classrooms. Nothing. Environmental disasters destroy entire communities. Nothing. Our air is clogged with smoke because half the Northern Hemisphere is on fire due to climate change. Nothing. But when the MAGA wing nuts say to jump, Speaker McCarthy says: How high? According to news reports, it sounds like this resolution's sponsor is dictating to the Speaker which committees bills should be referred to, when he should put legislation on the floor, and how he should run this House. That is who is in charge here, the MAGA extremists. Frankly, they can try to impeach Joe Biden all they want, but all they are doing is impeaching themselves and making a mockery of this place while they are at it. I get it. They don't like that their cult leader, Donald Trump, will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents we have ever had. They don't like that he was impeached twice and had a bipartisan conviction vote in the Senate. They don't like that Democrats tried to hold him accountable for trying to extort President Zelenskyy, who is now trying to defend himself from Putin. They don't like that Congress tried to hold him accountable again, this time for trying to overthrow the government on January 6. They don't like that he had nuclear secrets in his bathroom and in his desk, and God knows where else, and waved them around like it was nothing. You know what? They don't like themselves for having to stand by him time after time and defend his lies. I know many of my Republican colleagues say in private what they are not willing to say here in public, which is that they think this is an embarrassment. Still, they are here on the floor defending a three-time loser, sexual abuser, ex-President that has been indicted more times than he has been elected. It is pathetic. Instead of dealing with their own issues, Republicans are going after Joe Biden to try to distract and deflect. H. Res. 503 claims President Biden is intentionally facilitating a complete and total invasion of the southern border. This resolution claims that foreign cartels have complete control of our border. Seriously? It is insulting to the Border Patrol agents that they claim to support, the ones that put their lives on the line every single day. By the way, just to talk facts for a second--which I know my Republican friends hate to do--since the end of title 42 on May 11, unlawful entries along the southern border have plummeted. As of June 6, Customs and Border Protection has reported over 70 percent fewer encounters between points of entry or unscheduled encounters per day. Fentanyl seizures have increased under the Biden Presidency. To make that clearer for my friends across the aisle, that means that more fentanyl is getting picked up at the border before it makes it onto our streets. They are attacking Joe Biden for stopping more fentanyl. It makes no sense. No, they would rather talk about building a stupid wall along our southern border that they know won't work or about the nonbinding resolution they put on the floor this week that demonizes migrants but does nothing to fix our immigration system. They have a policy disagreement with President Biden and their first impulse isn't to pass an immigration bill. Their first impulse is to impeach him. Our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves. They are doing this all so they can distract from the fact that Donald Trump stole top-secret information and stored it in his bathroom and showed highly classified Iran attack plans to people and bragged about stealing classified government documents on live TV. Trump is the legitimate national security risk. Don't come to us with this phony BS about how President Biden is the reason we have a crisis at our southern border. Republicans can yell and scream all they want. They can rant and rave so that they get on FOX News tonight. It doesn't make them right. It is doing untold damage to this institution. They have no respect for the traditions of this House. It is grotesque. It is embarrassing. It is shameful. We aren't debating matters that help or uplift people, rather we are debating garbage to make Trump happy. It is cowardly, and it is sickening. What we have here is a joke, just like this Republican majority-- which is clearly going to be a temporary majority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, that was an awful lot. I don't have enough time to respond to all the inaccuracies that were just stated. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an article from Newsweek titled ``Fentanyl Surge Started and Peaked Under Trump Despite GOP Blaming Biden.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this accusation about open borders. I don't know how many times we need to say it, but the United States does not have open borders. We didn't have open borders under Trump, and we don't have open borders under Biden. Even the conservative CATO Institute knows that. Please stop incorrectly saying that our country has open borders. We do not. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article published by the CATO Institute titled ``Biden's Border Policy is Not `Open Borders'.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me read an excerpt from the article-- this is from CATO. ``Practically since his first week in office, President Joe Biden has faced repeated criticisms from Republicans and some Democrats that his border policy amounts to `open borders.' This criticism is not simply inaccurate: it is unhinged from reality in a way that distinguishes itself from normal political hyperbole. Indeed, U.S. immigration policy is effectively closed borders, and Biden's immigration policies and goals are largely the same as those of President Donald Trump. ``President Biden has not suddenly ended America's immigration prohibition and opened up U.S. borders to almost anyone who wants to come (as was largely America's immigration policy from 1776 to 1924). Instead, he has far more vigorously enforced immigration prohibition than the law requires, narrowing the few exceptions to the universal ban on legal immigration.'' Mr. Speaker, I point this out because this is crazy what is being talked about here on the House floor. This is not about a policy disagreement; if it was, maybe my friends would actually pass a bill that had an alternative policy. The bill that they brought up on immigration this week was a bill that was a nonbinding resolution. It did nothing. It was just their opinion that expresses the sense of Congress. It was a ``nothingburger''. If they wanted to, they would legislate in a way that would change a policy, but that is not what they want to do. This is about protecting Donald Trump. Donald Trump says to them, you know: Jump. And they ask: How high? That is what this is about. This is about covering up for the former President. It is about deflecting from the former President's criminality, the 37 felony counts that he has been indicted on, and they don't like it. Unfortunately, that is who he is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Politifact titled: ``Are Biden's border policies to blame for fentanyl deaths? Experts say no.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Fentanyl deaths in the U.S. were rising before Biden took office, and, in fact, he is intercepting more fentanyl than the previous administration did. I think we need the Republicans to get their facts straight. The other thing I want to point out to my friends--and maybe they need to read their history books or read the Constitution--impeachment is about high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not about policy disagreements. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Republicans would rather the American public pay attention to anything--literally anything--other than the latest charges that their leader has been slapped with. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Washington Post titled: ``Here are the 37 charges against Trump and what they mean.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would love to insert in the Record the entirety of the charges, but, apparently, I am told it is too long to be able to be put into the Congressional Record. Let me say a couple of things. Trump is charged with 31 counts of violating a part of the Espionage Act that bars willful retention of national defense information by someone not authorized to have it. He is basically charged with, among other things, conspiracy to obstruct justice, tampering with grand jury evidence, concealing evidence in a Federal investigation, and false statements. Mr. Speaker, I get it. If I were they, I would want to talk about anything other than that, but those are the facts. No matter how you want to distract and deflect, Mr. Speaker, the American people are not going to ignore what I believe will ultimately prove to be criminality of the former President. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).