Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am just getting a little sick and tired of all of the excuses as to why my Republican friends don't want to join us in helping the American people. My friend mentioned the appropriations bills. Well, with all due respect, we passed almost all of them here in the House. My friend, the Republican leader in the Senate, hasn't done a damn thing, hasn't passed one. We passed the HEROES Act, which would have helped the Postal Service, which would have provided relief to cities and towns, which would have provided assistance to those in this country who are going hungry. The Senate majority leader hasn't done a damn thing, not anything, hasn't lifted a finger for anybody. And we have even agreed to meet him halfway. He still won't negotiate. On an infrastructure bill, we passed an infrastructure bill here. Negotiate with the Senate? They haven't passed a damn thing. It is malpractice. If politicians could be sued for malpractice, then the Senate majority leader would be sued. This is ridiculous. And here we are with a crisis in the Postal Service. Mail has slowed down all across the country. Members are getting calls, including Republican Members. And what is the response? Oh, well, we will just let it go. You know, we will say we need to do better. We will deal with this another day. This is ridiculous, it is unconscionable, and I am tired of the excuses. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would love to spend weeks and weeks discussing this in committee, but the truth is that is what the Trump administration wants, to run out the clock before the November elections. So trust in our democracy is undermined, and they can act like there is some conspiracy if he loses. I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about process, but I really question their judgment here. They thought that dealing with cheese was such a national emergency last Congress that they used emergency powers to bring a bill on that topic to the floor during a government shutdown no less. But today, as seniors can't get lifesaving medications and our veterans can't get social security checks, they want to hit pause. Our Postal Service is in chaos. Give me a break. You know, my friends say they don't know who the Postmaster General is. Let me tell you who he is. He is like the least qualified candidate for the job. He is a big, mega donor to Donald Trump. And my Republican friends are believing everything Mr. DeJoy says, like claiming there is no mail shutdown. Well, let me remind them what the Postmaster General wrote in a recent memo that these changes have had: ``Unintended consequences that have impacted our overall service levels.'' Those are his words, Madam Speaker. He is transforming the Postal Service all right. Transforming it from reliable to chaotic right before an election. So even if you trust Mr. DeJoy, which I do not, even he acknowledges that there is something happening here. Those on the other side of the aisle cannot have it both ways here. This administration apparently won't lift a finger to fix this problem, but this Congress is acting. And I would respectfully urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us. Help the American people. They should be your priority, not the guy in the White House. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have heard some of the Republicans clamor last night in the Rules Committee all about statistics. Well, let's look at some. This is from the Postal Service's most recent quarterly report. It compares on-time delivery for single-piece first-class mail this fiscal year so far as compared to last fiscal year. Do you see the red line? It is going in the wrong direction. Mail is slowing. People aren't getting deliveries that they need on time. This is just through the end of June. We don't know what truly happened in July or so far in August. Our constituents are not lying to us. Their mail is delayed. Their medications are delayed. Yesterday, we were told: You know, people who are on Social Security don't have to worry because they get all their Social Security checks electronically. We know that is not true. We know that close to 1 million people get Social Security and SSI through the mail. So, this is real. This is happening. And we need to do something about it. The fact that this is happening in the middle of a pandemic right before an election, I mean, I don't believe in coincidences. This is deliberate, and it is shocking. As I said before, this is a five-alarm fire on our democracy. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say again for the Record because we hear this on the other side: Wouldn't it be nice if we were here negotiating a larger package on a whole range of things. Well, we actually passed something in the House called the HEROES Act. The Senate has passed nothing. The reason why is because Republicans are fighting with Republicans. They can't agree on what to do, so they have done nothing. So, we are negotiating with an empty chair. If my friends really want to help, they ought to pick up the phone, and they ought to call Mitch McConnell and tell him to do something, to actually do something. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I insert in the Record a CNBC article, entitled, ``Patients Say Post Office Slowdown Is Delaying Delivery of Lifesaving Medications.'' Patients Say Post Office Slowdown is Delaying Delivery of Life-Saving Medications (By Christina Farr) The U.S. Postal Service has become a political battleground, and has experienced delays after Postmaster General Louis DeJoy slashed overtime. Many patients are experiencing delays receiving life-saving medications and are sharing their experiences online via hashtags like #USPSMeds. Experts say the situation could escalate, despite Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's promise to suspend changes to the Postal Service. Nathan Geissel, who lives in rural Oregon, has been waiting more than nine days for a lifesaving medication to arrive in the mail. As far as he knows, it's stuck in a fulfillment center. Geissel's doctor prescribed the medicine two years ago to prevent blood clots. He's never experienced delays before. The U.S. Postal Service has become a political battleground after President Trump said he opposes additional funding because he doesn't support universal mail-in voting. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a Trump supporter, reportedly ordered recent cost-cutting measures, slashing overtime and curbing late delivery. It has created significant delays in mail deliveries, according to mail worker advocates and others. Americans are sharing stories about medication delays with the hashtag #USPSMeds. Many are veterans who have reported weeks-long delays. Some are seniors who instead have to visit a pharmacy, putting them at higher risk of exposure to Covid- 19. Geissel chose mail-order for the convenience--the nearest pharmacy is 20 minutes away--and the affordability. His insurance company covers more of the cost of the medication when it's delivered by the U.S. postal service. Geissel has to pay a $135 copay for a months supply if he instead picks it up at a retail pharmacy. ``Thankfully, a local pharmacist approved two more weeks of medication with my health plan that I could pick up as an emergency,'' said Geissel. ``I work in health care, so I know the system, but I can't imagine what it must be like for an elderly patient who doesn't have that same access.'' ``I'm worried,'' said Liz Austin by phone. Her mother, Barbara, is sick with cystic fibrosis, a progressive disease that causes lung infections and limits her ability to breathe. ``Covid-19 is primarily a respiratory disease, so my mother relies on the mail to get her prescriptions as safely as possible.'' Her medicine was so late that her husband had to risk visiting a pharmacy. After lawsuits from more than 20 state attorneys general and a call to testify before Congress, DeJoy on Tuesday said he's suspending operational changes until after the November election. Some experts are concerned that the delays will snowball. ``There's an exponential factor to this,'' said John McHugh, a former congressman who heads up the Package Coalition, an alliance that aims to preserve affordable postal package delivery services. Members of the Package Coalition include Amazon, eBay, and Cigna's Express Scripts. ``Once you are behind, what happens next is you get further behind and then further behind.'' The pandemic has strained the mail-order medication system as more people are opt to receive prescriptions at home. Those with pre-existing conditions are at greater risk for hospitalization if they get Covid-19. ``Data show an increase in prescription drugs dispensed through mail-service pharmacy during the pandemic,'' said a spokesperson from PCMA, a national association representing pharmacy benefits managers, which negotiate prescription drug costs on behalf of insurers. Online pharmacy Honeybee Health said about 20% of patients who order delivery via first-class mail have experienced delays so far. ``The situation is fluid but it's clear from our customer service team that an usually high number of patients are receiving their medication far later than expected--and in some cases, not receiving it at all. These delays are troubling for everyone, but for patients who rely on medication to live, it's especially dangerous,'' said Dr. Jessica Nouhavandi, co-founder and lead pharmacist for Honeybee Health, which delivers generic medications via USPS. Umar Afridi, founder of TruePill, a company that provides pharmacy services to telemedicine companies, said he ``estimates that about 90 percent'' of prescription drugs his company delivers via mail run through the postal service. ``We tend to use UPS and FedEx more for time-sensitive and expensive drugs,'' he said. ``USPS is often the lowest cost and they have the biggest reach.'' Afridi said he hasn't yet heard about delays but knows there are service-level disruptions, including pickups not happening on time. Pharmacy benefits managers are more optimistic. Express Scripts, a major pharmacy benefit manager, said it was ``not experiencing unusual delays.'' OptumRX (owned by UnitedHealth Group) declined to discuss delays. It said it's working with all major carriers ``to help ensure timely shipments of home delivery prescriptions.'' Some doctors are concerned for their low-income and elderly patients. Dr. Lakshman Swamy, a Boston-based pulmonologist and critical care doctor, says the situation could be disastrous for asthma patients who rely on Medicaid or don't have insurance. These patients might not be able to negotiate an emergency supply. Swamy, who also has asthma, said it's common for patients with chronic respiratory conditions to rely on mail-order medications. ``You can do rescue therapies for a while, but the strong medications will wear off,'' he said. ``Once you don't get the medications you need, you can quickly fall off the wagon and end up hospitalized.'' ``Any additional strain will have an impact on patients,'' he said. ``It's inevitable.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am sad that the gentleman thinks this is entertaining. We have veterans who are calling our offices whose medications have been delayed getting to them. We have some people on Social Security and on SSI who are worried that their checks are not going to get to them. We have small businesses that are calling to complain. This is a crisis that this administration produced all on its own. And whether it is designed, as some of us fear, to try to create more chaos around the election--and by the way, this is what Donald Trump said about the money that we have in this bill: ``They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots.'' Did anybody ever think that they would see a President of the United States who would publicly say that he doesn't want every vote to count? This is outrageous, and I cannot believe that my friends on the other side of the aisle, who I know are getting the same calls we are, are totally fine with doing nothing. Well, maybe if some of my Republican friends would join with us, it might send a message to the White House that they have to respond, they have to do the right thing. It is the complicity; it is the indifference that I just can't understand given what is going on in this country right now. So we have been complaining about this for weeks--this didn't just happen this week, but for weeks--but it is now out of control, and we have to do something. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear my friend talk about the extension of PPP when he voted against that in the HEROES Act when it came before the full House. Luckily, it passed and it is over in the Senate. We are waiting for Mitch McConnell to do something. But I love my friends on the other side of the aisle who come up with all these ideas right now. Most of them were in the HEROES Act. But if these are so important, where is Mitch McConnell? Where is the United States Senate? They went on vacation. They are gone. We are here because we have a crisis. We have people who can't get their medications, who can't get their benefit checks. We have a crisis where we have a President who is trying to undermine our elections. So we are here doing our work. Where is Mitch McConnell? Where is the Senate? How about picking up the phone and calling them to come back and do something for the American people? Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, the gentleman asked: Where are the leaders? We are here. We are doing our job. We are responding to a crisis. Where is Mitch McConnell? On vacation. Where is the President? Tweeting more insults. But we are here doing our job to help deal with this postal crisis, and we also did our job when we passed the HEROES Act. Where is Mitch McConnell? On vacation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle which makes me especially sad to hear some of the comments that we heard here today. This is a crisis that we are currently facing. We are getting calls from veterans whose medications are being delayed in the mail. We are getting calls from others whose essential benefits are being delayed in the mail. People rely on this stuff. It is important. Madam Speaker, you have heard the testimonies that have been recounted here on our side of the aisle. This is an emergency, and on top of that, we have a President who does not want every vote counted in the upcoming election because he believes that if we do count every vote, he will lose. We are in the middle of a pandemic. More and more people are going to be voting by mail, and this President, rather than trying to make it easier for people to vote and to have their voices be counted, is trying to make it more difficult. The current Postmaster General is not interested in reforming the Post Office. He is interested in dismantling it. That is what he has been doing. The bill that is before us is about more than money, I would say to my colleague from Georgia. It is about undoing all the damage that the current Postmaster has put into place that is resulting in all these delays, all this confusion, and all this chaos. Come on. This is serious business. I am going to close with this. History is not going to look well on those who just went along to get along with this President while he has done some things that would have been unthinkable in any other administration, Democrat or Republican. The complicity and the indifference are shocking to me. I can't believe it sometimes when I hear people defend the indefensible. What the President is doing with the Postal Service is indefensible, and everybody needs to be counted on this issue. I ask my Democratic colleagues and I ask my Republican colleagues to support this bill. It is the right thing to do for your constituents. Even if the man in the White House doesn't want it, it is the right thing to do. It is about time people started doing what is right for the people of this country. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me remind my colleagues what the previous question vote is all about. It really isn't about substance. It is about turning control of the House over to my friends on the Republican side. As the chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China who is very, very concerned about these Confucius Institutes and about China's continuing escalation of activities within our country, I am happy to sit down with the gentleman and anyone else to try to bring legislation to the floor. We brought a lot of legislation to the floor to check China's growing power in the world. But this is really not about the Confucius Institute. This is about turning power over to my friends on the other side of the aisle. If they were to succeed, they could bring up whatever they want to within the rules of the House. And based on some of the statements in recent weeks by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle about some of their priorities, it could be some pretty, in my opinion, awful stuff. So, I would urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's plea here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to respond to my good friend, Mr. Cole, who I have great, great admiration for, but the gentleman said that more Democratic amendments were made in order. Well, let's kind of put that into context. More Democratic amendments were submitted, period. Actually, more than half of the amendments were Democratic. Let me put it this way: Twice as many Democratic amendments were offered as Republican amendments, and there was a big chunk of bipartisan amendments that were made in order. I don't like to compare our record to their record because the gentleman wasn't chair of the Rules Committee when the Republicans were in charge. But I just want to throw this little tidbit out there so that people can have this: We have made in order 25 percent more amendments this month than were made in order in all of 2018 under the Republican control of the House. Again, I know my friend wasn't the chair at the time, but I just wanted to point that out for the Record because I think it is a nice statistic. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. McAdams).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1067 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And I acknowledge, I think we all acknowledge, that we are living in an unusual moment, dealing with a health pandemic that has already claimed the lives of 150,000 of our fellow citizens, that has infected millions of our other fellow citizens, and we are trying to do our best to operate and to get the people's business done amidst this pandemic. So, we have given committee chairs en bloc authority to try to consider amendments en bloc so we can consider more ideas. In the package that we are bringing before the House today, there are 341 amendments in order. Some of them will require separate votes on amendments because, quite frankly, there isn't a consensus on some of them. But many of them are good ideas that can be put in an en bloc amendment and be incorporated into this bill. I just say that because the alternative in the middle of this pandemic is to have fewer amendments, and I don't think that that is something that Members would want to see happen. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave Mr. McGOVERN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1067, providing for consideration of H.R. 7617, the Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2021. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7617 under a structured rule, with 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Lowey. It makes in order 340 amendments and provides that the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or her designee may offer amendments en bloc, which will be debatable for 30 minutes. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the measure before us is what it looks like when you don't take an ax to our priorities, as the President has advocated, but instead, you invest in what is important to the American people. This is what it looks like when we actually lay the groundwork for a real recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, instead of just wishing it away as this President has done. There are billions and billions of dollars in emergency funding here to build and repair water projects, to modernize energy infrastructure, and rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure in this time of COVID-19. These projects will help get Americans back to work and kick- start our economy. The bills included in this underlying package also make long-term investments in our Nation: In food safety, curbing tobacco use, and combating domestic abuse and sexual assault; all at levels that exceed the President's budget request. There is also landmark grant funding to carry out police reform efforts, and, yes, even funding to address the health impacts of climate change because, Mr. Speaker, this majority believes in science, and we believe in facts. This bill also includes provisions to stop costly, endless wars by sunsetting the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the AUMF, repealing the 2002 AUMF, and prohibiting funds for the use of force against Iran. Just as important as what this measure does is what it ensures this administration cannot do: Like steal money for President Trump's ineffective border wall, implement its dangerous plan to restart explosive nuclear testing, or launch another endless war using the 2001 AUMF. This is about addressing our Nation's emergency needs during this pandemic today, while building a strong foundation for the future. Thinking that this pandemic will magically vanish, as this President has suggested, is not a plan. Hoping that COVID-19 just goes away without a vaccine, as this President has done, is not a plan. Real resources like those in this bill, especially when taken with those in the HEROES Act that passed this House over 2 months ago, will enable us to confront this virus and build a true recovery. 340 amendments were made in order under this rule, many of which will make this bill even stronger. Among them is an amendment I authored to provide more money for radon testing and mitigation. A national investigation recently uncovered this harmful chemical in public housing units across the country, including in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts. This administration, and HUD in particular, has an obligation to act. This language will help ensure more funding is there to help protect people's health and safety. I am also proud that the underlying bill sets aside $10 million to create a new nationwide pilot program to help the many grandparents who are raising their grandchildren today. This funding will provide more access to safe, affordable, and appropriate housing. Mr. Speaker, there are two policy ideas put forward during this process that I especially want to highlight. The first was an effort led by my good friend, Congressman Bobby Rush, to create a more 21st century approach toward Cuba. This President has taken us back to a failed Cold War policy that held our country back for more than 50 years, a policy that hurts the Cuban people, and a policy that denies American farmers and American businesses the opportunity to engage with their counterparts in Cuba. In short, our policy, Mr. Speaker, is an embarrassment. The gentleman from Illinois wanted to mitigate some of the pain U.S. policies impose on the Cuban people by providing easier access to food and medicine and by making it easier for families in the United States to send support to their relatives still on the island, especially during this pandemic. Now, although the gentleman from Illinois has withdrawn his amendments, I want to recognize him for his leadership. He has shined a bright light on a failed policy that badly hurts the Cuban people, and it urgently needs to change. Mr. Speaker, we have to change our policy. We must and we will change our policy, and I look forward to being part of that effort. If we can trade with China and Russia and Vietnam, we certainly can trade with Cuba. If Americans can travel virtually to any country in the world, we ought to be able to travel to Cuba without restriction. And if we really care about human rights and human suffering, then we ought to recognize that the American blockade on Cuba is causing tremendous suffering to the Cuban people. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will in short order take a fresh look at our policy and move to a more mature, sensible, thoughtful approach to dealing with Cuba. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Ayanna Pressley, along with Representatives Lee, Ocasio-Cortez, Schakowsky, Chu, DeGette, Tlaib, Omar, Pocan, and Speier. Together they led an important effort to repeal the Hyde Amendment. This disastrous policy prevents so many, particularly low-income women and women of color from deciding their own future. Constitutional rights should not belong to just the wealthy or the privileged. They belong to every single American, regardless of where they get their health insurance. And although this amendment wasn't able to be made in order here because of several budgetary points of order, I want to say loud and clear here today that they are right. We need to end this discriminatory policy, and I look forward to working with them to do just that. This is a fight that we must have. Mr. Speaker, getting this broad package here today was a herculean effort by so many in this Chamber, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying measure. Let's get our communities the resources they need, and let's get our economy back on its feet. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time on my side. I would just say to my colleagues before I yield to the gentleman for his closing remarks that I think these are good bills that will help us not only get through this pandemic, but help set the stage for the economic recovery that we need. While we are all here talking, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are picking up the phone and calling their Senate counterparts and calling the White House and urging them to get serious about a coronavirus relief package that we desperately need. Schools in some districts are about to open up, and there is no Federal aid to help with what they may need to keep our children and our teachers safe. There is no money going to our cities and towns that are financially strapped because of our economy having shut down, no money to protect people so we can have safe elections, nothing--not anything--to help the millions of people in this country who are hungry. The Senate proposal, which I am not even sure it is a proposal anymore, has no money in it for SNAP. The most vulnerable people in this country get nothing when it comes to putting food on the table. They have reduced unemployment benefits, and then they sneak in money for an FBI building and money for defense contractors while they shortchange everybody else. We are in a healthcare crisis, we are in an economic crisis, and we need to respond. These appropriations bills, again, are a way to help us get back on our feet; but, in the immediate term, we need to get the Senate to get serious and respond, as the House did over 2 months ago, and extend a lifeline to the American people. This is serious. Mr. Speaker, I don't care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. I hear from constituents of all political persuasions who are begging us to do something to help teachers and superintendents. Where is the help? Mayors, town managers, and city managers are asking: Where is the help? The House acted over 2 months ago--nothing from the Senate. So I think these appropriations bills are good, but we need to get something else done even before these become enacted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the Rules Committee staff and members for all of their incredible work during the last few weeks. We have processed thousands of amendments. We have had hours and hours and hours of hearings. We have listened to countless Members testify, and we were able to get through it all. But, again, I want people to appreciate especially the work of the staff. I say that in a bipartisan way that the Democratic staff and the Republican staff of the Rules Committee worked incredibly hard. I don't think most people even know it, but they ought to know it because this is a lot of work. I say to the gentleman from Oklahoma who is my friend, we don't always agree on everything, but I am very fortunate to have him as a ranking member because I think he respects this institution and he fights very hard for his beliefs. I fight hard for my beliefs. But even when we disagree, it is not in a personal way. We can disagree without being disagreeable, and I appreciate him for that, and my other colleagues as well. Mr. Speaker, this rule is about moving forward to consider a measure to get annual and emergency funding moving to help put people back to work, to reinvigorate our public health system, to rebuild our aging roads and bridges, and to put an important check on this administration. This rule also is about whether we should debate hundreds and hundreds of amendments from Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately about whether we fulfill one of our most fundamental responsibilities. I urge all of my colleagues to come together in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Let's ensure this Congress continues to provide the leadership the American people are demanding. The material previously preferred to by Mr. Cole is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 1067 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (S. 939) to establish limitations regarding Confucius Institutes, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to commit. Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of S. 939.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, sharing a jail cell with John Lewis was one of the greatest privileges of my life. When we were arrested for protesting the genocide in Darfur a few years back, we were put into a police van, booked, and fingerprinted. John had been arrested over 40 times for peaceful protests by that point, so let's just say he had some advice. John made trouble like this because he knew that words aren't enough and that real change requires action. He called it the struggle of a lifetime, but it was never his struggle alone. He challenged all of us to fight injustice and oppression and to stand up for civil rights and for human rights. Mr. Speaker, John was a great man. He was an American hero who called our country to a higher standard. But perhaps more importantly, he was a very good man. He treated every single person he met, no matter who they were, with dignity and respect. When he saw wrong in this world, he did his best to make it right. Lisa, Patrick, Molly, and I miss you already, John. We love you, and we will never stop making good trouble in your name.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding House Resolution 1053, during consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 1957 pursuant to such resolution, debate on such motion to concur shall not exceed 80 minutes, with 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their respective designees.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Representatives McAdams, Titus, Horsford and myself. Mr. Speaker, on July 16th, 75 years ago at 5:29 a.m., the first ever nuclear explosion burned across the skies of New Mexico, changing the world forever. The Trinity Test was certainly an astonishing moment. When the bomb, called the Gadget, detonated, the observing scientists experienced the literal definition of shock and awe. A great deal has happened since that first test of an atomic bomb. The United States is the only nation to have used nuclear bombs against a foreign nation. The U.S. carried out tests for several decades, ending them only in 1992. During those years, nuclear testing killed or sickened thousands of military personnel who were involved in the detonations, as well the people who lived downrange from U.S. test sites, including tens of thousands in the continental United States. These communities are still dealing with the devastating legacy of nuclear testing decades after the U.S. conducted its last nuclear test in 1992. The responsible step for Congress would be to extend and expand the Radiation Effects Compensation Act (RECA) rather than to endorse talk of resuming U.S. nuclear testing, which would dishonor the experiences of downwinders and atomic veterans. The United States established a blue-ribbon panel to investigate what had happened to our atomic veterans, resulting in public apologies by Presidents H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George Bush and special reparations and health program by the Departments of Justice and Veterans Affairs. I would like to thank Chairman Adam Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry for including in the underlying bill, H.R. 6395, a provision to honor our Atomic Veterans with a service medal, and I urge them to fight to include this provision in the final conference report of the NDAA later this year. For more than a quarter-century, the Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program has worked extraordinarily well in ensuring the reliability of the existing nuclear warhead types in the U.S. arsenal. The overwhelming majority of the past U.S. nuclear test explosions were for ``weapons development'' and ``weapons effects'' purposes. There is simply no technical reason to resume testing now, nor in the foreseeable future. Mr. Speaker, resuming U.S. testing would violate the global taboo against nuclear testing established by the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As one of the 184 signatories of the CTBT, the United States has a legal obligation not to take actions that violate the object and purpose of the treaty, which is to prohibit nuclear test explosions, no matter what the yield. Renewed testing by the U.S. would undermine global support for operating and maintaining the treaty's International Monitoring System, which the United States itself depends upon to help monitor other states' compliance with the nuclear test ban. The McAdams-Titus amendment is right thing to do. It is the smart thing to do. And it is the moral and humane thing to do. For these and so many other reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support the McAdams amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Amendment No. 5 offered by the gentlelady from Minnesota, Congresswoman Omar, to establish a policy framework for the accelerated withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. I thank Congresswoman Omar for her leadership on this and so many other critical foreign and defense policy issues. Mr. Speaker, in October of this year, the United States will have been engaged in the Afghanistan conflict for 19 years. That's 19 years of war, Mr. Speaker. Nineteen years of terrible losses of life--among our brave troops and servicemembers, our coalition partners, humanitarian and other development aid workers, and most of all, among the people of Afghanistan who have suffered the highest death toll. The numbers of deaths and injuries are chilling: nearly 2400 U.S. military have died; over 20,000 have been wounded; and over 1700 U.S. contractors have lost their lives in Afghanistan. For the Afghan people, the war has been devastating: over 100,000 Afghan civilians have been killed or wounded over the course of this war. According to the United Nations, whose figures are considered conservative, for each of the past six years, Afghan civilians have suffered over 10,000 casualties annually. Mr. Speaker, it is likely that every family in Afghanistan has suffered grave loss from this unending war. It's been 19 years of devastation, Mr. Speaker. No one can assert that it would be a hasty or untimely moment to consider withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan. In fact, I believe that it is well past time for the United States to withdraw its forces, close the chapter on this war, and take meaningful steps to secure a stable peace. This amendment calls for a long-term, inclusive peace process and strikes a section of the NDAA that would impose unduly onerous conditions on troop drawdown, essentially preventing any withdrawal and prolonging this endless war. A nearly identical amendment passed the House in 2013, 305-121, with overwhelming bipartisan support. That was an amendment offered by Congressman Adam Smith (WA), our late colleague Walter Jones of North Carolina, and me. If the House so overwhelmingly supported a withdrawal of troops in 2013, then why not today? According to the ``Costs of War Project at Brown University,'' the United States has spent nearly $2 trillion on this war. To finance war spending, the United States has borrowed heavily and will pay more than $600 billion in interest on those loans through 2023. The rest of the debt will take years to repay. In addition to the more than $2 trillion the U.S. government has already spent on the war, debt and medical costs will continue long into the future. Mr. Speaker, I know that Afghanistan is in the midst of negotiations to end this conflict. The withdrawal of U.S. troops is a key element of securing that peace. Let us begin today to put that framework in place, begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops; and put an end to the longest war in U.S. history. I urge all my colleagues to support the Omar Amendment No. 5.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Perlmutter, for yielding me the time. I also want to associate myself with the comments of all my colleagues who have remembered our dear friend John Lewis, the conscience of the Congress, indeed, the conscience of the country. John Lewis was a man of action who never gave up on fighting for a more just, fair, and decent country, and I think all of us can pay tribute to him not just with words but with actions. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good ideas being considered as part of this debate. There will be a lot of debate over the next couple of days, but I want to discuss one in particular here today, an amendment by my colleagues Mark Pocan and Barbara Lee. Because of their leadership, Congress will finally vote on whether to cut the Pentagon's bloated budget and reinvest that money in the American people here at home. All I can say is: It is about damn time. COVID-19 has laid bare our Nation's failure to invest in programs that support our families and keep them healthy, but this debate was needed long before this pandemic hit because, for years and years, we have been told there simply isn't enough money to invest in our communities, in universal childcare, Medicare for All, or repairing our crumbling infrastructure. We have been told that a Green New Deal is too expensive and that it is unreasonable to ask to cancel crushing student loan debt. But there is always enough money lying around to raise the Pentagon's budget. Decade after decade after decade, we shortchanged the American people while we shoveled more money into building more nukes or more military bases halfway around the world. Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of it. This amendment is the least-- and I mean the least--we can do. Since the start of the Trump administration, in just the last 3 years, our defense spending has gone up every single year, over $100 billion in total. That is crazy. Now, don't misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. I support our troops. This amendment exempts from cuts military personnel, defense healthcare, and our Federal civilian workforce. But I do not support military spending so wasteful that it weakens our Nation; I don't support Congress funding weapons our troops don't want; and I don't support Congress funding forever wars that our country shouldn't even be involved in. For me, this all boils down to a simple question, Mr. Speaker: What do we mean by ``national security''? Now, some here in Washington think our national security ought to be measured solely by the number of bombs we have, but those of us who support this amendment think our national security must also be measured by the prosperity of our people, by whether our families have enough money to buy groceries, and whether we are investing in our schools and our libraries and our roads and all the things that strengthen our communities. If we continue failing to invest in our people, what kind of country will be left for our military to defend 20, 40, 60 years down the road? What will we tell our children and their children when our military budget continues to balloon, yet our citizens cannot afford even the most basic necessities? Budgets, Mr. Speaker, are moral documents. They represent our values, what we think is important. It is time for America to do the right thing and fundamentally alter our national priorities. That is what this proposal is all about. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. There will be lots of debate on lots of subjects, but I urge them to support this amendment when it comes up for a vote.