Providing for Consideration of Conference Report on H.R. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the work of the conferees this year is to be commended. I don't want the gentleman from Alabama to faint that I am saying something nice, but the bottom line is that the conferees did a great job. They worked hard and fast to get this NDAA conference report to the floor today. It has been just 2 months since we brought the rule for the House version of the bill forward for consideration.

In fact, and I don't get to say this enough, this process has been an example of how Congress should operate. Members brought their ideas forward when the original bill was being considered. The Rules Committee made amendments in order. We had some real debates here on the floor, and the conference committee has now done its job. That is how this body is supposed to work.

But under this majority, it is the exception and not the norm. Bills often come before the Rules Committee without being considered by the relevant committees first. More than half of the rules that the majority brings to the floor are unamendable.

All too often, the Rules Committee is where democracy goes to die. Regular order seems like a thing of the past. It shouldn't be that way, but, all too often, it is. That is why this process is so notable.

Mr. Speaker, why are we using this process for only things like the NDAA bill? Why not for other urgent matters, like addressing gun violence, stabilizing our healthcare market, or reforming our Tax Code? Wouldn't it be nice if Congress tackled all problems like this?

Now, this process made the NDAA bill better. Many harmful environmental provisions, thankfully, were removed. That includes language that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from listing the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act for a decade.

I am also grateful that the conferees honored the sacrifice of the atomic veterans. The past three House versions of the NDAA included language that would award them a service medal honoring their sacrifice and service, which was carried out in secret and at great personal cost. It was adopted with near-unanimous votes. But, each time, it has been dropped in conference.

This year, though, the conferees have agreed to provide the atomic veterans a certificate of recognition and, in the manager's statement, have gone further by encouraging the Secretary of Defense to consider an appropriate medal or award to recognize radiation-exposed servicemembers.

For the life of me, I can't understand why it is so hard for the Pentagon to honor these proud veterans with a service medal. Over three-quarters of atomic vets have already passed away, many prematurely from health problems directly related to their service to our Nation. They and their families deserve a medal.

For the Record, I would like to say that I remain committed to making sure that they receive that recognition, and I hope the chairman and ranking member will add their voices to encouraging the Secretary of Defense to do the right thing and confer a medal that recognizes the courage, the sacrifice, and the service of the atomic veterans.

So, there are good things in this bill. That includes the increase in pay for our Nation's military. Many members of our caucus will support this conference report as a result.

Now, you would think the majority would want more bipartisan votes. It is possible, if they undertake a process like this more often. Let's bring regular order back from the dead.

Although this bill has been strengthened, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support it because very real weaknesses remain.

This conference report still endorses President Trump's plan to develop new low-yield nuclear warheads. A ban on developing these warheads has been in place for 15 years. Lifting it now could drastically impact our strategic stability at a time when the President is already upending our foreign policy.

Now, let's also talk about what is not included here. The conference report does not have language that would finally force this Congress to debate its role abroad. That is not because an amendment wasn't offered. In fact, I put a bipartisan amendment forward with my colleagues, Representatives Jones, Lee, Garamendi, Kildee, and Welch.

The amendment was pretty simple. It said any escalation of U.S. troops in Afghanistan over the next fiscal year put forward by the President or the Pentagon would have to be debated by Congress. We would have 30 days after a report was issued for Congress to either disapprove of the escalation or allow it to move forward. That is it.

It wasn't a radical idea, at least not to me or many of my colleagues. But it must have been to Republican leadership, because they did what they always do when pressed to pass a new AUMF or to have legitimate debates on the war in Afghanistan and other wars: They blocked us from even having a debate on the House floor.

Republicans will apparently try anything to avoid a debate on this subject. We submitted a similar amendment to the Rules Committee last year during the NDAA consideration, and the majority advanced an alternative amendment that called for the administration to release a report on our strategy in Afghanistan instead.

A study is not a serious attempt at congressional oversight of our foreign policy. The Trump administration must not have thought so either, since they never even bothered to send the report to Congress. It was more than 100 days late. Magically, it appeared shortly after the House had already debated and approved the NDAA. And, frankly, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Mr. Speaker, do my Republican friends even care that Congress is abdicating our responsibilities? We should be debating our role in Afghanistan. The administration has sent more than 4,000 additional servicemembers to fight over there in this last year. There are now more than 12,000 of our constituents there today.

Mr. Speaker, don't my Republican colleagues want to have a say over whether their constituents are sent to fight abroad? We are 17 years into this war. There is no end in sight. The least we could do is spend 10 minutes debating our foreign policy on the House floor.

There are reports that the President is frustrated with his Afghan policy, that he may call for a review of our role there. Well, Mr. Speaker, shouldn't Congress have a role in that new strategy? Maybe the Republicans are afraid to take on President Trump. They send angry tweets and critical press releases sometimes, but when it comes to actually doing something, they lose their nerve.

Just take ZTE. Many members of the majority were outraged when the President announced plans to prop up this Chinese tech company. President Trump tweeted: ``Too many jobs in China lost.'' Apparently, his policy of ``America First'' quickly became ``China First.''

His move came after the Secretary of Commerce had banned U.S. companies from exporting any parts to ZTE. President Trump undercut his own Commerce Secretary, urging him to reverse this ban. It was an about-face from an administration that has become defined by saying one thing one day and doing another the next.

Republicans joined Democrats on both sides of the Capitol in pledging to reimpose the penalties the President reversed. Language banning government agencies from using or procuring technology made by ZTE were included in both the House and Senate bills. The Senate had stronger language, which I was hoping would be included here. If it were, I think it would pass. But a funny thing happened as this report was hashed out. Republicans went with the watered down House language instead.

Mr. Speaker, actual leadership requires standing up and doing something and going against the President when he is wrong. But this majority has proven again and again and again that they aren't willing to do that, no matter what the President says or does.

We saw that after President Trump cozied up to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. He stood with a dictator over the American intelligence community. It was a disgrace, and the majority did nothing.

They even blocked our attempt to get a simple debate on the Quigley amendment. That would have provided funds to strengthen our election system against future hacking by bad foreign actors like Russia.

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this President? What is wrong with my friends on other side of the aisle? We should be passing amendments to protect our election system. We ought to be passing the Engel resolution, condemning what the President did.

This is already the most closed Congress in history. Most bills that come to the floor can't even be amended by anybody, Republican or Democrat.

It is ``my way or the highway'' with this majority. That is bad enough, Mr. Speaker. But now we can't even debate protecting our democracy, just like we can't debate our military's role abroad.

We have gone from being the people's House to being more like Putin's House. It is disgusting, quite frankly. The last time I checked, this was still America, where Congress is supposed to actually debate. Let's act like it.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about the need for bills to go through the committee and conference process. That happened here. The NDAA report was crafted in a bipartisan manner.

I can't vote for the underlying bill for all of the reasons I have discussed. That includes the lack of an AUMF. But when the process is better, we should recognize that. For that reason, I will be voting for this rule. I hope that we consider more bills through a similar process.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Alabama that he may want to defend a process where the majority of bills that have come to this floor have come under a process where nobody can offer an amendment. I think that is undemocratic. I think that goes against what this House is supposed to be about. It is one of the reasons why so many of the bills that come through here, quite frankly, are deeply flawed, because everybody is shut out of the process.

This is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. Nearly 60 percent of the bills that have come to the floor have come under closed rules. Now, you expect that in Russia, you expect that in China or Turkey, but you don't expect that in the people's House.

It is unbelievable to me that my friends defend this process. When you throw in bills that don't need a rule, the suspension bills--post offices and a lot of bills that, quite frankly, are inconsequential-- you can rack up the numbers.

The bottom line is the Rules Committee has become a place where good ideas are blocked on a regular basis, and not just Democratic ideas, but a lot of Republican ideas.

I respect the Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, enough to be able to say that, if they have good ideas, they ought to be brought to the floor. They ought not be blocked in the Rules Committee behind closed doors and never even know why they are blocked. But that is the pattern here. It has to stop.

Maybe it is going to take an election for it to stop, but this is unacceptable. I think most people around the country who are paying attention to what is going on here are fed up.

And just one other thing. When I talk about the need to debate the war in Afghanistan and these other wars where we put American lives in jeopardy, that is not partisan bickering. Most of these amendments have been bipartisan. What we are responding to is many of our constituents who have been deployed halfway around the world who come back and say: What the hell are you doing? Do you guys have any idea what is going on over here? Why aren't you talking about this? Why aren't you debating it?

We have been in a war for 17 years and we can't even have a debate. We can't even have 10 minutes on the war in Afghanistan or our growing involvement in military conflicts around the world. It is outrageous.

You can defend it if you want. It is irresponsible. And the fact that this Congress won't debate these issues, that is moral cowardice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed one of the most disgraceful displays by an American President on foreign soil in our Nation's history when President Trump refused to stand behind our intelligence community and to, instead, side with Vladimir Putin. Putin, he sided with Putin.

Then on Tuesday, via Twitter, the President changed his tune and said, ``I'm very concerned that Russia will be fighting hard to have an impact in the upcoming election,'' I guess apparently embracing the intelligence community again. And then he tweeted another tweet, basically saying that Russia is not involved in meddling in an election.

I have to tell you, this President is messed up when it comes to the issue of Russia meddling in our election. I don't know what the Russians have on him, if anything, but the behavior out of this President is not normal, and it should concern every single person, no matter what your party affiliation is.

Russia attacked our country. They meddled in our election. Everybody knows it. And we have a President of the United States who is going out of his way to cover it up, to make it seem like it never happened, to dodge the issue. We cannot count on him to protect our election system; let's just be honest about that.

We need to step up in a bipartisan way. We need to hold Russia accountable for its election meddling, and we need to insist that these attacks on our democracy stop. Russia is not our ally. They are not a competitor. They are not our friends. We have to start acting like that.

I am going to ask that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Engel's and Representative Connolly's bill, H.R. 6494, the SECURE Our Democracy Act. Their bill would punish foreign entities who interfered with our elections, going back to 2015, and punish future attacks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the White House cannot be counted on to protect our elections. All they are interested in is protecting the President. We need to do the right thing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, let me just correct the gentleman on one thing. Voting against the previous question is not voting against the bill. What it means is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It means that we can not only debate and vote on the defense conference report, but we can also debate Mr. Engel's and Mr. Connolly's bill. The gentleman is on the Rules Committee. He should know that. If we want to have this debate, we ought to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

And, by the way, we are talking about defending our country. Russia attacked us, in case you forgot, and we are trying to protect that from happening again.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman's proud of the President's performance in Helsinki, but I assure you, the majority of Americans were disgusted.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose the underlying conference report, for reasons that I have already articulated, I do support the rule because it reflects a good process where committees were respected, where the ranking members were respected. We went through a conference committee, which is something almost unheard of in this body, and so I think many of us, myself included, are reasonable when the majority behaves reasonably.

But the bottom line is, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed that aren't being addressed, and they are not being addressed because the Rules Committee routinely blocks good ideas from coming to the floor. So the only way we have an opportunity to bring up important issues is through procedural motions like defeating the previous question so we can bring up the Engel-Connolly bill, so we could actually stand up to Russia.

So we are going to vote for the rule. We are asking you to stand up to Russia. I don't think that that is a bad exchange.

So vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's stand up to Russia before we go home. Let's do the right thing. Let's show the President that we have a spine, that we disagree with what he did and we are going to do the right thing here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source