Providing for Consideration of H.R. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year and Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 476 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 476
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2500) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-19, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against the further amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. In the case of sundry further amendments reported from the Committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the question. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 5. Clause 7(a)(1) of rule XV shall not apply with respect to H.R. 553.
Sec. 6. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of July 11, 2019, or July 12, 2019, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the bill (H.R. 1327) to extend authorization for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 through fiscal year 2090, and for other purposes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 476, providing for consideration of H.R. 2500 under a structured rule. One hour of general debate has been provided, controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Madam Speaker, this rule makes more than 430 amendments in order. I think we broke a record. This bill has the most amendments, I think, ever made in order, and I think it is something that we should be proud of.
These amendments include ideas from both sides. I think that is important. But I have got to tell you that I am especially proud that this rule allows a debate on many truly progressive ideas.
One of these amendments would allow transgender troops their rightful chance to serve in our military without roadblocks from this administration. That shouldn't be a radical idea. Gender shouldn't matter on the battlefield.
Transgender troops have been serving in our military for a very long time. They have willingly put their lives on the line to deploy in combat zones just like all other troops. They have worn the same uniform and have been held to the same standard as everybody else.
But, instead of thanking them, instead of thanking them for their service to our country, this administration wants to prevent them from serving at all.
Out of nowhere, President Trump logged onto Twitter one day and decided to ban transgender people from military service.
This rule will give us a chance to debate an amendment to change that, to reject the President's bigotry.
There is another amendment here that would prevent the President from using the 2001 AUMF to launch an attack on Iran or engage in military hostilities without explicit congressional authorization.
Now, think about this. We were, apparently, moments away from the President launching an attack against Iran--no consultation with Congress at all, no debate on this floor, no thoughtful discussion, not even a vote.
Democrats don't want war with Iran. Most Republicans don't want war with Iran. The American people certainly don't want a war with Iran.
But this President was, apparently, about to use an AUMF passed more than a decade ago to fumble us into another conflict in the Middle East. I am glad the President backed off from bombing Iran, but I am terrified about the lack of thoughtful leadership coming from this Oval Office.
I don't know what kind of mood he will be in when he wakes up tomorrow, whether he will want to go to war with a country or not, but I think we have a constitutional obligation here in Congress to make sure that we play a role as to whether or not we enter into another war as well as preventing another war.
We need to make it clear to this administration that the President cannot use an old AUMF to initiate hostilities against Iran, period. This rule is our chance. There are dozens and dozens of ideas here that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to get debated for a long time and many on our side of the aisle have tried to get debated for a long time. This rule will finally allow us to do that.
As important as they are, the importance of this rule goes beyond just the amendments. There is suspension authority included in here that would allow us to move quickly this week and pass the reauthorization of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.
How could anybody oppose that, Madam Speaker? Recently, we saw 9/11 first responders coming to the Senate and literally begging for Majority Leader McConnell to move the bill.
These people are heroes. They should never have to plead with hat in hand for the resources to help them survive.
The Senate is finally showing a willingness to move on this. So, if we pass this rule, this program could be reauthorized within a matter of days.
Passing this rule would also allow us to quickly take action on the first measure placed on the Consensus Calendar, H.R. 553, as part of the underlying bill.
This calendar was created as part of our bipartisan rules package, passed at the start of the Congress. It is a new procedure designed to expedite consideration of measures with broad bipartisan support.
Congressman Joe Wilson and Congressman John Yarmuth's bill to update the Department of Defense's Survivor Benefit Plan has well over 350 cosponsors.
Clearly, there is a lot of bipartisan support here for this legislation. Let's pass this rule and make sure it gets taken up as quickly as possible this week as part of a must-pass vehicle.
That is what this rule is all about, Madam Speaker: debating ideas and countless progressive amendments--and some amendments, quite frankly, that are very conservative that I am going to fight as hard as I can to defeat.
Moving quickly to reauthorize a program that our 9/11 first responders depend on, I think, is an absolute priority of this majority, and I hope my Republican friends will join with us in supporting this effort.
Allowing an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill to be considered on the floor without delay that benefits widows, I think, is something that hopefully will get broad bipartisan support.
So, if we pass this, we can make sure all of this happens this week.
Madam Speaker, I also want to take a moment and recognize that this underlying NDAA bill would finally confer a service medal honoring the sacrifice of atomic veterans.
It has been a long road getting to this point. The prior three House NDAA bills included similar amendment language, sometimes by near unanimous votes, but it was stripped out of conference every single time. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why.
Radiation-exposed servicemembers risked their lives for our Nation, in secret and at great personal cost. More than three-quarters of atomic veterans have already passed away, many prematurely from health problems directly related to their service.
It is past time to finally recognize their courage and sacrifice, not just with a certificate of recognition but with what they truly deserve: a service medal.
So I hope, by including this language in the base bill, it won't be stripped out as the process continues, and let's give these veterans the recognition that they have earned.
Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just say this: The underlying bill is a good bill, and Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, and their staff deserve a lot of credit for this product.
It was a bipartisan process in committee, as we heard last night in the Rules Committee. Many Republican amendments were adopted in the committee process, and I think Chairman Smith, again, and his staff deserve enormous credit for getting us to the point we are at here today.
I will say that I regret very much that the marching orders coming from the leaders of the Republican Conference are that all Republicans should vote against the NDAA bill, a bill that contains a pay increase for our troops, a bill that includes items that will protect and enhance our national security, a bill that will provide all the other things I have just mentioned.
I am sorry that the Republican leaders have decided to turn this into a partisan exercise, but they can do whatever they want.
Our job is to make sure this gets done and it gets moved forward in a timely fashion, and that is what we intend to do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just take issue with the gentleman from Georgia when he talks about this as being a partisan process. From what I understand, in the Armed Services Committee, 142 Republican amendments were accepted, 142.
And the gentleman's facts are a little bit wrong when he says it was a straight party-line vote reporting the bill to the floor, unless Ms. Stefanik and Mr. Bacon have changed parties--I hope they did--because they voted to advance it. Everybody in that committee should have voted to advance it, but they did, and they deserve credit for that.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Republican leadership is telling all their Members, vote ``no'' on the final passage of the bill, and vote ``no'' on the rule, unlike my colleagues on the Republican side when they were in charge, who would routinely ask Democrats who came before the Rules Committee and offered amendments and they would say, if we make your amendment in order, will you vote for the bill?
Well, we didn't ask a single Republican that question last night. And we made 62 Republican amendments in order. There are 94 bipartisan amendments in order, and so we didn't do that.
If this ends up being a partisan vote on the rule, that is the choice of my colleagues on the Republican side. I think there is lots and lots of stuff in here that everybody should support.
Let me just say one other thing about the Consensus Calendar. My friend from Georgia is just beside himself that we are moving forward a bipartisan idea that has over 300 cosponsors, overwhelmingly bipartisan. Oh, it is terrible that you are putting it in the rule. It is terrible, terrible, terrible.
Well, let me say, what happened when they were in charge in the last Congress. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Yarmuth introduced a bill. I think there were 290-plus cosponsors on the bill. My Republican friends couldn't even be bothered last session with giving the bill a hearing. They didn't bring it to the floor for a vote. They could have brought it under suspension. They could have had it as an amendment to something. They could have put it in a rule if they wanted to. They didn't do anything.
And now that we are moving forward an idea that has broad bipartisan support, they can't handle it. They are having a meltdown on the other side of the aisle.
Well, you are obsessed with the process when you should be obsessed with the widows who would benefit from the enactment of this bill. But that is fine. That is fine.
The whole point of the Consensus Calendar was to be able to bring bipartisan ideas that had overwhelming support to move those ideas forward, and we praise Mr. Wilson and praise Mr. Yarmuth for their leadership on this.
But to carry on about that it is on a rule, and not at all be concerned about it becoming law really kind of shows the difference in our priorities.
Let me tell you that one of the reasons why we think it is important to put it on the NDAA bill is because we think is a must-pass piece of legislation. This will go to the Senate. I mean, obviously, there will be a conference report, and there will be back and forth and there will be changes and additions and it will come back. But we know that this bill, if it passes the House is going over to the Senate, whether you like it or not. It is going to the Senate.
If we brought it up here under a suspension, it would die in Mitch McConnell's graveyard, like everything else dies over in the Senate. He doesn't give a damn about this; if he did, he would have done something about it.
So I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but, quite frankly, I think that they are unfounded; and I think that, quite frankly, this is a rule that deserves the support of not just Democrats but Republicans as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
I understand the frustration on the Republican side. They lost an election, and so they are not getting everything they want in terms of policy. Well, elections have consequences, and I will give you an example.
I oppose low-yield nuclear weapons, and I hope that that remains the policy, but we made an amendment in order that would allow them to reverse what was in the bill. I am going to fight to defeat it, but there will be a vote on that, and we will have to live with whatever the outcome is.
The bottom line is that, if it doesn't turn out your way, it doesn't mean the process is somehow partisan. That is what happens when you win elections. You don't win on every policy debate that you decide to engage in.
And let me just say one thing about the process and the procedure, because I think it is important for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to have a little bit of a fact check here.
Our friends like to point out the ratio of amendments, but that is a cherry-picked statistic that doesn't tell the whole story. To date, we have made in order more amendments, overall, than my Republican friends did when they were in charge. We have even made in order more minority amendments, to date, than the Republicans did last Congress.
By this time in the 115th Congress, a total of only 140 amendments were made in order. Of those, 89 were minority amendments. This year, we have made a total of 1,280 amendments in order. That is nine times as many amendments as my Republican friends made in order at the same point in the last Congress. And we have made in order 256 minority amendments this year, which is more than double the number of minority amendments the Republicans made in order at this point in the 115th Congress.
You want to look at the statistics, there they are. And the bill that we are about to debate, we are making in order the most amendments, ever, of any bill brought to the floor.
Now, I guess we could do better than that, but the bottom line is the most amendments, ever, are being made in order on this NDAA bill--and, by the way, on any bill; not just NDAA, on any bill.
So I know it is frustrating to be in the minority. I was there not too long ago. I know it is frustrating not to win on every vote and to be able to rig every vote as my friends did when they were in charge, but the bottom line is, in this place, the majority, whoever has the most votes, wins. So in terms of the process, I think my friends protest too much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I regret very much that the gentleman is going to vote against a measure to repeal the widow's tax, and I will just remind him again that, when his party was in control of the Congress, they did nothing on this--nothing--no hearing last session, not a thing.
We had, in our rules package, this item called the Consensus Calendar that said that, when there are measures that have 290 cosponsors or more, where there is broad bipartisan support, that the Speaker will move the bill forward, and in this case, any way she wants to with moving it forward.
The gentleman should be really happy, quite frankly, that it is attached to the NDAA bill because this is a must-pass piece of legislation. It will go to the Senate, and there will be a conference.
I hope my Republican friends have some sway with the Republican leader over there, Mitch McConnell, and would urge him not to try to gut this provision from the final version of the bill. But it will go to conference, and the Senate will have to deal with it.
The reason why I know this is a must-pass bill is because one of the amendments that is in order here is an amendment that was a request to the Rules Committee from Minority Leader McCarthy, an amendment to authorize funding to assist military installations recovering from earthquakes and other natural disasters. I don't think he would be wasting his time trying to put that in a bill that he thinks is going nowhere.
This bill is going to the Senate, and then it is going to be up to my friends on the other side of the aisle to try to help join with us in convincing the Republican leadership in the Senate to stand with the House position on this.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me say for the Record, the widows were deprived in the last Congress when my Republican friends were in control. They did nothing.
Madam Speaker, I commend Mr. Wilson and Mr. Yarmuth for their efforts on this and getting broad bipartisan support, but quite frankly, the Republican leadership failed in the last Congress. They didn't do anything, period.
We are going to do something, and we are going to make the widows proud and we are going to move this legislation forward. I hope when we do, that we can all come together and join in a bipartisan moment where we can actually point to something concrete that will help these widows.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield to me, I am happy to respond to him.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Madam Speaker, I wrote the rule on this, and we intentionally left open how the process would proceed.
We are considering this bill and, therefore, we don't need to consider it twice or three times or four times, and that is why we are shutting the process off.
So we are complying with our rule. That was the intention when we wrote it, and we are keeping our word. We are breaking nothing. We are doing what we promised.
So we are bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor, and, hopefully, it will go to the Senate and become law.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, we are bringing forward legislation to repeal the widow's tax precisely because we have this rules change, this Consensus Calendar. We are bringing it forward, and it is going to be voted on.
The Republicans, who have been in charge for 8 years previously, had done nothing in the last Congress to even hold a hearing, and we are being scolded that we are bringing forward this bill? Give me a break.
In terms of amendments, we have made nine times as many amendments as my Republican friends made in order at the same point last Congress. We have made more minority amendments in order than they did in the same period in the last Congress. In fact, we have more than doubled the number of minority amendments.
So, please, spare me the crocodile tears on the process.
They ran this place in the most closed way possible. We are doing things differently, and we are proud of that.
Madam Speaker, we have already made 439 amendments in order. That is the most for any bill ever. But Christmas is coming early this year, and we have two more. In a moment, I will be offering an amendment to the rule to make in order two additional amendments, one by Representative Dingell and one by Representative Jayapal.
They will bring our total amendments to the bill to 441. That is a new record. We believe this is the most amendments ever made in order to a single bill.
While this isn't technically an open rule, it is a pretty open rule. Amendment Offered by Mr. McGovern
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, despite the fact that the gentleman refused to yield to me earlier, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) to respond to this. Parliamentary Inquiry
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time, Madam Speaker. Enough.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We are making the most amendments ever in order for any bill that has been brought to this House floor. This is a good process. The underlying bill--the National Defense Authorization Bill--increases pay for our troops, and, as I mentioned earlier, will help repeal the widow's tax. The 9/11 bill is also a part of this package. There is no reason, other than just pure partisanship, to want to oppose this, and if my friends want to oppose it, they can.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendment printed in section 8 shall be in order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if offered by Representative Thornberry of Texas or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 8. The amendment referred to in section 7 is as follows:
At the end of subtitle G of title VIII, add the following new section: SEC. 8. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES INFLUENCED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CHINA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense may not enter into a contract with a company that is a direct or indirect subsidiary of a company in which the Government of China or the Chinese Communist Party has a controlling interest to acquire critical United States technologies.
(b) Existing Contracts.--If the Secretary of Defense has been notified that a contractor for an existing contract of the Department of Defense is a direct or indirect subsidiary of a company in which the Government of China or the Chinese Communist Party has a controlling interest to acquire critical United States technologies, the Secretary shall seek to take action, as practicable, to terminate the contract.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source