Providing for Consideration of H.R. Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Cbdc Anti-Surveillance State Act; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Prohibiting Voting By Noncitizens in District of Columbia Elections
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is really not much to say. If you were to listen to my friend on the other side, you would think these bills are going to change the world the second the ink dries, but they are not.
This is just another week of wasted time, more of the same from the Republican leadership here in Congress that is completely out of touch with what the American people actually care about.
H.R. 192 is another GOP attempt to meddle in D.C. politics. They spend more time worrying about Washington, D.C., than they do about their own constituents.
It is astounding to me that the party that claims to care about small government and local control wants to have the Federal Government tell local leaders here in D.C. how to run their local elections.
Apparently, they are all for local control unless it is local control by Democrats--in which case, never mind.
To hear anybody on the Republican side talk about election integrity is rich, especially from a party that is filled with election deniers.
We are also here to consider H.R. 4763, a bill that provides an upper hand to the crypto industry instead of meaningfully addressing gaps in digital asset regulation.
Finally, we will meet on H.R. 5403, a bill that prevents the U.S. from exploring digital currency. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are afraid of innovation, but 130 countries representing 98 percent of global GDP are looking into digital currency. Maybe, just maybe, it is something we should look into as well.
Unfortunately, I think some of my friends on the other side want to go back to stone tablets. It is our job in Congress to address the privacy concerns, not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend like the world isn't moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, it is all stunts instead of solutions, extremism over bipartisanship, and it is really a shame. This narrow majority could have given us a chance to work together in a bipartisan way, but instead, my friends over on the other side of the aisle have pandered to their most extreme Members over and over and over again.
They let the extremists kick out their own Speaker. They let the extremists dictate the agenda on the House floor. They let the extremists take down seven rule votes since January 2023, a stunning indictment of their ability to get anything done.
Speaking of indictments, Republicans are skipping their real jobs to take day trips up to New York to try to undermine Donald Trump's criminal trial.
Republicans have no time to work with Democrats but plenty of time to put on weird matching cult uniforms and stand behind President Trump with their bright red ties like pathetic props.
Maybe they want to distract from the fact that their candidate for President has been indicted more times than he has been elected. Maybe they don't want to talk about the fact that the leader of their party is on trial for covering up hush-money payments to a porn star for political gain, not to mention three other criminal felony prosecutions he is facing.
Now, I understand why my Republican friends want to distract from Donald Trump.
They don't want to talk about how Trump had the worse jobs record since the Great Depression, how he sold out our allies and empowered our adversaries.
They bring silly things like this to the floor to deflect blame and distract from the fact that they have no real vision, just division, and no real plans to make life better for the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, I was admonished for stating the simple fact that the former President was indicted by a Grand Jury and is on trial in a court of law. That is not my opinion. It is just the truth. I have a parliamentarian inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, has the Chair determined it is unparliamentary to state a fact?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, that is unbelievable. Last week during debate, a Republican Member of this House said: ``Watch the former President of the United States being hauled into court day after day with a sham trial.'' He wasn't admonished. I just referenced the same trial, and I was.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask a further parliamentarian inquiry.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that Members of Congress can mention the trial of the presumptive nominee for President, call it a sham and question the integrity of the judge, but a reference to the mere existence of that same trial without any characterization, that is out of order?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have one last parliamentary inquiry. Is this restriction originally founded at least in part on the principle in Jefferson's Manual that ``in Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against the king is against order,'' is that what this is about? I have Jefferson's Manual here.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. So it is, in fact, based on what is in Jefferson's Manual.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump might want to be a king, but he is not a king. He is not a presumptive king. He is not even the President. He is a presumptive nominee. And I know you are trying to do your job and follow precedent, but frankly, at some point it is time for this body to recognize that there is no precedent for this situation.
* * *
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source