[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 10, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5314-H5323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2500, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
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
[[Page H5315]]
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
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
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
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.
[[Page H5316]]
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.
Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that admonition. I promise you, you won't
have to repeat that again on my time.
I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts yielding the time.
I had a whole wonderful opening statement planned, Madam Speaker. It
was going to be our first time down here on the floor together during a
rule.
Janet Rossi, on my team, put together all the great stats and
statistics, many of which you heard my friend from Massachusetts
reference.
And then, as happens to me so often on the Rules Committee, I show up
in a good mood, I show up in a great place, and then folks just poke me
in that way that gets me going.
For my friend from Massachusetts to close with the Republicans have
turned this into a partisan exercise frustrates me to no end.
If there is one thing I have learned in my 9 years in Congress, Madam
Speaker, it is that when it comes to American national security, it
never gets turned into a partisan exercise.
I don't know how your election went, Madam Speaker, or what it was
that your constituents said to you. Mine talked to me a lot about
congressional dysfunction.
``Why can't they get anything done, Rob?''
``Why in the world can't you all get together and cooperate?''
And I always respond with the bill that we are looking at today, the
National Defense Authorization Act. I say: In six decades of working,
depending on who was in the White House, who was leading the House, who
was leading the Senate, six decades of working on National Defense
Authorization Acts that need to be passed every single year, how many
times do you think we have actually successfully gotten that done
together?
You know how that conversation goes, Madam Speaker.
``Rob, I think you guys have gotten it done once in 60 years.''
``Rob, I think it has happened 4 times, maybe 12 times.''
Madam Speaker, you know what I know, which is that, over these
decades, every single year, without fail--it does not matter who is in
the White House; it does not matter who leads the U.S. House; it does
not matter who leads the United States Senate--we come together as a
Nation to support our men and women who are standing on the frontlines
for us.
So, no, this is not a partisan exercise today, nor should it be from
the Republican side of the aisle.
But I am mystified, Madam Speaker, as to why we have taken what
should have been this continuation of decade upon decade upon decade of
bipartisanship and seemingly gone out of our way, as a new Democratic
majority, to make it partisan.
I know the policy isn't. I know the policy isn't. I can go right down
the line, man after woman, woman after man, on the Democratic side of
the aisle and find patriots who love this country and who will do
whatever it takes to defend it. That is the conversation we had in the
Rules Committee last night.
But I will take you back to my freshman year in Congress, Madam
Speaker. I came in with that rabid class of freshman Republicans, that
largest freshman class in American history. You would think, if we were
going to find partisanship, we would find it in that class.
We all came in on that big Tea Party wave, folks wanting to shake
things up, change things. Do you know what the National Defense
Authorization Act looked like coming out of committee that year?
It passed 60-1, Republicans and Democrats standing together. The year
after that, 56-5. That is what my freshman year looked like: 60-1, 56-
5, Republicans and Democrats standing together on behalf of national
security.
I don't know if you have looked at the vote from the Armed Services
Committee, Madam Speaker. I know you are familiar. It was 33-24,
straight party-line vote, coming out of committee this year.
In the Rules Committee last night up on the third floor, Madam
Speaker, we finished up about midnight. I had the chairman and the
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee there talking about all
the things that they agree on as it comes to national security, yet, to
my friend from Massachusetts' point, the marching orders came down from
somewhere that prevented them from doing what we have always done, and
that is report a bill in a bipartisan fashion.
It has nothing to do with who leads this Congress, Madam Speaker.
About 12 years ago now, when the very first woman to ever hold the
Speaker's chair took over--that would be 2007, Madam Speaker--we didn't
bring the bill to the floor under a rule in a partisan fashion. We
brought the bill to the floor under suspension.
{time} 1245
Madam Speaker, that very first bill that was passed in the Pelosi
Speakership passed 369-46 on the floor of the House; 369-46. Most of
the no votes were Democrats voting against the new
[[Page H5317]]
Democratic Speaker of the House and the national security bill; 369-46.
The year after that, the last year of the new Speakership, the year
right before I came, it passed 341-48.
Madam Speaker, I go through these big numbers to make the point that
it didn't have to be this way. We went out of our way, it seems, as an
institution, to divide on national security. I will just give you a few
of those examples.
There are 439 amendments made in order, as my friend from
Massachusetts pointed out, and I think we should celebrate that. But
again, there were 683 amendments offered, so 250 Members were shut out.
Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity, under the new Consensus
Calendar that my friend from Massachusetts referenced, to bring
bipartisan legislation to the floor.
For folks who haven't been following that, the only way to get to the
House floor is to have a committee report your bill. If committees
don't report your bill, you can't get to the House floor unless you end
up on the suspension calendar.
This new majority, this new Democratic majority, changed the rules in
what I think is an amazingly positive and productive way. What they
said is, if you bring together enough Democrats and Republicans to
support your bill, we are going to have to give you a special pathway
to the House floor for those consensus ideas that we want to celebrate
together as an institution.
Madam Speaker, my friend, Joe Wilson from South Carolina has such a
bill. It is a bill to support the widows and widowers of our fallen
servicemen and women. He has worked this bill with my friend from
Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, and this is the very first bill to have
achieved, again, this new level of excellence that the new majority
laid out. If you can bring people together we will give you a special
pathway to the House floor. You get a vote on your bill.
I might point out that my friend from California, Ms. Lofgren, did
this very same thing. She did it on a piece of immigration legislation
that I am a cosponsor of. She put together the requisite number of
Republicans and Democrats, and her bill is coming to the floor, too.
Now, her bill is coming to the floor today on suspension, stand-
alone, up-or-down vote to allow Republicans and Democrats to come
together and support that idea.
My friend, Mr. Wilson's bill, without his knowledge, without his
consultation, without his input, has been tucked into this rule, this
partisan rule, this passed-by-party-line-vote rule, to be self-enacted
into the underlying legislation.
I expressed my frustration to the chairman last night; that so often
we fail in ways that meet the very low expectations of our
constituents. This was a wonderful, positive change that Speaker Pelosi
and the new Democratic majority brought to this institution. Madam
Speaker, it is a change that I hope will be a lasting change. It is a
change that I hope will persist no matter who sits in the Speaker's
chair over the next decade upon decade.
But our very first opportunity to use it, we moved it from its
design, which was to be an opportunity to celebrate those things that
bring us together, those hard nuts that we figured out a way to crack
together, and we have turned it into yet another exercise in ``gotcha''
partisan politics.
The men and women who will be served by this legislation deserve
better than that. The men and women who serve in this institution
deserve better than that. And when the new Democratic majority was
sworn in on the first day of this Congress, they promised the American
people better than that.
Madam Speaker, today won't be the last word on this issue; but it is
the first word, and it is an unfortunate one.
I hope that my colleagues will be cognizant of this mistake that they
have made, and I hope that they will correct it before it is too late.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Trahan). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward Members of the Senate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
the Budget.
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 476, the
rule allowing for consideration of the National Defense Authorization
Act, including my amendment to, once and
[[Page H5318]]
for all, repeal the SBP-DIC offset, commonly known as the widow's tax.
I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Chairman McGovern for their
work to include my amendment in this bill. I also want to thank the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for his continued stalwart
leadership on the issue.
I got involved in this issue several years ago when I was contacted
by a constituent of mine named Ellen. She emailed me to tell me about
the unfair burden being placed on an estimated 64,000 surviving spouses
and families of the men and women of our military, forcing them to
forfeit all or part of an annuity purchased by their beloved fallen
heroes.
In the final paragraph of Ellen's email, she mentioned a First
Sergeant in the U.S. Army who suffered a heart attack during his
required physical training in 2002. That First Sergeant was her
husband.
It became clear to me that Congress' mistake more than 4 decades ago
was now negatively impacting one of my constituents, a constituent who
was already grieving the loss of her husband. And while I am
heartbroken by the reason Ellen was forced to become an advocate on
this issue, to this day I am very thankful she contacted me.
Including this provision to ax the widow's tax in must-pass NDAA
legislation is likely our only shot in this Congress to end the unfair
offset once and for all. I want to urge my colleagues to support this
rule and final passage of this bill. We have tried for years to get
this right and now we finally can.
Stand up for Gold Star families and support this rule and the
underlying legislation. The spouses and children of our fallen heroes
have sacrificed enough.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank you for that second admonition. I
did say you wouldn't have to use it again on my side of the aisle. I
can commit to you that you still will not have to issue one on our side
of the aisle.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the
ranking member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule and the underlying
legislation. This is actually a very sad occasion, I think, for the
House; it certainly is for me personally. I have never voted against a
national defense authorization in my 17 years in Congress. As a matter
of fact, most of our Members have never done that for the last 58
years, so it is pretty unusual for us to be here and we, personally,
regret that a great deal.
My concerns with the substance of the bill are many, although there
are, as my good friend from Massachusetts said, lots of good things in
there, and there was lots of bipartisanship in writing it.
But the top line number is $15 billion less than the President
requests and the Senate has already enacted in their NDAA bill. We
think that hurts readiness. We have concerns with the reversal of some
decisions, both slowing down the modernization of our nuclear forces,
and moving us away from low-yield nuclear weapons, which we think we
need to counter Russia and its current aggressive posture.
We are disappointed the bill doesn't include longstanding prohibition
against transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United
States. Those provisions were put in by a Democratic Congress in 2010.
We are sorry our friends seem to reverse a decision that they believed
in a decade ago.
And it includes a lot of restrictive policies and prohibitions on
securing the southern border, including prohibitions on funding a
border wall, fence, physical barriers. I understand there are
differences there, but I would hope we could give the executive
flexibility in that area.
Mr. Speaker, as concerned as I am about the substance of the bill, I
am very concerned about the process. I grant my friend's point that a
lot of amendments have been made in order. We could have made more. We
actually offered an open rule last night that would have made
everybody's amendments in order. It wouldn't have taken away any of the
amendments my friends wanted to put out there, but it would have
allowed everybody's amendments to come to the floor for full and robust
debate.
Now, the amendments that were made in order, 67 percent of them, are
Democratic amendments; 14 percent are Republican. We don't think that
is a fair, remotely fair ratio.
And frankly, the en bloc arrangements in which we are going to bring
many of these to the floor are even more imbalanced; basically 63
percent of those will be on Democratic initiatives; I think two are on
Republican initiatives. So we are very concerned about that. I think if
we don't stop this process, we are about to make the mistake that we
made 2 weeks ago.
Now, the Senate has given us, as it did 2 weeks ago, a different
example. They have passed a national defense authorization by a vote of
86-8, so overwhelmingly bipartisan. The President has said he would
sign their bill. The President sent us a message that the partisan bill
that we are embarking on and about to pass he will not sign; so we are
headed for a confrontation. It is a confrontation where we will produce
a partisan bill that the President won't sign. The Senate will produce
a bipartisan bill that the President will sign, and I think we know how
that story ends.
{time} 1300
So we are dangerously close to repeating the mistake we made only 2
weeks ago, and I would hope that we stop, because if we proceed down
this path, we will find ourselves in precisely the same situation we
found ourselves in with the border wall.
Now, I also want to take issue with my friend a little bit about the
9/11 issue and our friend Mr. Wilson's bill and my good friend in the
chair's bill, as well. I just want to say, putting a bill, those things
that are bipartisan, in a rule, it just literally means that our side
is not going to vote for it. It would be the same if it were your side.
You can say all you want. It was going to pass no matter what. So we
don't think this was necessary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yarmuth). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the additional time, and
I will be brief.
So it is with a great deal of sorrow--not sorrow that I oppose the
rule, because I think the rule needs to be much more open, much more
inclusive, but I hope that we can get back, Mr. Speaker--and by
rejecting this rule and rejecting the underlying legislation, we can--
to a bipartisan process where we produce a bipartisan National Defense
Authorization Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and rejection of the
underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
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
[[Page H5319]]
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts
(Mrs. Trahan), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this year's
National Defense Authorization Act. This bill addresses many critical
components of our national defense, including the urgent need to tackle
sexual assault across the United States military.
Recent years have seen significant progress towards reforming how
sexual assault claims are handled. Now it is time for Congress to
confront the conditions that allow sexual assault to happen in the
first place.
We have an obligation to protect and safeguard those who answer the
call to service and wear the uniform of the United States. It is not
good enough merely to have the best training and equipment on the
battlefield; we must also protect our soldiers on base or wherever they
are.
This NDAA includes an amendment I coauthored that does just that by
directing the Secretary of Defense to create a civilian advisory
committee on sexual assault prevention in the military. This committee
would be comprised of civilians with expertise in campus sexual assault
prevention, suicide prevention, public health, and perhaps, most
importantly, culture change of large organizations.
We absolutely can make more meaningful progress to make military
sexual assault a thing of the past. I am glad that opportunity is
reflected in the NDAA before us now. I urge support of this bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have become accustomed to your gentle
gavel in the Budget Committee, and I appreciate its gentleness here on
the floor, as well.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson),
whose bill you have been so instrumental in, as well.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia for yielding this time. I appreciate his leadership.
H.R. 553, the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act, is a bipartisan
bill with over 365 cosponsors. In fact, it is rare that a bill garners
this many cosponsors and was amongst the first to reach the new
threshold for mandatory consideration under the Consensus Calendar. I
am grateful that colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this
legislation to repeal the ``widow's tax.''
Thank you to all of the surviving spouses and advocates who have
worked diligently and tirelessly on this legislation. The bill would
have been eligible for a vote this Friday.
Instead, Democratic leadership has decided to specifically bar this
bill from independent consideration and include it in the flawed,
partisan NDAA. In fact, the rule for the NDAA specifically states:
Rule XV of the Consensus Calendar shall not apply with
respect to H.R. 553.
Democratic leadership has essentially said, if the NDAA does not
pass, the widow's tax doesn't pass.
Further, leadership has put this bill at risk of the conference with
the Senate. Democratic leadership knows that it is not included in the
Senate's version of the NDAA, and I am disappointed with the other
side.
I even offered a bipartisan amendment with Chairman John Yarmuth to
have this legislation be included in the NDAA, but they did not make
that amendment in order. Instead, Democrats placed their own amendment
in a partisan rule and are forcing the stand-alone bill to be barred
from the Consensus Calendar.
This is partisan politics at its worst. This is heartbreaking for the
65,000 military widows who have worked tirelessly and very effectively
to mobilize support behind the bill.
At the peak of their hopes that this bill would pass the United
States House of Representatives this week, leadership now has put the
bill in jeopardy. Instead of supporting our military and the military
families, including those who have died and sacrificed for this
country, the majority has chosen to violate their own rules and put the
bill in jeopardy. This tactic cheapens the efforts of these military
widows by turning their real-world plight into a partisan tactic.
A stand-alone bill in the Senate with over 365 House cosponsors would
have had a better chance of passing and sent a clear and overwhelming
message of support to these widows. Instead, we will be sending this
over in a partisan bill, almost ensuring its demise in the Senate. This
is a disservice to the widows who deserve better.
I am grateful for Ranking Member Tom Cole, who argued against making
H.R. 553 as part of this self-executing rule. He is right that this
shortcuts the process and is politics at its worse.
Our team followed the rules the Democrats set forth to have this
overwhelmingly bipartisan piece of legislation set for a vote, and they
decided to play partisan politics and remove it. Further, the Rules
Committee failed to notify my staff and even failed to notify the
community that would be most directly impacted by their actions: the
widows who have worked tirelessly to generate support for H.R. 553.
The community, inspired by veterans service organizations, gave all,
and this Congress can't even follow its own rules. It is sad how the
majority has undermined this important bill in the manner they have
done.
Barring this bill from independent consideration is outright wrong,
and I ask that each of my Democratic and Republican colleagues think
long and hard about the implications of this parliamentary gimmick.
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.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding, and I rise today in
[[Page H5320]]
strong support of the rule and underlying bill. I also want to thank
Chairman Smith for his leadership on the bill and all the members of
the Armed Services Committee for the work they put in to ensure that we
have an NDAA that fully addresses the modern challenges facing our
country.
This bill takes steps to address the threat of climate change, long
identified by the DOD as a threat to national security, by requiring
the Department to plan around climate vulnerabilities in future
projects.
This bill also protects military families. In addition to the widow's
tax issue, it protects low-income servicemembers by bridging the gap
for those who need SNAP assistance. It upgrades military housing and
provides support for childcare and education for military families.
It also promotes diversity in our Armed Forces by requiring DOD to
issue a new diversity and inclusion strategy and address existing
inequities.
This NDAA goes further to ensure that our Armed Forces are fully
ready for the threats we face today and prepared for the threats we
will face in the future.
Of particular concern to my district is the CH-47 aircraft, better
known as the Chinook. Like the residents of my district who proudly
build these machines, the Chinook is a workhorse that can always be
relied upon to get the job done, even in the toughest and most
unforgiving of conditions. This bill makes it clear that Congress has
no intention of abandoning this vital program.
On top of being one of the most versatile and crucial aircraft in our
Armed Forces, the Chinook program supports more than 20,000 jobs and
200 suppliers in 38 States. I am pleased that this program is in the
bill, and I look forward to supporting its passage.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
You see the challenges that we are confronted with here. My friend
from Massachusetts is telling my friend from South Carolina how my
friend from South Carolina should get his bill to the United States
Senate. There is no one who has worked harder on this issue than Mr.
Wilson has. There is no one whose heart is in this issue more than Mr.
Wilson's is.
{time} 1315
I hope you listened carefully to his heartfelt words, because the key
point that he made is that this really wonderful, bipartisan creation
of the new Democratic majority, this Consensus Calendar, if we pass the
rule today will be specifically turned off specifically for Mr.
Wilson's bill.
The new majority can play whatever partisan games they want to, I
wish they wouldn't, but they can, with the underlying bill by stuffing
in self-enacting amendments, by adding amendments after the fact, all
the games that majorities sometimes play, but the new rules that you
voted for, Madam Speaker, that my friend from Massachusetts brags about
on his website, rightfully so, because there were important changes in
those rules, the very first time we have an opportunity to utilize
those rules, Mr. Wilson's bill was ripened for consideration before the
House this week, it is not simply that folks have stolen his language
and tucked it into this partisan underlying piece of legislation, they
have specifically in the rule today prohibited him from availing
himself, and by himself, I mean hundreds of our colleagues and
thousands of widows that they represent, from availing themselves of
the new tool created by the new House majority this year.
I do not value the new majority's use of partisan tools in the NDAA,
but I understand that is the right of a new majority.
My friend from Massachusetts is exactly right. When you lose
elections, losing elections has consequences, but when you pass rules,
passing rules has consequences, too.
I am going to be fascinated by what happens here in about an hour and
a half when the members of the new majority are confronted with an
opportunity to turn off the new bipartisan reforms they just codified
in the House rules 6 months ago.
This should have been a day of celebrating a positive new change from
a new administration, and instead, it is a day of playing politics with
families that have already given much too much to the United States of
America.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this rule makes in order an amendment that is of great
consequence and urgency, and that amendment would require that before
the President initiated any military action against Iran, he has to
come to Congress and get approval through an Authorization for Use of
Military Force.
And make no mistake about it. That amendment is essential for our
security.
What the President did on May 8 was that he tore up the Iran nuclear
agreement, with no alternative in place. He says now his objective is a
nonnuclear Iran.
That is what we had. Our intelligence agencies confirmed that Iran
was in compliance with that agreement.
Instead, he has embarked on a policy that is bellicose in rhetoric
and ineffective in outcome.
He has torn up the agreement that was supported, not just by this
Congress, but it was supported by our allies, including our frenemies
Russia and China, and our good friends Britain, Germany, and France.
Instead, he substituted it with the maximum pressure that has met
maximum resistance, and what we see now is an enormous escalation in
danger and in rhetoric.
Madam Speaker, the most important decision that a President can make
is to recommend whether we use the awesome force of our military, and
the most important decision that Congress can make is whether to
authorize the use of military force.
Regrettably, we are operating on a stale authorization from 2001 that
has nothing to do with present circumstances.
It is on Congress if we, as Republicans and Democrats, given that
awesome power, fail to be accountable by having that vote ``yes'' or
``no'' on the authorization.
The President's policy right now is escalating the likelihood of
military confrontation with Iran. We must make certain that that cannot
be done without a vote of this Congress and every Member in it.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts is right. We have made a
lot of amendments in order in this bill today, but in the absence of an
open rule, we are never able to consider all of the ideas.
One of the ideas we have not had a chance to consider is whether or
not we should be doing business through the Department of Defense with
companies that have a direct or indirect subsidiary company that is
under the control of the Chinese Government or the Communist Party.
The ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thornberry,
has such an amendment. If we defeat the previous question, Madam
Speaker, I will offer that amendment, which does exactly that. It
prohibits the Department of Defense from contracting with any company
that is a direct or indirect subsidiary of a company in which the
Chinese Government or the Chinese Communist Party has a controlling
interest.
Now, on the list of things I would put on the common bipartisan list
of ideas,
[[Page H5321]]
not doing business with communist China would be one. We have seen that
over and over again. We are in the midst right now of ripping out
security cameras all across this country manufactured by the Chinese as
a result of a prohibition in last year's National Defense Authorization
Act.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be included
immediately prior to the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Trahan). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding and for his extraordinary leadership.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, which when
passed will include my bill, the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act, into
the NDAA.
We are long overdue to guarantee Federal workers, 2 million working
people, 12 weeks of annual paid leave to care for themselves and their
families in time of need. This builds on the Family Medical Leave Act
that had 12 weeks of unpaid leave. This provides 12 weeks of paid
leave; which families desperately need.
I painfully remember the birth of my first child and inquiring about
family leave, I was told, ``There is no leave. Women just leave.''
I said, ``I don't intend to leave. I have to work.''
They said, ``We have no leave policy. You will be the first one to
ever come back. Women are supposed to leave.''
Well, this realizes that it takes two workers usually in a family
just to make ends meet.
It is well past time that our Nation truly honors families by
offering this basic benefit for Federal workers.
Additionally, this rule brings us one step closer to honoring our
heroic first responders who risked their lives on
9/11 by allowing this Chamber to move forward with the passage of the
Never Forget the Heroes Act, which fully funds and permanently
reauthorizes the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a listing of well over 54
organizations, women's groups, and unions that are strongly in support
of the Family Medical Leave Act.
July 9, 2019.
Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations,
urge you to co-sponsor the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act
(H.R. 1534), and cosponsor and vote for the Federal Employee
Paid Leave Act amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act (Amendment 363 to H.R. 2500). The Federal
Employee Paid Leave Act would: provide 12 weeks of paid leave
for the birth, adoption or foster placement of a new child;
to care for a spouse, child or parent; for particular
military caregiving and leave purposes; and for personal
health reasons to federal workers who are eligible for job
protected, unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA).
With more than 2 million employees, the federal government
is the nation's largest employer, yet provides no paid family
and medical leave. This leaves federal workers forced to
choose between a paycheck and caring for a loved one, a
newborn or themselves. The Federal Employee Paid Leave Act
would not provide employees with additional leave time; it
would simply ensure that federal employees can receive full
pay during their 12 weeks of FMLA leave.
Paid leave would help not just federal employees, but the
entire federal government. With access to paid leave, many
individuals can remain in the workforce when they face
caregiving responsibilities. Women who take paid leave are
more likely to be working within a year after giving birth
than those who take no leave. Paid leave helps reduce
turnover, which is estimated to cost between 16 and 200
percent of a worker's annual salary.
Providing paid leave to federal workers will help the
federal government retain key employees and attract the best
workers. The federal workforce is aging, creating a retention
and recruiting crisis. In 2017, the number of full-time
federal employees older than 50 years old was nearly eight
times the number under 30. An increase in satisfaction with
family-friendly policies has been shown to reduce turnover
intention by 37.5 percent in federal agencies. Further, paid
family and medical leave is key to the federal government's
competitiveness as more top companies introduce new or
expanded paid leave policies.
Paid leave supports the health and well-being of employees
and their families. New mothers who take paid leave are more
likely to take the amount of time away from work recommended
by doctors, and their children are more likely to be
breastfed, receive medical check-ups and get critical
immunizations. When children are seriously ill, the presence
of a parent shortens a child's hospital stay by 31 percent;
active parental involvement in a child's hospital care may
head off future health problems, especially for children with
chronic health conditions, and thus reduce costs. Paid leave
also lets people help older family members recover from
serious illnesses, fulfill treatment plans, and avoid
complications and hospital readmissions. Paid leave is not
just good human resource management; it sends a message about
the value we place on family.
There is a growing consensus across the country that paid
leave is a necessity. Seven states and the District of
Columbia have passed comprehensive paid family and medical
leave programs and dozens of municipalities across the
country guarantee paid leave to their employees. Millions of
workers have filed claims in the four states that have
implemented paid leave programs, and evidence shows that paid
leave benefits both employees and employers and has high
levels of public support--84 percent of voters support a
comprehensive paid family and medical leave policy that
covers all people who work.
The Federal Employee Paid Leave Act would provide critical
support to federal employees when they need time to care--
whether for themselves, their families, or a new child. We
urge you to stand with the more than two million federal
workers and their families by cosponsoring the Federal
Employee Paid Leave Act, and cosponsoring and voting for the
Federal Employee Paid Leave Act amendment in the National
Defense Authorization Act.
Sincerely,
1,000 Days, All-Options, American Association of University
Women (AAUW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American
Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME),
American Foreign Service Association, American Psychiatric
Association Women's Caucus, The Arc of the United States,
Baby Cafe USA, Chicago Foundation for Women, Coalition of
Labor Union Women, Early Childhood Alliance, EMC Strategies,
FAA Managers Association, Family Voices, Federal Managers
Association (FMA).
First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Chain Workers
Alliance, FreeFrom, Indiana Chapter of the American Academy
of Pediatrics, Indiana Institute for Working Families,
International Association of Fire Fighters, Justice in Aging,
Kansas Breastfeeding Coalition, Laundry Workers Center, Main
Street Alliance, Marion County Commission on Youth, Inc.,
NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Active and Retired Federal
Employees Association (NARFE), National Council of Jewish
Women, National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE),
National Health Law Program, National Institute for
Reproductive Health (NIRH).
National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National Military
Family Association, National Network of Abortion Funds,
National Partnership for Women & Families, National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU), National Women's Health Network,
National Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, Senior Executives Association (SEA), Sexuality
Information and Education Council of the United States
(SIECUS), Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law,
Street Vendors Association of Chicago, Union for Reform
Judaism, Voices for Progress, Women of Reform Judaism,
Women's Fund of Rhode Island, Women's Law Project, YWCA USA,
ZERO TO THREE.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, we have a chance
today not just to ensure a vital and talented Federal workforce going
into the future, to make public service economically viable to a new
generation, but also to ensure that we can set the standards for all
workers across America.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please vote today for this rule
and the underlying bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the NDAA and the rule
and the bipartisan work that went into it.
Part of the reason I separated from the Air Force was from a lack of
sufficient childcare options.
People across our country are often forced to decide between building
their careers and building their families, and, frankly, this is bad
for our economy and for our country.
We need to be working to ensure that we attract and retain the best
possible talent for any and every job. Eighty-two percent of Americans
believe our country should be providing this, and only 16 percent of us
have it. And this should start at the top, at the Federal level.
I cannot fathom a world where any person, regardless of party, would
hesitate to understand the importance of
[[Page H5322]]
having the best and brightest people working in our government.
Our legislation addresses this core issue. No one should have to
choose between their family and career. The government should be
leading by example, and today, this legislation allows us to
effectively send a successful message to all workers: paid family leave
is an investment in all of our families.
For me, it is inspiring, and it is an inspiring moment when we see
legislation being born from unlikely bedfellows: a concern for securing
our supply chain of rare earths help fund the need for us to provide
paid family leave to all Federal workers. This is the type of
legislation my community in Pennsylvania expects from Congress, and I
am very proud to introduce it today.
Madam Speaker, I urge the support of the NDAA. I am very, very
grateful for the support and work of Congresswoman Maloney in leading
me to this and leading us to this.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I am holding the Rules of the House here
that say in rule XV, clause 7, paragraph (c), ``After a measure has
maintained at least 290 cosponsors for a cumulative period of 25
legislative days after the presentation of a motion under paragraph
(b)(1), the measure shall be placed on the Consensus Calendar. Such
measure shall remain on the Consensus Calendar until it is'' either
``considered in the House; or'' . . . ``reported by the committee of
primary jurisdiction.''
Does tucking a measure into the underlying bill, as the self-enacting
amendment does today, satisfy the (c)(1) requirement that it be
considered in the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to a hypothetical
question or interpret the pending resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield to me, I am
happy to respond to him.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, the gentleman has only yielded me 30
minutes, but I would be happy to reserve so that the gentleman can
respond.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend from
Massachusetts, I don't believe I have any further speakers remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed serving on the gentleman from
Massachusetts' Rules Committee; I confess, not as much as I enjoyed
serving on the gentleman from Texas' Rules Committee, but it is because
when you are on the Rules Committee, there are nine members in the
majority and four members in the minority.
Now, we have talked a lot of math, a lot of votes, a lot of numbers
today, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what
happens when you serve on a committee where there are nine majority
members and four minority members, and the answer is, what happens is
you lose, and you lose a lot.
That is the privilege of being in the majority. When the American
people send a new Speaker and a new majority here, that new majority
gets to craft the process however they want to.
When we crafted the process when I was in the majority, we gave the
minority more amendments than we gave the majority, and we did that
because majorities have powers as committee chairmen. They don't have
to put everything on the amendment calendar. They can tuck it into a
bill.
{time} 1330
As the roles have been reversed, again my friend from Massachusetts
is making in order a record number of amendments today. He is making in
order five times more Democratic amendments, folks who already have all
the tools of power, than he is minority Republican amendments.
Again, it is the power of the majority. They get to do that if they
want to do that. Is it fair? Well, we didn't think so. That is why we
did it differently. But if that is what the gentleman wants to do, he
can do it.
But to tuck a bipartisan measure--and I don't mean ``bipartisan''
because one Member signed onto it or two Members signed onto it; I mean
``bipartisan'' because hundreds of Members signed onto it--into a
measure that intentionally lifts one party up while putting its foot on
the throat of amendments of the other party does not constitute
bipartisanship by any stretch of the imagination.
When my friend from Massachusetts was talking about the rules
package--and he is the author of the rules package. I stipulate, no one
knows more about the rules package than he does.
His heart was in the right place when he added this new Consensus
Calendar. He said this: ``It unrigs the rules so the people's House
actually works for the people again. Americans demanded a new
direction, and this rules package will immediately usher in a new era
for this Congress.''
We are 6 months later, Madam Speaker, and we heard from the author of
the bill that is the subject of contention today. We heard from the
author, the one who has gone out to do all the heavy lifting, do all
the work to build all the bipartisanship--again, not one Member or two
Members, but hundreds of Members. He said he wanted to avail himself of
the Consensus Calendar to get a vote on the floor of the House, an
unbiased, unrigged vote because, as my friend from Massachusetts said,
the new rules package ``unrigs the rules.''
Yet, before we have considered anything else on the Consensus
Calendar this entire year--Mr. Wilson's bill is number one on that
Consensus Calendar--we are confronted with a rule today that turns off
the very provision that my friend from Massachusetts inserted in the
House rules package to unrig the process.
I don't question the motives of any Member of this institution, Madam
Speaker, and partisan motives are fair game around here. We all wish
that they weren't, but occasionally, they are.
When my friend from Massachusetts says that he has done this, this
unprecedented use of the Consensus Calendar and turning it off, he says
he is doing it so that the bill has the best chance of passage in the
Senate and becoming law by being signed on the President's desk. I take
him at his word that he means exactly that.
But I ask you, Madam Speaker, when the author of the bill, the one
who has done all the work, not just for a week, not for a month, but
for years to get this bill to a place where it can be considered by the
Senate, why in the world would we not honor his request, his wish, his
desire? Even if they are going to tuck it into this provision, why not
allow the Consensus Calendar to take its course and get him the vote
that he has worked so hard in a bipartisan way to achieve? If this
isn't about partisan politics, why not give us two bites at making this
the law of the land instead of just one?
If my friend from Massachusetts is right, and when we take a separate
vote on this bill on Friday, it just disappears into the ethos, then no
harm, no foul. But if my friend is wrong and the partisan game that is
being played today exacts a toll--and it is not a toll on us as Members
of Congress, but it is a toll on the widows of the members of our Armed
Forces--then we all know that is a game that has gone too far.
I urge rejection of this rule. Defeat the previous question, allow
our amendment, reject this rule, and allow the bipartisanship that this
new majority offered and then enacted to come to fruition for the very
first time.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H5323]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
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
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. The amendments specified in Rules Committee Print
116-23 shall be considered as though printed in part B of
House Report 116-143.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized.
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
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I am
a little confused about what has happened, Madam Speaker. Are we about
to begin a new hour of debate on a new amendment after we just finished
the hour of debate on the underlying rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has been
recognized under the hour rule.
Mr. WOODALL. Under the new hour, Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has been recognized under the
hour rule on his amendment.
Mr. WOODALL. Well, then I would ask my friend from Massachusetts--I
only had 6 minutes to yield before, and I confess I did not yield any
of them to my friend. The gentleman now has 60 minutes--could I ask for
more than a minute of his time, the customary 30 minutes?
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.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________