SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SPENT TIME IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
DISTRICTS FOLLOWING THE MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY.
AMONG THOSE WAS U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MCGOVERN OF
THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
A SEPTEMBER PRIMARY WILL DECIDE WHICH OF THREE CURRENT
REPUBLICAN CHALLENGERS WILL WORK TO TAKE THE POST HE'S HELD SINCE
1996. I SPOKE WITH MCGOVERN ABOUT A
RANGE OF ISSUES INCLUDING HIS POSITION ON TERM LIMITS,
IMMIGRATION, AND GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION.
BUT WE BEGAN WITH NET NEUTRALITY.
>> I THINK THE SENATE DID THE RIGHT THING, HE BASICALLY WANTED
TO PRESERVE NET NEUTRALITY, AND I THINK THE HOUSE SHOULD DO THE
SAME THING. THE CHALLENGE IS GETTING THE
LEADERSHIP TO ALLOW A VOTE. MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT
VOTE AND THAT'S FOR EVERYBODY. WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A
SITUATION WHERE IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE FOR SOME AND MORE
DIFFICULT TO ACCESS FOR SOME AS WELL.
THE NET IS FOR EVERYBODY. >> IF THE HOUSE DOESN'T GET TO
TAKE IT UP, WOULD YOU ENCOURAGE STATES LIKE CALIFORNIA TO TAKE
UP THE MATTER? >> YES, I THINK THAT MAY HAVE TO
BE WHAT HAPPENS IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DEAL WITH IT.
BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DEAL WITH THIS, AND
HERE'S A RADICAL IDEA THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PAUL
RYAN OUGHT TO LET THESE ISSUES COME TO THE HOUSE FLOOR, LET
PEOPLE DEBATE THEM AND VOTE HOW THEY WANT.
THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS ALL ABOUT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY UNDER SPEAKER RYAN'S LEADERSHIP WE'VE SEEN THE
MOST CLOSED CONGRESS IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> DO YOU REALLY THINK THIS IS THE MOST CLOSED CONGRESS YOU'VE
WORKED UNDER? >> IT IS ABSOLUTELY, AND THE
STATISTICS BEAR IT OUT. I'M ON THE HOUSE RULES
COMMITTEE, WE'RE THE TRAFFIC COP OF CONGRESS.
WE HELP USHER BILLS TO THE HOUSE FLOOR FOR DEBATE.
UNDER THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP WE HAVE HAD MORE CLOSED RULES,
IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE THAT COME TO THE FLOOR THAT ARE
UNAMENDABLE, UNDER THE MOST RESTRICTIVE PROCESSES YOU CAN
IMAGINE IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
AND THE LAST MOST CLOSED CONGRESS WAS UNDER JOHN BOEHNER.
WE NEED TO GET BACK TO A POINT WHERE CONGRESS IS A DELIBERATIVE
BODY, WHERE EVEN ISSUES THAT I MAY DISAGREE WITH ARE ALLOWED TO
COME TO THE FLOOR, WE HAVE A DEBATE AND PEOPLE CAN VOTE HOW
THEY SEE FIT. >> THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION, THE
HOUSE SEEMS TO WORK AROUND THE FACT THAT'S BEEN DIFFICULT TO
GET MATTERS TO FLOOR. SO WHETHER A DISCHARGE PETITION
MIGHT BE A WAY FOR DACA AND OTHER MATTERS TO GET TO THE
FLOOR, WHEN I LAST CHECKED, 213 MEMBERS INCLUDING YOURSELF HAD
SIGNED ONTO THAT DISCHARGE PETITION.
DO YOU THINK IT WILL GET THOSE EXTRA FIVE VOTES?
>> I HOPE SO. I HOPE WE GET TO IT.
EVEN IF WE GET THOSE NUMBERS, THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP CAN
FIND A WAY TO MUCK UP THE PROCESS, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE.
LOOK, NO MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT IMMIGRATION, AND I BELIEVE
WE NEED COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM, I BELIEVE WE
NEED TO PROTECT THE DREAMERS, I BELIEVE WE NEED TO PROTECT THOSE
WHO HAVE TPS, TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS.
>> WHICH HAS BEEN RULED BACK IN. >> RIGHT, AND NO MATTER WHAT YOU
BELIEVE, THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT WE OUGHT TO DEBATE
ON IT AND VOTE ON IT. THAT'S WHAT CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED
TO DO. WITH SPEAKER RYAN AND THE
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP HAVE BLOCKED THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES
FROM COMING TO THE FLOOR. LOOK, IF THE VOTES AREN'T THERE,
YOU KNOW, TO HELP THE DREAMERS OR TO HELP THOSE WHO HAVE
T.P.S., THEN THEY'RE NOT THERE. BUT BRING IT TO THE THE FLOOR,
DEBATE IT, AND LET'S VOTE ON IT. I BELIEVE THE VOTES ARE THERE.
I BELIEVE THE REASON WHY THEY'RE NOT ALLOWING IT TO COME TO THE
FLOOR IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW WE COULD FIX SOME OF THESE
IMMIGRATION CHALLENGES, WE CAN HELP THE DREAMERS, HELP THOSE
WHO HAVE T.P.S. FROM PLACES LIKE EL SALVADOR AND HONDURAS.
>> DO YOU THINK WERE THIS NOT A MID TERM ELECTION YEAR THAT SOME
OF THESE MEASURES WOULD BE COMING TO THE FLOOR?
>> I THINK THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS SO WORRIED ABOUT
IT THAT THE MOST NARROW ELEMENT OF ITS BASE, WHICH IS SO
ANTI-IMMIGRATION, THAT THEY'RE AFRAID TO BRING ANYTHING TO THE
FLOOR. AND IRTHINK THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE GREATEST
DELIBERATIVE BODY IN THE WORLD. SO HERE'S A RADICAL IDEA.
LET'S DELIBERATE, PEOPLE CAN DEBATE, VOTE AND WHO EVER GETS
THE MOST VOTES CARRIES THE DAY. >> TAKE US INSTEWED THE HALLS OF
CONGRESS THEN. WHAT'S IT LIKE WORKING
DAY-TO-DAY WITH COLLEAGUES? OUTSIDE OF THE CHAIRMAN BERGS
YOU'RE WALKING -- OUTSIDE THE CHAMBERS YOU'RE DEAL
BE WITH PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
DOES ANYTHING GET DONE? >> YES, WE CERTAINLY TALK, AND I
HAVE A LOT OF GREAT FRIENDS WHO ARE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE JUST AS
FRUSTRATED AS I AM OVER THE CLOSED PROCESS THAT IS ALL TOO
COMMON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
AND MOST OF THE REPUBLICANS I TALK TO ARE ALSO HORRIFIED BY
THE BEHAVIORAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR OWN BASE,
THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT PRIMARY CHALLENGES, AND AMONGST LIKELY
REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS, PEOPLE LIKE PAUL RYAN AND DONALD
TRUMP GET HIGH GRADES. I WISH, I THINK THIS IS A TIME
FOR PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THE INSTITUTION OF CONGRESS TO STAND
UP AND DEMAND A MORE OPEN PROCESS.
WE OUGHT TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND HAVE A DEBATE AND WE
OUGHT TO HAVE VOTES. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO VOTE, THEN
YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN CONGRESS. >> YOU'VE SPOKEN OUT VOCALLY
AGAINST SOME OF THE ACTIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TAKEN IN HIS
LAST YEAR IN OFFICE. BUT DO YOU THINK THERE'S
SOMETHING YOU CAN AGREE WITH THAT HE HAS DONE?
>> WELL, IT'S HARD TO THINK, AND I'M NOT BEING FACETIOUS, I'VE
BEEN SO APPALLED BY HIS PRESIDENCY
THE ONE ISSUE I THOUGHT WE OH COULD HAVE HAD COMMON GROUND ON
WAS INFRASTRUCTURE. HE SAID DURING THE CAMPAIGN HE
WANTED TO INVEST IN OUR ROADS, BRIDGES, AND RAIL SYSTEMS AND
AIRPORTS, YOU NOPE, THAT'S NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE AREA WE COULD HAVE COMMON GROUND ON.
AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET HIM TO MOVE FORWARD ON A
PROPOSAL, OTHER THAN A PROPOSAL THAT SAYS I'M FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
AS LONG AS THE STATES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES PAY FOR IT.
AND IT'S REDICK LUGS. THE --
RIDICULOUS. THATS STATES AND LOCAL BUDGETS
ARE STRAPPED, THEY NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HELP PAY
FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS. WHAT HE'S PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, I
THINK IS GOING NOWHERE, AND I THINK THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
LOOK, I'M THE TYPE OF GUY WHO HAS THIS ATTITUDE THAT WE DON'T
HAVE TO AGREE ON EVERYTHING TO AGREE ON SOMETHING.
AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE AGREE ON, WE OUGHT TO COME
TOGETHER AND WE OUGHT TO PASS. UNFORTUNATELY YOU NEED TO HAVE A
PARTNER TO DO THAT, AND THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO
BE A PARTNER. >> GUNS HAVE BEEN AN AREA THAT'S
CONTENTIOUS AND NOT MUCH HAS GOTTEN DONE, DESPITE THE FACT
THAT MAT SHOOTINGS CONTINUE TO BE A PROBLEM IN THIS PROBLEM.
YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION TASK FORCE,
ALSO AMONG THOSE TO ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE.
60 DAYS TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, ACCORDING TO THE LANGUAGE IN
THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION. WHAT WOULD YOU GET DONE IN 60
DAYS THAT YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN DONE IN YEARS?
>> HOPEFULLY TO SET A L LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT WE CAN
DEBATE AND VOTE ON AND GET SOMETHING DONE.
LOOK, I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SENSIBLE GUN SAFETY AND GUN
CONTROL LAWS. I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE IN
CONGRESS WHO BELIEVE WITH THE OPPOSITE WHO SIDE WITH THE
N.R.A. ON EVERYTHING. BUT THE IDEA THAT AT A TIME WHEN
WE ARE HAVING MASSACRES OCCUR ON A REGULAR BASIS IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, WHEN GUN VIOLENCE IS AFTER AN ALL-TIME
HIGH THAT WE CAN'T EVEN BRING A BILL TO THE FLOOR CALLING FOR
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, THAT WE CAN'T BRING A BILL TO
THE FLOOR TO BAN BUMP STOCKS WHICH TAKE, WHICH HELP YOU
READJUST SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS INTO MACHINE GUNS, I MEAN, WE
CAN'T BRING ANYTHING TO THE FLOOR?
THAT'S APPALLING. AGAIN, THIS IS THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DEBATE
IMPORTANT ISSUES, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO VOTES ON THEM.
WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE ON THE ISSUE IN ORDER TO BRING IT
FORWARD FOR A DEBATE AND A VOTE. BUT WE OUGHT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
IMPORTANT ISSUES OUGHT TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE FULL
CONGRESS. AND THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE
WAY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS BEING RUN RIGHT NOW, IT'S THE
MOST CLOSED CONGRESS IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> A FEW MATTERS HAVE GOTTEN SOME MOVEMENT IN RECENT WEEKS.
TWO PIECINGS OF BUSINESS, ONE YOU COSPONSORED, AN AMENDMENT
THAT STATED NO LAW EXISTS WHICH GIVES THE PRESIDENT TO LAUNCH A
MILITARY STRIKE AGAINST IRAN. WHY WAS THIS AN IMPORTANT MATTER
FOR THE HOUSE TO TAKE UP? >> BECAUSE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS CONGRESS HAS ABROGATED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
WHEN IT COMES TO WAR. THE CONSTITUTION IS VERY CLEAR.
AND THAT IS IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO WAR, CONGRESS HAS TO VOTE ON
IT. AND I THINK A LOT OF MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS ARE TOO NERVOUS TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES BECAUSE SOME
OF THEM WHO SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ NOW REYET IT.
AND THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION SIMILAR IN THE FUTURE.
WELL, THAT'S TOO BAD, QUITE FRANKLY.
IF YOU GET ELECTED TO CONGRESS, YOU HAVE TO TAKE A STAND.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE A STAND ON ANYTHING, THEN DO
ANOTHER JOB, BUT YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN CONGRESS.
WHEN IT COMES TO WAR, I MEAN, WE ASK THESE BRAVE YOUNG MEN AND
WOMEN TOLD ZACHARY FILINGS THEIR LIVES --
TO SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES IN FAR OFF PLACES LIKE IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN AND A THOUSAND OTHER PLACES IN THE WORLD.
AND CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE TO GUTS OR THE COURAGE TO DEBATE
AND VOTE WHETHER OR NOT THESE DEPLOYMENTS ARE THE RIGHT THING
TO DO OR NOT? SHAME ON THE INSTITUTION FOR NOT
DEBATING THESE ISSUES. I THINK THE INABILITY FOR
CONGRESS TO DEBATE ISSUES OF WAR IS AN ACT OF MORAL COWARDICE,
FRANKLY. SO THE MEASURE YOU JUST
MENTIONED MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE, WE'RE STATING ON
RECORD THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GO TO WAR IN
IRAN RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT COMING TO CONGRESS FIRST.
IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO WAR IN IRAN, WHICH SEEMS LIKE HE'S
ITCHING TO DO, NOT WITH STANDING THE FACT THAT THE IRANIANS WERE
COMPLYING WITH THE NUCLEAR DEAL, TELLS ME THAT HE'S ITCHING FOR A
WAR. AND I THINK HE NEEDS TO
UNDERSTAND IF HE WANTS TO GO TO WAR, ME HAS TO COME TO CONGRESS.
I THINK A WAR WITH IRAN WOULD BE A STUPID THING.
>> THREE OF YOUR REPUBLICAN CHALLENGERS HAVE SAID THEY
BELIEVE IN THE NEED FOR TERM LIMITS.
IF CONGRESS HAD TERM LIMITS, WOULD THAT ENCOURAGE SOME MORE
BIPARTISANSHIP OR SOME INCENTIVE TO GET WORK DONE QUICKER?
>> I THINK THAT'S A COP OUT, FRANKLY.
YOU WANT MORE BIPARTISANSHIP, OPEN THE PROCESS UP.
HAVE A MORE ACCOMMODATING PROCESS.
DON'T ALWAYS HAVE BILLS COMING TO THE FLOOR UNDER A CLOSED RULE
WHERE IT'S MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.
GIVE MEMBERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHAPE LEGISLATION WHEN HIT COMES
TO THE FLOOR, YOU'LL HAVE LESS POLARIZATION, YOU'LL HAVE MORE
BILLS THAT WILL PASS WITH A BIPARTISAN VOTE, NUMBER ONE.
TWO, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, GET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.
THE BEST WAY TO EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD IS TO LESSEN THE INFLUENCE
OF MONEY IN POLITICS. I'VE GOT TWO BILLS THAT, TWO
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD GIVE CONGRESS THE
AUTHORITY TO LIMIT HOW MUCH IS SPENT ON CAMPAIGNS, AND WOULD
ALSO MAKE CLEAR THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE,
THAT PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. BECAUSE I THINK MONEY IS THE
BIGGEST PROBLEM IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM.
AS FAR AS TERM LIMITS GO, IF I LIKE YOU, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO
ELECT YOU AS MANY TIMES AS I WANT.
IF I DON'T LIKE YOU, THEN I SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNELECT YOU IN
YOUR FIRST TERM. SO THESE ARTIFICIAL LIMITS I
THINK GO AGAINST DEMOCRACY. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE
THEIR VIEWS BE HEARD AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR VOTE
COUNT. WHY WOULD WE TAKE THAT RIGHT
AWAY FROM PEOPLE? AND THERE WAS AN INCREDIBLE
AMOUNT. TURNOVER IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. SO I'M FOR LIMITING MONEY IN
POLITICS. I THINK THAT'S THE REAL EVIL IN
POLITICS, IS MONEY. >> CONGRESSMAN JIM MCGOVERN,
THANKS FOR COMING IN. >> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.