Gaveltogavel coverage. War powers resolution, fisa reauthorization, and a repeal of President Trumps 2017 travel ban. Ker pro tempore the house will be in order. The prayer will be offered by guest chaplain reverend jonathan slavinskas, st. Bernards church of our lady of providence parish worcester, massachusetts. The chaplain eternal lord we come to you with thanksgiving from the many pleasings you bestow upon us. We thank you for our faith, freedom and nation. We rejoice living in a nation that provides us with the opportunity to freely elect the men and women in this assembly who are guiding our nation. Our prayer through the members of this assembly through its unique gifts and talents that you have bestowed upon them and would he haven championing the common good within all our nation. We pray in moments of disagreements and debates, an authentic understanding and Mutual Respect might be witness to the gift of collaboration, for promotion of the common god. We pray for your blessings to come forth and we pray for all of those who have been affected by illness and disease and comfort in this time of uncertainty. We pray for all of this in your name, amen. The speaker pro tempore the chair has examined the journal of the last days proceedings pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, he journal stands approved. The chair has examined the journal of the last days proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . Pursuant to clause 1 of rule one i demand a vote on the approval of the speakers journal. The speaker pro tempore a vote s being requested. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The journal stands approved. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. The pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy i pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Mcgovern, is recognized for one minute. Mr. Mcgovern madam speaker, i today to welcome to the house floor my dear friend, who r jonathan slavinskas, offered todays opening prayer. Ather jonathan, as most of his parishioners call him, is the Bernards Church church of our lady of providence parish in worcester. Police chaplain for worcester, auburn, and south bridge. Jonathan so ther extraordinary is his complete devotion to bettering the lives of his parish community, especially the young people. E hosts a Halloween Party for hundreds of neighborhood kids for a safe place to go trickortreating. Abound for his little acts of kindness, those or on the church steps opening up the gym for youth basketball games or making it a point to walk around the say hi. Hood and simply madam speaker, father jonathans compassion and his commitment to welcome at one feel st. Bernards no matter who they are is truly remarkable. To us all. Piration i yield back my time. The speaker pro tempore the chair will entertain up to 15 oneminute speeches on each side of the aisle. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . Unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, madam speaker. Life today to honor the of my dear friend, ron, a pillar f the Rochester Community who passed away on february 28. As head of the local carpenters in ron chester, monroe ounties building trade, he dedicated himself and his lifes work to improving the lives of working people everywhere. Community is a better, more equitable place because of his ireless commitment to advocating for social change. Rons work will continue to open doors for people in our for generations to come and i am so proud to have friend. E to call him my i join all of rochester in mourning his loss and extend my deepest sympathies to the family. Thank you, madam speaker. The speaker pro tempore for does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition . Madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, madam speaker. I am grateful for President Donald Trump for focusing for and health of American Families since the beginning of his administration. Did ilson not only President Trump immediately take action to address the ban, virus with a travel he has increased funding for important disease, research, and since he ss efforts first took office. President trump is focused on a hole of government approach in combating the coronavirus by ensuring state, local, public, and private officials are keep families safe. E has made the swift decision to appoint Vice President mike ence head the Coronavirus Task force who is skilled as a voice for this important service. Ince President Trump was elected, the administration has increased funding for the ational institute of health by 39 , the center for disease ontrol by 24 , the balanced Biomedical Research by 35 , trategic National Stockpile by 32 , Infectious Disease response by 70 . This administration is committed families safe while preparing our country for outbreaks. In conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget eptember 11 and the global war on terrorism. The speaker pro tempore for the purpose does gentlewoman from the virgin seek recognition . Ms. Plaskett i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Ms. Plaskett thank you, madam speaker. We approach april, you will begin to hear more and more about the census. Most importanthe count of people in our country. Esponsible for allocating nearly 800 billion in federal funding and takes place only one decade. By standing up and being counted in the 2020 census, youre your state or territory has access to funding it needs departments, re health care, roads, and many other vital programs. Ou dont need to be an inventor, a doctor, or even a member of congress to shape the future of your community. By being in the 2020 census, you will help inform funding for programs and roads in our community. E all count and we all get to shape our future by participating in the 2020 census. You can make a difference in the and respond s year to the census online, by mail, or by phone. Counted this april. I yield back. For peaker pro tempore what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . To ask unanimous consent address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, madam speaker. China considers the United States their biggest threat on search for global dominance. Mr. Lamalfa chinas recent rise s being enabled by institutional and individual investors in the United States, including federal and state Pension Funds like the t. S. P. And another from california. Entities, chinese which are receiving american investments, are engaged in activities that violate u. S. Law hurt our National Security interests, especially our military. Telecoms social redit score system and the oppression of the uighurs, which the house voted to condemn earlier this year. Public pension should not be allowed to become a new funding vehicle for communist china, threat to s as a current and retired federal and state employees for unknowingly their aggression against u. S. Interests. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman rom North Carolina seek recognition . I rise for one minute to address the house and to extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is minute. Ed for one thank you, madam speaker. 8, sergeant march diego and captain ruiz lost their life in central iraq. Marines and assigned to the second marine battalion, ops command, which is located at camp lejeune in eastern North Carolina in my district. They were both killed in action while supporting iraqi forces and clearing out a tunnel of fighters. Given the coronavirus situation, it is easy to lose the sight of sacrifices of our Service Members and families, but we cannot nd we absolutely allow this condition to make us orget our men and women in uniform here and abroad. The death of these two brave reminder e a somber that our Service Members and their family members sacrifice us each and every day no matter the circumstances in peace and freedom. Are withts and prayers arms and hers in especially their families and loved ones. Thank you, madam speaker. Yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman recognition . Seek i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute nd to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Today to recognize rossroads quartet for their 60th anniversary of vocalizing southern gospel music throughout kentucky and other states. In 1960 in russell springs, kentucky, this fine group of constituents has now within the music orld for 60 done secretary tiff consecutive years. Mr. Comer they have touched and while some of the names and faces have changed, the Inspiring Mission of crossroads quartet has a constant. Today, Founding Member bernie, brian, dave, and randy continue to fulfill the original crossroads quartet. Im proud to be their voice in washington and confident that ministry will be active for many years to come. Heir decades of contributions are certainly deserving of recognition by this entire body. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman recognition . Ek madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to remarks. D extend my the speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Olson madam speaker, i rise oday to invite the entire congress and all my fellow texans, especially my neighbors 22 to the biggest texas 2020. Irthday party of is pure ure to my left 35 years old ing this year. Citizens at brookwood with mental, physical real job are taught skills. Pride, infused with love. Orth, and christian yvonne. Tarted by her 1yearold daughter vicky had severe brain damage. Mission. D a from her backyard to churches to current two campuses with 230 citizens, burkewood is texas their citizens in day. R every single their official Birthday Party is a. M. 3 at 11 00 he burkewood cafe, if you want a belly full of food, come see us. Back. D the speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Does the urpose gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition . Mr. Thompson madam speaker, to est unanimous consent address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is minute. Ed for one mr. Thompson thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, i rise today to life of mrs. Bonnie cwarder duval who recently lost 61ers tle with cancer at into of age. She was the matriarch of a from farm family greensboro, georgia. She was a member of the green bureau, mother of four, and wife of zippy. Enjoyed traveling the country to meet with our years. S farmers over the bonnie is no longer suffering. Its of Great Sadness she was family and her friends far too soon. I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to zippy and rest of the duval family during this difficult time. They are and will continue to be prayers. Thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . I request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Today i rise to recognize the 33rd anniversary of National Developmental disabilities awareness month. This important commemoration serves awareness and promote respect for those with intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and highlighting the importance of inclusion. It estimated there are over 4. 6 million individuals in the United States and quarter million individuals in north texas alone with intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Texas 3rd Congressional District is the home to incredible organizations including cornstone ranch, and lifetime systems. I recognize the staff and volunteers serving as advocates for individuals to realize their full potential. I ask my colleagues in the house of representatives to join me in thanking these organizations recognizing those with Developmental Disabilities. Yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition . Mr. Mcgovern by direction of the committee on rules i call up h House Resolution 891 and ask for its immediate consideration. The clerk house calendar number 6, House Resolution 891, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution, s. J. Res. 68, to direct the removal of United States armed forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of iran that have not been authorized by congress. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on Foreign Affairs, and, two, one motion to commit. Section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speakers table the bill, h. R. 2486, to reauthorize mandatory funding programs for historically black colleges and universities and other minorityserving institutions, with the Senate Amendment thereto, and to consider in the house, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the committee on the judiciary or his designee that the house concur in the Senate Amendment with each of the two amendments specified in section 4 of this resolution. The Senate Amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except as specified in section 3 of this resolution. Section 3, a, the question of adoption of the motion shall be divided between the two house amendments specified in section 4 of this resolution. The two portions of the divided question shall be considered in the order specified by the chair. B, each portion of the divided question shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. Section 4, the amendments referred to in the second and third sections of this resolution are as follows, a, an amendment consisting of the text of rules Committee Print 116 52. B, an amendment consisting of the text of rules Committee Print 116 53. Section 5, if only one portion of the divided question is adopted, that portion shall be engrossed as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Senate Amendment to h. R. 2486. Section 6, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h. R. 6172, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to prohibit the production of certain Business Records, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence, and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Section 7, on any legislative day during the period from march 13, 2020, through march 22, 2020, a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved, and, b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article i of the constitution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. Section 8, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 7 of this resolution as though under clause 8a of rule i. Section 9, each day during the period addressed by section 7 of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of rule 15. Section 10, it shall be in order at any time through the calendar day of march 22, 2020, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15. The speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. Section 11, the requirement of clause 6a of rule xiii for a twothirds vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of march 23, 2020. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one hour. Mr. Mcgovern for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the the gentlewoman from arizona, ms. Lesko pending such time such time i may consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. All members may be given five legislative days to revie and extend their remarks. On monday, the rules reported a rule House Resolution 891 providing for consideration of Senate Amendment and h. R. 6827. The rule provides for consideration of two house amendments to the senate which contain the text of the no ban act and the access to counsel act and provides for consideration of s. J. Ress. And itone hour of debate also provides the joint resolution with one motion to recommit. The rule provides for one deration of h. R. For hour of general debate controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members on the committee on judiciary and committee of intelligence. This selfexecutes amendment to h. R. 6172 and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam speaker, we are now three years into a toll si that is opposite of what this country stands for, the president s shameful and unamerican muslim ban. Resident trump chose Holocaust Remembrance Day to sign the executive order. That shut the door to very people who had seen america as a beacon of hope and trying to build a better life. Instead this administration turned its back on its women and children and families desperate to escape violence. Thats callous. Thats wrong. And it goes against everything america is founded on. President trump has claimed his muslim ban is all about National Security. Lets be honest here, it was never about that. It is about a president trying to fulfill offensive Campaign Promises and further his harmful rhetoric against muslims. Donald trump said he would look at closing mosques in the United States. He floated the idea of creating a data base of all Muslim Americans and he even suggested that muslims in america were cheering as the World Trade Centers fell on september 11. What an ugly, ugly thing to say. I can go on and on and on. This is truly offensive stuff, ideas that should be left somewhere in the darkest corners of the internet. Then in december of 2015, he called for, quote, a total complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States junk quote. This ban is his attempt of turning that Campaign Rhetoric into policy however cruel and unnecessary. My colleagues, representative chu, jayapal and rose wrote in a recent op ed piece and i quote, that means more grandchildren who will never be able to kiss their grand parents, more loved ones unable to say goodbye at a funeral or a graduation where there are no proud parents cheering for them and families making impossible decisions under the most trying circumstances, unquote. I have met people impacted by the muslim ban. People like a Chemical Engineering student getting his degree at Worcester Polly tech nick institute in my home district. He is an iranian national. He had a visa but no airlines were willing to sell plane tickets ta would allow him to return to the United States. Like many other people across the globe, he was stranded. My office worked with School Officials and the aclu every day until he was able to return home to the United States a week later. This is who the president is afraid of, a bright young man trying to study at a top american university. He is one of the one of 135 Million People impacted. This isnt about crafting sound National Security policy. This is about something much more sinister. Not shown by the fact the president kept drafting versions of his muslim banful it passed with conservatives on the Supreme Court. Even they required the administration to grant waivers proving the ban had a legitimate National Security interest. Yet, the state department has approved just 10 of all waivers so far, just 10 . Madam speaker, does this president really believe that 90 of muslims from impacted countries are terrorists . There is absolutely no evidence of that. And it gets worse. According to reports, this administration is now considering expanding its travel ban to even more countries. Enough is enough. Our country already had one of the strongest vetting systems anywhere in the world. We dont need any arbitrary and offensive bans. We can tell the difference between a real threat and a student traveling back to college. Thats why this underlying measure will reverse the bans the president has put in place over the last three years and will ensure people at ports of entry can seek legal advice during the screening process. The principle that our diversity is our strength and the idea that our country is strengthened by immigration, these are core values of this democratic majority. Thats why we have made this a clear choice and provided a clean up or down vote, no stalling tactics or partisan gimmicks and i think its an appropriate process because i want to prevent ugliness being celebrated here on the house floor. The stations rhetoric and so many people i here on this floor have demonized immigrants. Its offensive. And its not worthy of a debate. Either you believe we are a nation defined by the statue of liberty welcoming immigrants or one that uses illegal immigration decisions. This is an easy call. Also included is a reauthorization of the u. S. A. Freedom act as well as a war powers resolution led by senator kaine authorizing the use of force before the president escalates hostilities in iran. This democratic majority promised to take it up if it passed the senate and im proud that it did with broad bipartisan support. This is not a partisan measure. Eight republicans joined with the senator in supporting this war powers resolution. Assage here would send the kaine resolution to the president s desk. I dont support the fisa reauthorization bill. I appreciate the bipartisan work that went into trying to fashion a compromise and in the final analysis i in good conscience can support it. This is a historic opportunity, congress has the chance to reassert its Constitutional Authority over matters of war and peace, to live up to its article one responsibility and respect our troops by giving them the debate on the future that they deserve should tensions with iran escalate again. I urge a strong vote for this rule and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. Mrs. Lesko thank you. Thank representative mcgovern for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i yield myself such consume. May madam speaker, the rule before today, the Senate Amendment contains the text of two pieces of legislation, and h. R. 5581, along version of the affordable prescriptions for atients act of 2019 as a payfor. S. J. Res. 68, are resolution to direct the removal armed United States forces from hostilities against iran, amic republic of nd h. R. 6172, the u. S. Freedom reauthorization act. These bills all of together, democrats have the minority, meaning the republicans, the ability to motion to recommit on the floor. The only thing i can think of is i guess theyre afraid that we m. T. R. As our seventh we passed one last week. 2214 eviscerates the president s ability under the who may legally enter the United States. Utilized trump has existing law to determine which to meet fail International Standards of or identity haring a high risk of the rism or concerns and executive orders he issued reflected that determination. To majority is now seeking prevent the president from ever again. Hat authority the bill terminates the xecutive orders currently in place and ceases, i quote, all ctions taken pursuant to any proclamation or executive order by the bill, which eans that all information sharing on terrorists, criminals, and other security cease. Would the seven countries specifically travel with order tions in skouf 13769 were actually countries congress determined by and the Obama Administration to of particular concern on terrorism activity. Bill contains onerous reporting and consultation would ments that effectively prevent the president from acting quickly in event quick action would be needed. 2214 requires r. The ltation between only secretary of state and the security. Of homeland however, this does not cover many emergencies the president to. S to respond for example, in the event of a outbreak, including the ovel coronavirus, the centers for Disease Control would need to be consulted with respect to entry of certain populations. He combined rule also includes h. R. 5581. This legislation would require of homeland t security to ensure that every subject to hos secondary inspection would be counsel or ccess to anyone of their choosing within hour. This definitely would have practicalgistical and consequences for c. B. P. s ability to quickly and andciently screen travelers carry out the mission of acilitating unlawful trade and travel. Million nducts over 17 secondary inspections each year. An you imagine that for every withint a c. B. P. Officer either looking at a screen when theres the xray machine of the to the they radio over c. B. P. Officer at the port of in the d say, hey, look truck, that theyd have to wait the personhave if objects and says, oh, i want counsel or i want my relative to come within an hour, i mean, this is just way onerous. This combined rule also contains a resolution to direct the removal of the United States armed forces from against the Islamic Republic of iran. That first, i want to note the that secretary pompeo testified in front of the House Affairs committee that we are not engaged in against iran. Hus, the joint resolution is unnecessary. While congress has a constitutional duty to authorize military force, we should not be issuing blanket taking the without time to develop an appropriate use of ation for the military force for the middle east. The bill may of make many Counterterrorism Operations in the middle east illegal. Rather than handcuffing our forces, we should be providing them with the tools effectively combat terrorism against america and abroad. S lastly, this rule contains h. R. U. S. Freedom reauthorization act. Expiring reauthorizes provisions necessary to defend while also tates including significant reforms to the foreign intelligence to restore act accountability. That past ensure fisa abuses, like those against again,page, never happen numerous reforms are included to protect the American People from both terrorist threats and government overreach. Bill requires e the attorney general to transmit ules to ensure that fisa applications are accurate and complete. He attorney general would also be required to approve in writing a fisa investigation of elected official or federal candidate. Will now fisa court transscribe hearings with with d. O. J. Arings transcribe hearings with d. O. J. To ensure we conduct oversight and creates a new Division Within d. O. J. That specifically a Compliance Officer that will specifically look at these fisa to make sure they are accurate. Although i am pleased with much bill, its reform unfortunate its included with a rule, other bills in this controversial bills that i dont like. Therefore, i urge opposition to and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the entlewoman from arizona reserves. The gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern madam speaker, i ield myself such time as i may consume. Idam speaker, for the record, want my colleagues to know that instances and instances like the coronavirus are already covered by the legislation. Bill prohibits the president from using 212f to under section contain the coronavirus. This bill allows the president of a class he entry of individuals if it is determined that they would publicne the security or safety of the United States or the preservation of human processes, oratic nstitutions or international stability. Out of an abundance of caution, the Judiciary Committee added a clause on page 7 of the bill of the no ban act which clearly states that the safety includes fforts necessary to contain a communicatable disease of public ealth significance as defined in title 42 code of federal regulations. With s has nothing to do coronavirus. We are we are taking action this bill basically to end the president s discriminatory travel bans. Say, im o just uoting from a letter from the aclu. I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter from the aclu be in the record. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Mcgovern i want to easily point out, i agree here, there long history in the United States of inaccurate connections etween health risks and immigrants, which has resulted in irrational immigration policies and discrimination. We are not interested in repeating the mistakes of our past. To restrictions related coronavirus, such as those regarding china and iran, must public in science and health, not politics or xenophobia. Idea to actually base some of these decisions on science. Know, we know that this administration doesnt have any regard for science. I would also, madam speaker, unanimous consent to insert in the record a Washington Post article hates d i think islam us a timeline of trumps omments about islam and muslims. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Mcgovern madam speaker, he president s comments and tweets about muslims are truly, truly offensive. Could list everything he said here today, but its a long, long list. I think repeating those words would be a mistake. Of use they are unworthy this floor. President trumps muslim ban unfortunate ad and history of policies that used Immigration Law to target people their backgrounds. I mean, weve had policies in ur history that targeted immigrants from china, japan, asia, laws that qualified people for ite dissent naturalization at the expense of everyone else. Wrong. Olicies are they are shameful, and they went gainst everything this country stands for. So President Trumps muslim ban them, in ght beside the dust bin of history as well. With that i reserve my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. The gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. Thank you, madam speaker. I yield four minutes to my good representative cole, from the great state of oklahoma. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Much, e thank you very madam speaker. I want to thank the gentlelady, forood friend from arizona, yielding time. Frankly, i want to associate myself with her remarks about legislation. G my remarks, madam speaker, will which thehe manner in bills that are before us are being brought to the floor. Frankly very disappointing, madam speaker, this even needs to be said. Consequences grave of what the majority is proposing to do procedurally, i todays rule strongly enough. And todays measure, what the amounts to proposing a de facto change to the house rules. The hat will trample on rights of the minority and deny any opportunity to amend the floor. The rather than bringing up the two standaloneitems as bills that they actually are, has instead chosen the procedural gimmick of using house bill to d package these items together. This has the same effect of minority the more than 100yearold right to make recommit, or m. T. R. , as theyre commonly known, passage. Ving to final this is because, under house rules, the minority is not m. T. R. On offer an any house measures that have been amended by the senate. Theourse, for the majority, denial of the minoritys traditional rights to an m. T. R. The whole point of this procedural exercise. Hese underhanded procedural shenanigans are specifically intended to deny the minority on these to an m. T. R. Bills. And before my friend, the chairman, responds with a number times a republican majority used this procedure, let me be as he knows, we never, never did that as a means the minority an m. T. R. In fact, we did it in consultation with the minority with the sole goal of accelerating passage of key ipartisan legislation in the senate. So why does the democratic ajority insist of these procedural gymnastics . I can think of only one reason because the majoritys embarrassed that the minority has now passed an m. T. R. Six imes in this congress, including one just last week. Madam speaker, this is now the past six e in the weeks that the majority is explicitly adopting a procedure deny the minority our rights. Is i think that if the majority is really so rightened of the motion to recommit and they really want to do away with m. T. R. s, then the they should n change the standing rules of the happen d that needs to on the house floor so everyone can see what the majority is it ally doing and how operates. When republicans were in the majority, the thought of imiting the use of the m. T. R. To silence minority voices never once crossed our minds, and we recognized the importance of the m. T. R. To this institution. The very around since beginning of the institution and been in the present form since 1909. Representative9, Abraham Garrett of tennessee noted that, quote, the motion to is regarded as so sacred its one of the few against the ted committee on rules by the general rules of the house, unquote. Evidently, not anymore. The present majority is not content and trying to run end around the house rules and adopt a procedural gimmick to stop the minority by exercising its right to an m. T. R. It is shocking that the majority would feel the need to rig the entire system to shut us up. You have a 35seat majority. But we know why that is, its because the majority cannot effectively defend its own policies. Ms. Lesko i yield an additional 30 seconds. Mr. Cole i thank the gentlelady. And so today, madam speaker, i call on all members to vote no on this rule. I ask my colleagues regardless rigged reject this process and protect the rights of every member of this chamber. The future of the institution depends on it. And i yield back. Ms. Lesko i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from arizona reserves. The gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern i want to yield myself as much time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern i have high regard for my Ranking Member, mr. Cole, and i know i both share enormous respect of this institution, but im going to say for the record that this process that we are using is not unusual. It is a process that was used by republicans numerous times during their majority including 15 times during the past two Republicanled Congress to send bills over to the senate for their expedited consideration. And i will say with respect to the gentleman, he mentioned we were consulted about these processes in the past, i was never consulted on when the republicans used this process. In fact, i remember a time when the republicans basically hijacked a democratic bill to attach something to it without even consulting the sponsor of the bill. So, im not sure what the gentleman was alluding to. But, look, and i dont know what my friends intentions were when they utilized this process and i cant speak to the molet motivations of the Previous Party but i can speak to the impact. Each time this was used by the republican majority, the democratic minority was unable to offer a motion to recommit. And republicans used this process 15 times over the past two congresses. And so i get it. My republican friends want to try to pportunity politicize this debate even more around immigration. But i want to remind everybody why were here. The offensive things that this president has said about muslims is unconscionable. These travel bans serve no purpose other than to discriminate against muslims and people from predominantly muslim countries. President trump issued the travel bans under the guise of National Security but we know what they are about. They fulfill trumps offensive Campaign Promise calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States. Unquote. Those are the president s words. These bans have a real impact on peoples lives and affected more than 135 million individuals. That is why we are debating whether to term fate the travel bans and to stand up against discrimination and hate without any distractions, without any political gimmicks. And i know my friends are not happy with that, but we are going to do the right thing and going to stand up to hate and bigotry and discrimination and we are going to move this legislation forward and everybody will have an upordown vote. I reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. Ms. Lesko before i yield time to my friend, i want to point out again that mr. Cole has been a here a long time and when he says to the public on the floor that when republicans used this process of combining the rules or the bills together in a rule, that it was to expedite it over to the senate, i believe him. And so i believe that your motivation is different, and that is to prevent the minority from having a motion to recommit. With that, madam speaker, i yield 10 minutes to my good friend, representative from georgia, congressman woodall. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Woodall i thank my friend from arizona for yielding. I want to stipulate, madam speaker, i have seen the gentleman from massachusetts, the leader of our committee do some things on that committee that no one else has tried to do. I was in this institution for a decade as a chief of staff and decade as a member of congress and he has done some Amazing Things that will serve this committee, not just this congress but next congress and decades for to come. I applaud for pushing those initiatives forward. But today, madam speaker, we are talking about the exact opposite side of that. Things done in the name of expediency today that will do damage to this institution not just this congress and next congress, but for decades to come. Habits happen in this institution. Habits happen. My friend from massachusetts used to work for a great leader in this institution. His picture hangs on the wall as former carme of the rules committee. I used to work for a great member of this institution, mr. John linder out of the great state of georgia. He also served on the rules committee. As we come down to the floor today for my friends on the majority to defend for the second time in six weeks taking away the minoritys right to have any input on the process whatsoever, i thought i would go back 20 years from today, back to the year 2000 when the gentleman from massachusetts former boss and my former boss stood in these very same chairs. At that time, republicans were in the majority. I go back to october 3 of 2000, when mr. Lindor took to the floor and says the rule provides the motion to recommit as is the right of the minority. Republicans could jam anything to jam through but it was the right of the minority to have at least a final voice and final opportunity to amend the bill. Later, the a week rule provides for one motion to recommit as is the right of the minority. Again, madam speaker, october 19, that same wear, a week after that, mr. Lindor and mr. Moakley on the floor again, the rule provides for a motion to recommit as is the right of the minority. We go a right after that, same two gentlemen on the floor, same republican majority in charge, mr. Lindor on the floor, resolution, that is the right of the minority. Week after that, motion to recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority. Ill go on and on and on because 20 years ago, it was not a question of whether or not the minority would have a single voice. Remember, these bills that the gentleman from massachusetts is talking about, these immigration bills went through committee, no republican amendments were adopted. Went to the rules committee. No republican amendments were made in order. No minority input on the bills he is talking about. There is so much more in this underlying bill, but 20 years ago, the habit was we would recognize that the minority has a right. I dont even need to go back 20 years. I serve on the select committee on modernization. That is a Bipartisan Committee here in the house that is designed to look at the current rules and organization of the house and talk about how it is that we can do better. I dont have to go back 20 years. I can go back to last year, march 13, 2019, a press release from the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, on the remarks that she made in front of that joint select committee looking at modernizing the institution and she says, some people have talked about changing the motion to recommit. But she says i am a big respecter of the rights of the minority and the congress of the United States and i believe as speaker of the whole house that initiatives you put forward must come from the whole house. We are looking how to make the motion to recommit better. Ill take us to a prescription drugs bill a few short weeks ago where the minority traded its right away of the motion to recommit in favor of a meet substitute, lets debate the issues. The motion to recommit that passed last week that said lets not allow violent convicted criminals to serve as t. S. A. Agents. This is what the majority of protecting america from or amendments from the minority that would protect t. S. A. Employees from working side by side with violent convicted felons. This isnt an adversarial idea, but we agreed on which is why it passed with great bipartisan support. You never know when the bad habits you get into are going to stick. I take you back to a time my friend, mr. Mcgovern, and Ranking Member mr. Cole were on the floor just three short years ago and my friend from massachusetts said this. Mr. Speaker, i have nothing but the highest respect for my colleague from oklahoma, mr. Cole, and i know he wants this house to run better. But the fact of the matter is i feel bad that he has to defend is lousy restrictive indefensible process. Thats our job on the rules committee sometimes. And i want to say to my friend from massachusetts as he said to my friend from oklahoma. I have nothing but the highest for my colleague from massachusetts and i know he wants this house to run better. But the fact of the matter is, i feel bad that he has to defend this lousy restrictive indefensible process. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from arizona reserves. The gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern let me say for the record, nobody is changing m. T. R. We are using a process that my republican friends used over a dozen times in the past in the last congress. So yes, the rules committee has an obligation to try to patriotic sure that we bring important legislation to the oor in a fair and reasonable process. And we are doing it. But we also have an obligation i prefer not to be interrupted. I will yield to the gentleman let me yield to the gentleman because you keep interrupting me. Mr. Woodall i dont think it as interrupting. I apologize. I think of it as alouis dating. This process has been used before, just not for this purpose, which is why politico ran a newspaper article mr. Mcgovern i reclaim my time sm the result when my friends used this process is the same. We were not allowed to offer an m. T. R. When you utilized this process. And so i just state its just a fact. But rules Committee Also has an obligation and i believe everybody in this house has an obligation to stand up against bigotry and hate and racism and religious discrimination. And that is what these underlying bills deal with. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a february 16 guardian article saying trump is deciding who is american and travel ban is tearing families apart. It is cruel and tearing families apart. That includes veterans who have served our nation, some of them were in the process of bringing their families to america when this policy came down. Now they worry their loved ones may never be able to join them here in the United States all because of a completely arbitrary muslim ban. One veteran said, as a soldier, i understand the need to protect the country but to completely shut the doors, its just plain wrong, end quote. These veterans arent trying to endanger our country, they put their lives on the line to protect it. But this is the kind of reallife impact we are saying sm the president ban is separating loved ones including those who have served this country on the battleful. Its time to say enough. My friends like to talk about how they support our troops and veterans. Well, i mean this policy is adversely impacting so many of our veterans. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a february 2, New York Times article entitled new u. S. Ban shuts door on nigeria. The president s travel ban is not about National Security. Its about targeting immigrants from predominantly muslim countries. In 2017, the president should a executive order that banned muslims from seven muslim countries. This year, he expanded the travel ban to six more countries. This is affecting 3 Million People and countries where the Muslim Minority is facing a genocide, genocide, madam speaker. This administration is closing country. N the very that is not an American Value and we need to act to defend our values. Im going to hold that for now, madam speaker. I just i just point out i want to point out to my colleagues that what is in place right now, what this white house has done i think by any objective or reasonable measure is wrong. It reflects badly on who we are as a country. It is not just, it is not fair, it is so wrong. We all, i dont care what our political persuasion may be, dont care whether you support the president and his reelection bid or not. We have to do whats right for our country. This is doing great damage to who we are. It represents the kind of close mindedness and kind of bigotry that we should all be fighting against. I hope my friends will vote for the rule and vote for this legislation. I reserve my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. The gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. Mrs. Lesko thank you, madam speaker. I yield a minute to my friend mr. Mccarthy, leader mccarthy, i yield one minute to the leader mccarthy, thank you. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Mccarthy i thank the gentlelady for yielding. I apologize if i jumped ahead in ny way, shape, or form, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Madam speaker, with all that is going on this week, democrats have still found time for their favorite pastime. Voting on partisan legislation that would actually make our country weaker. Democrats could not have picked a worse week to try to undermine American Travel restrictions. President trumps quick decision to restrict travel to countries like iran and china, that was smart. It was a smart response and helping to keep america safe. The president s actions then and now are clearly within his rights. But today i want to talk about the rights of this congress, of this body and how democrats want to take those away. For the second time this congress, the house is considering two important pieces of legislation by attaching them to completely unrelated shell vehicles, thereby preventing the minority from offering a motion to recommit. The last time this occurred, representative ro khanna actually admitted the maneuver was intentionally designed to silence dissenting opinions. He didnt just admit, he bragged about it, that they would be able to deny the voice of congress. And now with last weeks passage of the sixth motion to recommit in this congress, democrat leadership is once again choosing to restrict debate on an issue of National Security. It is not only that this is bad for america, it is bad for the tradition of fairness and free debate. You know what . Democrats promised to uphold. Dont take my word for it. I listened to my friend, the chairman of rules, mcgovern say, in september, 2018, i quote, madam speaker, he boasted on this very floor if democrats are trusted with the majority, we will have a more accommodating process. This place will be run by professionals. Ideas will be allowed to come forward in the house of representatives and the house of representatives will actually debate again. If there is one thing we know about this democrat majority is that they overpromise and underdeliver. Today is no exception. The right the democrats want to take away is an important right. Maybe one of the most important in all of congress. It is the last chance for a Minority Party to offer amendment to a legislation. Its called the motion to recommit. As you know, the motion to recommit has been a hallmark of the house for more than 100 years. It was created to give the Minority Party the right to have a vote upon its position upon the great public questions. I got to be very clear. Eliminating this would be a nuclear option. That is why i sent a letter, actually two letters, to democrat leadership to stop this madness. Unfortunately, my last letter to leader hoyer on this subject went unanswered. So did my letter this week to leader hoyer and chairman mcgovern. That is why today i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record both of the letters at this time. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Mccarthy madam speaker, i believe the members of this house deserve a public response about this situation. Will democrats commit to ending this abusive practice, or do they plan to follow the lead of their freshmen and end the use of the motion to recommit entirely . To end 100year history of the botty body of this house. M. T. R. s not overwhelm promote full and author low deliberation, but they also improve legislation. Think for a moment just within this congress six out of 60 m. T. R. s have been adopted by this congress. Think about that. That means a bipartisan majority of this house felt the need to improve 10 of the bills put forward of which m. T. R. s were offered. That should show you how vital the last amendment is and always should be. Madam speaker, though we may not serve in the majority right now, our members still represent millions of americans. Who lend as their voice and count on us to fight for their priorities in washington. Madam speaker, the last eight years this house had a different majority. I happen to have the privilege of serving as majority leader. Not once did we ever consider taking away the m. T. R. Because we believed in the minority rights and traditions of the institution in which we are privileged to serve. We believed that the power of the idea should win. We believed in the promises that we made, thats why we kept them. We would not make a promise in the minority and when we captured the majority in less than a year to break them time and again. We would not go unanswered the question from the minority as well. Theres something bigger than politics. Its the voice of the American Public. To use the shear power of politics to silence millions of americans is just wrong. To change a tradition thats been more than 100 years, to make sure a bill cannot become better simply because you want the partisan side. Or to be so afraid of the debate to deny it to happen. We are so much better than that. The rights and the traditions of this institution in which we have always been privileged to serve. I wish i could say the same for this new democrat majority. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from arizona reserves. The gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern madam speaker, i just again want to remind the distinguished minority leader that when in the last congress my republican friends used this exact same process 15 times. And it ended up denying us a motion to recommit. But i also want to say, i dont need any lectures about how this house should be run from the distinguished gentleman from california. I remind my friends on both sides of the aisle that in the last congress when the republicans were in charge, it was the most closed congress in the history of the United States of america. No other congress in our history had more closed rules where members were denied, were denied the ability to offer anything on the house floor. My friends somehow take that as a great sign i dont want to go back to those days. Ill just say one other thing, the distinguished minority leader made the statement that somehow this bill that we are trying to bring forward somehow would make this country less safe . This is i want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the acrosstheboard congressional record an article that appeared in the New York Times says tram trumps travel ban aimed at terrorists has blocked doctors. Foreign born physicians have become crucial to deliffry of medical care in the United States. They will work in small towns where there are no other doctors, poor urban neighborhoods, and veterans hospitals. It also says across the United States more than 15,000 doctors are from are from the seven muslim majority countries covered by the travel ban. According to the the speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Mcgovern firm that recruits doctors for hard to fill jobs, that includes almost 9,000 from iran, almost 3,500 from syria, and more than 1,500 from iraq. I didnt hear a single word about that. Didnt hear a single word about how denying doctors the ability to come here is somehow in our national interest. Not a single word objecting to the hate filled rhetoric coming out of this white house denigrating muslims. We had a president who bragged about trying to put in place a muslim ban. We have a lot of talk on this floor about the need for religious freedom and speak out against discrimination against individuals based on their religion, yet not a word about that. So what we are doing by bringing these bills to the floor, we are standing up for American Values. We are rejecting bigtry. We are rejecting hate. We are rejecting intolerance. I hope all my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, will support our effort. I reserve my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. The the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. Police lesko yes. Mrs. Lesko yes, thank you, madam speaker. I yield to my good friend, leader mccarthy, for as much time as he may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Mccarthy doesnt have to yield me a minute. Doesnt count. I think the gentlelady yielded me a minute. My dear friend raised an issue thats very interesting because he knows this. Any time it was used it was in consultation with the minority. Even when it was taken away, you know what we did . We added back an amendment so you could have the debate on the floor. It was only during appropriations, consultation with you, to be able to move something in a timely manner. He understands that. My only question to my friend on the other side is, will you answer the letter . When the minority leader of the house sent the rules Committee Chairman a letter, simple question, with three simple questions, would you give the opportunity to answer the letter . Thats all i ask. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from arizona reserves. The gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. I appreciate the distinguished minority leaders question. I would just say to him that the letter that he referred to i read about it in the press. I didnt receive it until last night. I will also say to him, again, this consultation that he talks about is something that none of us have any recollection of. In fact i remember when the republicans hydrogened a hijacked a democratic bill for this to basically deny us a motion to recommit. We were never consulted about that. Again, i would simply say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is about whether or not we are going to stand and tolerate a policy that i think by any mesh bigoted and undermines our values. I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. Lesko we obviously had a heated debate today and been interesting. Of course we disagree on a number of things. I yield myself such time as i may consume. If we defeat the previous question, i will amend the rule to immediately bring to the floor leader mccarthys bill. R. 6177, which requires members of congress to disclose tax liabilities and wage garnishments. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Ms. Lesko with that, i yield three minutes to my good friend, representative from illinois, congressman davis, to further explain the amendment and the leaders bill. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Davis as my friend said, if we defeat the previous question we will offer h. R. 6177. Leader mccarthy bill is simple and requires members of congress to disclose unpaid tax liabilities in their Financial Disclosure reports. Under a penalty of fine or prison, we expect every american to file their taxes, those same hardworking americans deserve to know whether their representatives are doing the same. And like the American Public, if a member fails to meet their Tax Obligations, my bill requires their pay be placed into escrow until their Tax Obligation is met. This is responsible governing that informs the public and holds all of us accountable. The house should advance this legislation today. This bill falls under the jurisdiction of committee of House Administration and im prepared to work with the chief Administrative Officer to execute this legislation. I have seen legislation run through this committee that tried to use the tax dollars of hardworking americans to fund their own congressional campaigns. Every member of the majority in this room, in this chamber cosponsored that bill when it was introduced. The 61 small dollar patch of am pain dollars would have a donation from the american taxpayer to each congressional candidate, meaning for every 200 donated, the federal overnment taxpayers would give 1,200 to that members campaign. Imagine if every member of congress not counting all the candidates in each congressional race, just the current 435 members, imagine if they received 1 million in matched funds from the federal government from the taxpayers. Thats close to half a billion dollars going just to the campaigns, the political covers of members of congress. If it is the position of the ma the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. Party to support american poll sishes and raise the taxes, we should let americans know which of us in this body are even paying their own taxes. Thank you. And i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from arizona reserves. The gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern in addition to the noban bill, there is a war powers resolution bill that will be made in order if this rule passes. And i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a february 14, New York Times entitled white house memo justifying soleimani strike cites no imminent threat. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Mcgovern we do not authorize the president s in my opinion reckless actions nor have we provided authorization for the use of force against iran. What we are hearing from the administration on the other hand has been about as clear as mud. Initially President Trump and other Administration Officials claimed the january strike was in response to an imminent threat, now we have confirmed through a report to congress from the administration that that was not the case. This report made no mention of an imminent threat confirming that President Trump was required to come to congress for approval before carrying out the strike. The constitution is clear, the president must seek authorization for any use of force against iran, period. I would say this shouldnt be controversial because whether you support the president extending military operations against iran or not, we should all agree that congress has a constitutional responsibility here. And i want to commend my friends n the Senate Passing the kaine resolution and eight republicans who stood up to Congress Constitutional thots. I hope that my colleagues will support the rule and support the kaine resolution when it comes up for a vote. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. The gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. Ms. Lesko i would like to ask mr. Mcgovern if he is prepared to close. Mr. Mcgovern i am. Ms. Lesko in closing, i urge my democratic colleagues to bring to the floor Border Security measures that will help those who are truly in danger and in need of asylum. We can all agree these are issues that need to be fixed. Now lets Work Together for all our constituents to get things fixed. Madam speaker, i urge no on the previous question, no on the underlying measure. And i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from arizona yields back. The gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern how much time do i have remaining . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman has six minutes. Mr. Mcgovern my friends on the other side of the aisle want us to get lost on the possess. But we cant lose sight of the policy. This is about whether congress should repeal President Trumps muslim ban. And we dont agree. I would say respectfully to my colleague on the rules committee. This is about whether we should prevent this administration from putting in place more discriminatory travel bans in the future. Whether individuals need legal advice at ports of entry and whether congress should vote before any escalation in hostilities with iran. Thats what is in the rule today. These are incredibly important issues and go to the heart of what america is supposed to be about. Now some on the other side are upset they cant use parliamentary procedures to debate devries i have issues and make this date other than the president s reckless and harmful policy. But we are not going to get distracted. This president is looking at expanding his travel ban. His approach abroad is totally predictable. Either you stand up for america and stand up for our values or you are going to stand by the president. Thats the choice before us. For us, the choice is clear. I have constituents who have been adversely impacted, whose lives have been ripped apart by this president S Immigration policies. It is heartbreaking and not who we are. And for whatever reason, the president continues down this road of dividing this country along racial lines, along religious lines. I mean, you name it. Constant division. Enough. Enough. We are better than that. We are better than that. And i hope that there is a strong bipartisan vote in muslim ban e no act. This is no we cant let this be who we are. And i strongly urge a yes vote on this rule and i yield back. And i move the previous question on the resolution. The speaker pro tempore members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. The gentleman from massachusetts yield back and the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Ms. Lesko madam speaker, i call for the yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore the yeas and nays are requested. Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by fiveminute vote on adoption of the resolution and the motion to suspend the rules and pass senate bill 760. This is a 15minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 226 and the nays are 186. The previous question is ordered. The question is on adoption of the resolution. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Ms. Lesko madam speaker, i call for the yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore the yeas and nays are requested. Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote the yeas are 223. The nays are 188. The resolution is adopted. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the Unfinished Business is the vote on the motion of the the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. Lee, to suspend the rules and pass the bill senate bill 760, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will report the title. The clerk senate 760, an act to enable registered apprenticeship programs to better serve veterans and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote the yeas are 411. On this vote the yeas are 412. The nays are zero. 2 3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. For what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition . Mr. Pallone madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speakers table, the bill s. 893 to require the president to develop a strategy to ensure the security of next Generation Mobile telecommunications physicist thames and infrastructure in the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk senate 893, an act to require the president to develop a strategy to ensure the security of the next Generation Mobile Telecommunications Systems in the United States and to assist allies and Strategic Partners in mksizing the security of next generation mksizing the security of nks generation mks maximizing the security of the next generation. The speaker pro tempore is there objection to the consideration of the bill . Without objection, the bill is a read a third time and passed and the motion is laid upon the table. The chair lays before the house a communication. The clerk the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. Pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2h of rule 2 of the rules of the u. S. House of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 11, 2020 at 9 49 a. M. That the senate agrees to the house amendment to the bill senate 1822. Signed, sincerely, cheryl l. Johnson. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The house will be in order. Please take your conversations off the floor. The house will be in order. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . Madam speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 891 i call up Senate Joint Resolution 68 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. The clerk Senate Joint Resolution 68, joint resolution to direct the removal of the United States armed forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of iran that have not been authorized by congress. The speaker pro tempore pursuant 20 House Resolution 891, the joint resolution is considered as read. The joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on Foreign Affairs. The gentleman from new york, mr. Engel, and the gentleman from texas, mr. Mccaul, each will control 30 minutes. Le the house will be in order. The house will be in order. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. Mr. Engel madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and to heir remarks include extraneous material in the record related to Senate Joint Resolution 68 under consideration. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Engel i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Engel madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this measure. A resolution that will allow congress to stand up for its Constitutional Responsibilities over war powers. A resolution that will send a clear message that the American People dont want war with iran and that congress has not authorized war with iran. In a few months since the house last took up legislation to address the administrations policy toward iran, much has shifted. I think we are all relieved that tensions have ratcheted down. After a strike that took out sole manny, we appear to be on the brink of direct conflict with iran but things have cooled up since. Some will say this resolution is no longer needed or has no legal effect because we are not shooting in iran today. They say we are not in hostilities with iran. But thats not an accurate reading of the law. The drafters of the war powers resolution accounted for the situation we are in today. They were clear that Congress Powers are not as narrow as the administration would like us to believe, and apparently as some members of this body would like us to believe. The Committee Report from 1973 says, and i quote, in addition to a situation in which fighting actually has begun, hostilities also encompasses a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict. That sounds a lot like what we are facing today. Except shots have been fired on both sides. Further, the president had to send 6,000 additional troops to the middle east after the sole manny incident, precisely because there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict. Congress doesnt have to wait until the president alone decides to use military force again. Its our responsibility to do something. Because we know the tensions could flair up again at a moments notice, iran has not been deterred as the administration promised. There have been four attacks on ilitary personnel after soleimanis killing, injuring hundreds of Service Members. Deterrence. They are pushing into research of a Nuclear Weapon and of nding its stockpile enriched ukraine yum uranium. Iranian nt like the government. I dont like what they stand for. I dont like what they do. This eality is following the strike were now closer to a war with a country closer to possessing a Nuclear Weapon. He last few weeks have also shown the administrations a ambling to come up with legal justification for the strike. Initial claims, it quickly became clear that there was no imminent threat. Fact, when the administration sent a legally required report to congress laying out the legal and policy justifications, there as no mention of an imminent threat, none whatsoever. What was in that report, claim , was an alarming that underscores why its so important to press ahead with resolution. According to the administration, he strike on soleimani was legally authorized by the 2002 hussein war authorization. Let me say that again. 2002 Saddam Hussein iraq war authorization. Madam speaker, i was here in considered e house that resolution, and i can tell you congress did not intend for to authorize a war against iran. Read it. Any re will you find mention of iran. Incidentally, the house has voted to repeal this outofdate war authorization thanks to congresswoman lees efforts, supported. I heard some arguments that 2002 wasnt just about saddam but was also about errorism, because that legislation says, Saddam Hussein weapons of l qaeda mass destruction. That finding was debunked a long it still has to do with iran. Because theaim that forces in iraq, under the 2001 war authorization have acted in selfdefense against by iran itias backed that somehow means that the 2002 aumf can be used to attack iran directly. Is confused about this needs to read the administrations legal rationale closely. Theyve been all over the map trying to untangle this but their official justification is clear. It distinguishes the soleimani from the defensive actions taken against militias. Oranges. D the administration and any dministration should not be relying on the 2002 aumf for but we should you wiall be able to know that attacking iran of ifferent from other uses force in iraq. Its an absurd reading of the authorization, and if the to lean ation is going on that outdated law for this, what else do they plan to use it for . Some executive Branch Officials, and present, also argue that the constitution gives the unilateral eeping power to use military force congress. Ming to ill say that again. Without coming to congress. Ut even among this group, its hard to find anyone who actually believes congress authorized the soleimani. Nst what has me worried is that the a decision toess can late tensions with iran tensions with iran, failed to consult congress, people why merican the strike was necessary, then witched gears and coninjured up conjured up this dubious justification. The American People dont want war with iran. War ess has not authorized with iran. That should be crystal clear. To ress has the right declare war. Its in the constitution. Hasoesnt say the president the right. Any president. Oesnt say president has the right. Congress has the right. We are trying to fulfill the constitution. The e trying to take constitution back to the way it was and the way it was interpreted. To ress has the power declare war. Many of us are very concerned since november excuse when december 7, 1941, president Franklin Roosevelt stood up and declared war had a japan we have not declared war since then. What has it done . Rendered congress impotent. Say. Ess has really no president is the one who decides unilaterally. That could no the be. Be that could not be. That should not be. It is going against the constitution. Not stand for it any longer. As i said, the American People dont want war. Not authorized war, and that should be crystal clear. Owever, since the administration is somehow claiming that congress has authorized force against ir iran, then it becomes that much ore important for congress to go on record saying otherwise. And thats what this joint resolution would do. We passed a similar measure in january. Colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that the house version was unenforceable because it was a concurrent resolution, that it would never go to the residents desk and wouldnt have the power of law. I disagree with that assessment. N my view, the house version was a clear exercise of congress authority over war powers. Dont have authority over war owers only if the president says so. We have authority over war powers because the constitution so. The house and senate have both acted and the Supreme Court has the president s article 2 war powers are at acts lowest ebb when he against the expressed will of congress. Will. E expressed our the president does not have authority for war with iran, but the legislation we are today takes a step further. Resolution, not a concurrent resolution. So it will go straight to the it passes desk if the house unamended. Ts important that Congress Stand up for itself, but more important, that Congress Stand constitutional authorities and make it clear that we dont want war and we authorized war with iran. Advancing this measure will be any ight thing to do under circumstances, but its especially important in the face administration that again and again tries to brush ongress aside as though we are an annoyance rather than a coequal branchy of government. I will be honest to say this has been done by subsequent on both side of the aisle. We dont want it done by any administration. To ress has the power declare war, not a president. Congress. Not an annoyance. We are a constitutionally branch of government, so im glad to support this measure, and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the entleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. R. Mccaul thank you, madam speaker. I just have to say, here we go again. Time in two hird months that the democrat divisivep has put this and irresponsible debate on the house floor, and i have to ask, doingspeaker, what are we here today on this war powers again . Ion our constituents are concerned about the impact of coronavirus the united lives and states economy, not partisan posturing. Fact, the w. H. O. Just declared that coronavirus is now a pandemic. Madam speaker, that is what we should be focused on here today. His political war powers resolution is based on a false premise. It orders the president to hostilities against iran. The problem is, for the other we are not engaged in hostilities in iran. Pompeo that tary very question on february 28, maine eeks after the sol strike. Before our committee on foreign engaged in we hostiliti hostilities against iran . His response was, we are not. Military commander in the middle east agrees. General mckenzie was asked services at Armed Committee if we are engaged in hostilities against iran or forces and he said, as secretary pompeo said, no, we not. I am a strong supporter of our powers. 1 as i know the chairman is as well. In e were to launch strikes iran, i believe that the president would need to come a ore this body to ask for new authorization, but that, madam speaker, is not what we facing. This text completely ignores the restraint that the president has shown over the past few months. Only when a force necessary to protect american lives. I was with the president at the decidingse when he was how to respond to irans drone. G down of our he would have been justified, i believe, in taking out launch to s, but he decided deescalate instead. He was very clear saying, quote, to go to war with iran. Qassem ary 2 strike on soleimani inside iraq, not iran, by the an escalation United States. It was an appropriate response o his deadly targeting of americans and diplomats in iraq. Blood of has the hundreds of americans on his hands. An recently, he organized scalating series of attacks in iraq and escalating series of these attacks which killed an wounded multiple u. S. Service men, and involved the our imbassy embassy, in ttack on our embassy baghdad. The chairman of the joint chiefs f staff, general millie, said the administration would have been culpably neglect if they out. Not to take him the strike on soleimani in iraq as totally justified on as selfdefense under the president s article 2 powers. Tional president obamas general counsel at the department of defense and secretary of Homeland Security, great tremendous respect for and i worked with worked sely who i very closely with when i was chairman of the Homeland Security committee. He stated that soleimani, quote, was a lawful objective and the president , under his Constitutional Authority as had ample n chief, domestic Legal Authority to take additional out an congressional authorization. This is a man in the obama the istration who approved air strikes against a terrorist. Soleimani antly, the strike was a success. Et me quote from a recent Washington Post article where they said the revolutionary itself uote, now finds on the back foot. A notable change after projecting its power in the middle east over recent years. Quds force, quds meaning jerusalem, thats their ultimate to annihilate the state of israel, has been significant significantly deterred from further against the United States, end of quote. Not he democrats could admit anything good could come from this president , and that has consequences. My judgment, we are wasting precious legislative days and precedent of ible abusing war powers procedures. This will be the fifth time that this congress and in this congress we are considering a resolution directly he president to withdraw u. S. Forces from wars we are not actually fighting. Yemen. N iran and two on iran and its proxies are now as we spin our wheels, and what they see, isam speaker, unfortunately, not a United America but a not ed america that does fully support the ability of our commander in chief to adequately respond to threats against americans. Now is the no the time to tie commander in chiefs hands. Now is the time to support our support our diplomats. And with that i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the reserves. From texas the gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Engel i now yield three distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. Connolly. The peaker pro tempore gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Connolly i thank the speaker and i thank my good friend, the chairman of the affairs committee, and i thank my friend, the Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs work. Tee for their good i understand we have a difference of opinion, and i do respect my friend from exas and his substantive and thoughtful contributions to our Foreign Policy debate in our committee. I must disagree with the argument that we ought to be right on only one thing now. Coronavirus he tosis is and id be happy talk about that and the missteps of this administration in making t worse congress is the peoples body. We are here defending the Government Branch of and its constitutional role on peace. Of war and what could be more serious . The fact were here the third any less t make it grave or serious. Importance of he the issue and the fact that many of us in this body are going to continue to be here on the floor until congress reasserts the role the chairman outlined for the constitutional role. Weve allowed way too much power to gravitate to the executive branch. Our be a row combated abrogated our responsibilities here in congress for decades. Like having it both ways. Tiff the executive branch when they cross the line but bill, this legislation asks to do that, stand up and take responsibility while holding the executive branch accountable. President trump ordered a provocative and disproportionate strike that killed the Quds Forces Commander soleimani. A bad actor. But that begs the question, should we have done it . And oh, by the way, what level of consultation and intelligence ought to be shared with the legislative branch that has constitutional responsibility for matters of war and peace . We know the administration had to do some fast footwork to rationalize why now, why him, why there, and oh, by the way, what are the consequences of doing that . And in all of those questions even with a formal briefing of congress, the Administration Simply did not have good answers. In fact, they had contradictory answers. Taking him out, my friend from texas says, was a good thing. Well, its not without consequences. We evacuated nonessential personnel from iraq as a consequence of that move because of the terror threat. 00 u. S. Military personnel suffered brain damage or head damage because of the retaliatory strikes on the u. S. Base in iraq. These things have consequences. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Engel i yield the gentleman an additional minute. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman can continue. Mr. Connolly i thank the speaker. Reining in the administration is the right thing to do. Until and unless we get answers and debate and intelligence provided the legislative branch for the justification as we move forward. The idea when we are not at war with iran so its actually a redundant or unnecessary conversation, i think is not an argument. In fact, now is precisely the time to constrain the executive branch to set boundaries, to make sure they understand that congress reasserting itself will set boundaries and legitimate barriers for proceeding down that road without first coming to the legislative branch, as indeed, Franklin Delano roosevelt did in 1941 walking right down with great difficulty that aisle asking congress to declare war, and indeed congress listened and responded. Thats how it ought to work. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Mccaul thank you, madam speaker. Im pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, a member of the Foreign Affairs committee, who served in the United States army, and fought in Operation Iraqi freedom, mr. Zeldin. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Zeldin thank you, madam speaker. Thank you to lead republican mccaul with important words to start todays debate. For the third time in two months as he pointed out we are here to debate an iran war powers resolution. Once again this resolution requires terminating the use of force against iran even though u. S. Forces are not engaged in hostilities against iran. As we stand here today, the president has repeatedly said in the past that he does not want a war with iran. I dont. This body doesnt. My constituents dont. The president himself as lead republican mccaul pointed out has shown incredible restraint when opportunities had presented itself where there was legal justification to strike back. We must continue to pursue peace through strength. The military option is the last possible option that we should ever use. But we need to understand its on the table. My colleague on the other side of the aisle who just spoke used the term disproportionate. To describe taking out soleimani. And as people listen to todays debate, if you are one of the 600plus families who lost your son or daughter, your husband or wife, maybe your mother or father because of soleimani, if you are one of the thousands of people who were injured because of soleimani, u. S. Troops, 600 u. S. Troops, thousands of u. S. Troops were injured because of soleimani. And literally in the days leading up to this attack we had u. S. Citizens killed and wounded because of soleimani. Whats the justification, what was soleimani doing in iraq . How about we look at the irgcs own statement of january 3. The irgc said soleimani was in iraq to, quote, plan a confrontation against this new scheme of the americans to rebuild to disrupt iraqs security. Anyone who wants to suggest that soleimani was in iraq to do anything that was good and not to be planning and engaged in hostilities has to ignore the irgcs own word. The irgc which is a designated foreign terrorist organization. Soleimani who is a designated he was a designated terrorist himself. Sentioned by the United States and the e. U. And u. N. We took him out. I say, good. To hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle call it disproportionate, my question is how many more u. S. Troops have to die at the hands of soleimani before its proportionate . How many more have to lose arms and legs at the hands of soleimani until my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will call it proportionate . I salute the president the speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Zeldin i encourage all my colleagues to vote no on this resolution. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Engel im sorry, i yield two minutes to a member of the Foreign Affairs committee, the gentlewoman from minnesota. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. Thank you, chairman. It is gratifying to see that congress is becoming serious about restoring our authority over matters of war and peace. Ms. Omar our oversight responsibilities dont end when the news cycle changes. I hope that the outcome of this vote today will be another bipartisan rejection of war with iran. But lets be honest, we know outcome will ul be a president ial veto. We have been through this already with the yemen war powers resolution when we passed it last year. But despite the inevitable receipt veetho, it is critically important that we are here today veto, it is critically important we are here today voting to insist on our constitutional power. Our founders understood that these decisions are too important to rest in the hands of one person. The decision to assassinate general soleimani was a reckless and badly considered decision that made americans less safe. And it opened the door to a series of escalating retaliations that makes the world less safe. But my vote today is not just about this particular strike or preventing a particular war. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle were eager to claim these authorities when there was a democratic president in the oval office. Had i been in office then, i would have joined them in demanding congressional authorization for wars in libya and syria. It should not depend on what political power is in the white house. We should be consistent in our principles. In my view, this means maintaining the momentum of this vote and our previous vote to repeal the 2002 the speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expired. Ms. Omar it means finally taking up our the speaker pro tempore the gentlewomans time has expired. Ms. Omar thank you so much. I support this resolution. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Mccaul madam speaker, im pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, a veteran of the war in afghanistan, the first green beret elected to congress, mr. Waltz. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from florida is recognized. Mr. Waltz thank you, madam speaker. I find this interesting and sad since the last time we were here. For all the hand wringing, all the hughs and cries that the president was taking us to the brink of war, he was a warmonger, that this was so reckless, we are still hearing today whats actually happened . The problem with my colleagues argument is that it lies in the face of whats actually happened in the middle east. Whats happened is deterrence has been restored. Its relatively peaceful at this point. I say relatively. The fact is that we dont have thousands of boots on the ground in tehran or in iran. What we all know who have actually fought against the quds force and fought against the iranians they are deterred by strength and emboldened by weakness. This bill is it seaks to restrain the president who it seeks to rae strain the president who has shown incredible restraint. Did he respond to the attacks on International Shipping . No. Did he respond to attacks on world Energy Supplies . No. Did he respond to an attack on american drone . No. Only after another american was killed, yet another american was killed, and our embassy was attacked did he finally respond. What did he do . A limited proportional, targeted strike. In iraq, not iran, that had zero civilian casualties. And every american from the lowest private to the commander in chief has the right to selfdefense. It was his duty, it was president president s duty as commander in chief to stop the iranian escalation and to respond. And by the way, what did he do . He took down the head of a terrorist organization that was declared under the Obama Administration a terrorist. No different than osama bin laden. No different than albaghdadi. A terrorist is a terrorist n this case soleimani was a rights and serial human abusers. Responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people across the middle east. The world is a better place for the fact that he is not he is no longer on this emplet all this is doing is seeking to tie the president s hands. And the last thing i want is any commander in chief and to my colleague for any party having to come back to this body to defend americans, to defend our diplomats, and to exercise his right to take terrorists off the face of this earth. I cannot encourage my colleagues more strongly to oppose this resolution. This is politics at its worse. I yield my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. I yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from california, miss barbara lee. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from california is recognized. Ms. Lee thank you, mr. Chairman, for yielding and your consistent leadership on issues of war and peace and making sure congress does its job. Madam speaker, i rise in strong support of s. J. Res. 68, which is a resolution terminating the use of u. S. Armed forces from hostilities against iran. This critical resolution helps put a check on the administrations reckless and irrational military action against iran. The American People do not want nor can we not allow another unnecessary war of choice in the middle east. This resolution is an important step in our efforts to prevent that from happening. Make no mistake, the assassination of mr. Soleimani just a few months ago placed us on the brink of war. This did constitute an act of hostility against iran. And in fact, injured at least 100 of our brave troops. Also it hurt our National Security and made us less safe. President trumps continued and reckless military action without congressional approval or authorization caused this crisis. But we are here today to make clear that the president cannot launch a war with iran without the explicit authorization of congress. Madam speaker, we have been down this dangerous path before in iraq and we cannot afford to another illadvised, destructive, and costly war in the middle east. And, yes, i oppose the use of force without congressional authorization during the previous administration. This is not a partisan issue. Congress must do its job. And we must even go further to restore our constitutional duty over military action. I hope the senate takes up my bill, h. R. 2456, to repeal the 2002 iraq aumf which the house passed in january which the administration, mind you, has used as the basis for the assassination of soleimani and military hostilities toward iran. The 2002 Iraq Resolution to address weapons of mass destruction may i have another 30 seconds . Ms. Lee let me remind you, the 2002 Iraq Resolution was introduced to weapons of mass destruction purportedly in iraq. Lie. This was a forth by tby the Bush Administration and many tried to halt the use of force and to the inspectors to complete their inspections. Unfortunately and i had an do this it received just 72 votes. Of how one ess authorization not iran ic to iraq, nor any other country. Time congress reassert our congressional of war and matters peace. We must return to diplomacy and peace and stop these endless wars. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this. Job. Time that we do our congress has been missing in action. Thank you and i yield the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the entleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Mccaul thank you, madam speaker. Im pleased to yield three to the gentleman from virginia, who served in the United States air force for over veteran of d a operation operational ooid orce and enduring Operation Allied enduring freedom, mr. Riggleman. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Riggleman this bill will continue the fixation on the strike against Qassem Soleimani iraq. My background does give me an expert perspective on the challenges in the middle east nd the understanding of the Current Situation on the ground. Not only did i deploy directly was the 1, i counteri. E. D. Team chief in and 2007. So our team saw firsthand what forces could do to United States forces. Type of ot some reckless assassination. This was a targeted elimination f a terrorist on our target list. President trumps escalated air inflict harm on americans are warranted responses against iranian actions. Reserves the tes right to defend itself, especially against bad actors iran. Oleimani and instead of supporting a president who struck a have ist, democrats retreated to partisan talking points and have flocked to this undermines a president s action and shows a lack of american resolve to our enemies abroad. Harms our ation ability to protect american interests. T harms our military preparedness. Lines 20 to 25 of the resolution states the president must of united he use States Armed Forces for hostilities against iran or any government or military. Does this include proxies in afghanistan, lebanon, lgeria, yemen, bahrain, and shia militia groups . The irgc is a foreign terrorist organization, including its quds force. Soleimani was with a person, the control command and against American Forces shia ilitia groups and an iranian proxies. Do we force protections . Needs mander in chief flexibility in this new era of warfare. I agree that we need to update force. Of military im eager to participate in this of ess during this time asymmetric warfare and Rapid Response to terrorism. Provide solutions. Lets not provide political hyperbole. Thank you and i yield back the time. E of my the speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. I now yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from jayapal. N, ms. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for two minutes. Ms. Jayapal thank you, madam chair. Today in support of this war powers resolution to ensure start e president cannot a war with iran without congress approval. Understand this is the fourth time that the house will vote to since to war with iran resident trump ordered an unauthorized, illegal strike gainst general Qassem Soleimani. We passed a bill with bipartisan upport to cut off funding for unauthorized offensive military action operations against repeal thee voted to 2002 iraq war authorization that the Trump Administration has used to justify he strike on soleimani and potential future strikes against iranian targets. Madam speaker, we have to be clear that this is not about general soleimani was a good guy or bad guy. That. s really disputing the question here is what is to have a uthority say on whether or not the United States is going to war . To send troops into war, then we have an obligation to vote on that, to that, and to make sure that we preserve the congressional authority. And i think, madam speaker, that this is something that both emocrats and republicans have consistently succumbed to. So we have consistently, democrats and republicans, given to the chief executive hat is not theirs to start with. Congress has spoken again and again on this. We should have learned by now. People have spoken. They dont want us in endless authorization from congress, without a debate here in congress, without utilizing constitutional powers that our founding framers gave us. Do this andor us to to ensure that the president listens. Today, im urging all of my colleagues to set aside artisanship, to think about this as something that we are reclaiming for ourselves as to support this resolution that has already passed the republicanheld support. Th bipartisan madam speaker, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the new york from reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Mccaul madam speaker, i to reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. New york is from recognized. Mr. Engel i yield myself such consume. I may the speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Want to, again, tate the main reason for us voting on this. Regime in of the iran, and i certainly was no fan f soleimani, who had blood on his hands and did all kinds of heinous things. About them. So much what i care about is us. What i care about is the of the United States of america. It was drafted a certain way. Drafted to say that the president , no matter who matter sident is, no what party that president s from, the president has he ority to do whatever likes. It clearly says, and i said this worth but i think its repeating it clearly says congress has the power to war. Re congress. Learned about checks and balances when we went to school. Doesnt say the president can do anything he wants and Congress Must follow suit. Congress has the sole right to declare war, and to me ly is disturbing that subsequent president s and this isnt only the fault of president or one political party. A role we this is with. Ll shared blame weve loud our branch of government to wither on the vine when it comes to declaring war, comes to war powers. We have essentially said that ny president can just declare war, and congress has got to go along with it and if you dont go along with it, somehow youre unpatriotic or dont care about the country. Quite the opposite. Opposite. We care about the government and ere patriotic and thats why we believe the constitution to. S to be ahered now adhered to. Now, i would also encourage my look more closely at the facts instead of just what the executive branch is saying about reinterpreting the law. In my opening statement, the drafters of the war powers resolution were clear the situation we are in today is in a state of hostility. Constantly today in a hostility. The Committee Report passing the in the rs law from 1973 congress says, and i quote, in whichon to a situation in fighting actually has begun, also encompasses a state of confrontation in which o shots have been fired but where there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict. Were in that situation now. Thats exactly the situation now. In right so Congress Powers are not as narrow as the administration us to believe. I dont care whos president and about whos elected in congress. Care about that congress fulfills its duties. Fulfill its duties as the must. Tution says that we so, again, were doing this because the other body has and doesntperative move on ant to make a anything. Were doing this because we have to do this. Were doing this because this is matter again no 10 years from now, 20 years from now, there will be other members that whoever hope is president then, no matter what party, whoever controls the congress, no matter what party, this is not political. This is not about party. About trying to do anythi anything, as far as im except d, eestablishing congress right to declare war. I dont know whats more important than war and peace. I certainly dont think Congress Giving away its responsibilities. Ive been in this body a long constantly have argued against the administration no matter who was administration from usurping the roles that congress as, from taking away congressional power, not only on matters of peace and war, but on everything. Earmarks or anything you want to say. Congress has sort of said to the president , go ahead. Make the decision. Were just sort of along for the ride. Observers. Of were observers. Well, were not observers. Care very le who dearly about the constitution by again, i conclude saying, congress has the right to declare war. Only congress has the right to war. Re thats what we are affirming today and why i hope we get both side of the aisle because this is not a political discussion. It doesnt matter whos in the white house. It doesnt matter whos in congress. Congress rs is that not cede its responsibility to own. Ther branch but its i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Mccaul yeah, madam speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the reserves. From texas the gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Engel im prepared to close right to close. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Mccaul thank you, madam speaker. Close. Pared to there was reference that the of soleimani was an assassination. Body, want to remind this jeh johnsons words, president bamas general counsel at the department of defense, secretary of Homeland Security who i have respect for who signed off on air strikes under statinga administration that soleimani was a lawful and the objective president , under his Constitutional Authority as commander in chief had ample authority to take him out without additional congressional authorization. Think it really puts this matter to rest. Let me also say that the and i are very bipartisan. Respect this committee. We respect the integrity of this committee. World very much in the same way. I know the chairman is not is a supporter of soleimani. I believe the chairman believes, safero, that the world is without mr. Soleimani in it, and he chairman and i are very staunchly proisrael and are for israel and very much against the actions of the ayatollah in iran. Question the chairman whatsoever. Take great pride in the fact that the chairman and i work very well together, and we disagree, and sometimes we do, we agree to disagree. With civility, which i think has been lost at this in this body, in town. So i want to start with that. Will say that all the hearings prove that iefings soleimani was a terrorist who ctively engaged in a campaign of violence against americans and our interests. Times ot one, two, three debating this issue on the floor, i think we about said all say. N i think we can all agree he was a brutal terrorist and that the him. Is better off without but i have to question why now we debating this. Our country is facing a Public Health emergency, madam speaker, stated, the World Health Organization Just Announced in this debate that coronavirus is now a pandemic. More thany, there are 21,000 reported cases of coronavirus worldwide, including over 1,000 right here in the United States. The c. D. C. Maintains the likelihood of a person catching low, the fallout from the fear caused by covid19 real and causing real damage. Just two days ago, people were their 401ks and Retirement Funds were disappearing on wall street. Biggest drop in more than a decade. I know in my district, the city suffered a significant economic blow with south by lation of southwest, an event the chairman and i were scheduled to speak at egarding how we were the committee that works together and doesnt give into toxic politics. Last year, this conference in my hometown brought more than 350 million to austin, making it the most profitable event for the hospitality industry, and more communities are facing as well. Fallout and the fear is only rising as we continue to see more stories. Everal members of congress themselves, our colleagues, are selfquarantining after potentially being exposed to the virus. This e are talking about esolution today. I just have to close by saying, i was back in my district over the weekend talking to my constituents. They were really not concerned about the war powers resolution. They were asking me, their number one concern right now is, my god, is my child going to get coronavirus . Am i going to get coronavirus . When is it going to impact my backyard . My neighbors . They want to be safe. And they Want Congress to do something. Im hopeful, madam speaker, and i know there are negotiations right now between the leadership of our two parties that we can come, just as we did last week, in passing a 7. 8 billion supplemental to address this crisis, that we can come together as republicans and democrats to do good things for the American People. And to protect the American People and to make them safe. I have one more speaker, madam speaker. I would not yield the i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york is ecognized. Mr. Engel i know i said i was closing before. But i want to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Moulton. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. Thank you, madam chairwoman. Were here today to fundamentally do our jobs. Thats something that we ask of our troops every single day. Across the world. On the front lines in places , afghanistan, throughout africa. Theres bipartisan concern, bipartisan recognition, that an has ill will toward the United States. That iran is an enemy of the United States. That iran wants nothing more than to see our country and our democracy die. The solemn responsibility that we have, ensuring that doesnt happen, is upholding the fundamental principles of our country and of our democracy. Of showing that we have the courage here in congress to uphold that oath, that same oath that we ask our troops to uphold in far more difficult ircumstances every single day. Iran is threatened by us because of the values that we represent and the power that those values carry in the world. Its when we abandon those values, when we undermine those principles, when we forget that oath to our constitution that our enemies start to win. I have fought iranians on the ground in iraq, ive seen iranians kill americans. I remember how much more accurate the iranian mortars were than the iraqi ones we were sed to facing. I get this. But i also never forget that oath that we took. And this resolution, passing this resolution, is about upholding that oath to our constitution. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Mccaul i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from alabama, a member of the Armed Services committee, and the lead republican of the Homeland Security committee, mr. Rogers. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from alabama is recognized. Mr. Rogers i thank my friend from texas. Madam speaker, today we are dealing with legislation that didnt make sense on january 9, it didnt make sense on january 30, and it doesnt make sense today. Today marks the third time the house has considered a version of this legislation in just three months. Im back to remind my colleagues that our conflict is not with the iranian people, but with their murderous regime. The iranian government, using agents like general soleimani, and the irgc, has been arming shia militia, including hezbollah and others across the middle east, for decades. General soleimanis organization was responsible for deaths of nearly 600 americans. This resolution offers safe harbor to those killers. It offers safe harbor to the Iranian Revolutionary guard corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization. It offers safe harbor to terrorist groups receiving advanced weapons directly from the iranian government. These forces are critical to the ayatollahs ayatollahs clear goal of complete influence over the entire middle east. But the American People know the regimes legacy. They know the ayatollah doesnt care about the bloody cost of its terrorism. The legislation before the house today only paves the way for new iranian aggression. Halting military operations and putting red tape on the commander in chief does nothing to fix the problems in the middle east. I believe this resolution makes america less safe. It makes a mockery of years of dedicated counterterrorism efforts. I urge my colleagues to vote no for the third time in three months on coddling iranian terrorists. And i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Engel i reserve the right to close. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Mccaul madam speaker, i believe ive said about everything i can say on this issue. So i wont take up more time. The congress other than to say, were not at war with iran. If we were, id be the first one to say, congress has a responsibility to act. If soleimani was taken out in iran, that would be the first i would be the first to say we need an authorized use of military force. Congress does have the power to declare war under the constitution and many colleagues on my side of the aisle agree with that concept. But its just not factually what is happening on the ground today in iran. If that day happens, we are fully prepared to have this discussion. This is what i would call a premature argument to make. And i would say, with respect to pdating the 2001 and 2002 aumf s, ive had several meetings with members on both sides of the aisle, many of whom were not here when those were passed by congress in 2001 and 2002, who also agree that we should be working to modernize these authorization use of military force. So i think there is that consensus madam speaker, here today, that consensus, madam speaker, here today, that i would encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and i know chairman engel is also supportive of working together to try to modernize these authorized uses of military force. But that is not the situation on the ground today and i cannot support this resolution simply for the fact its based on a false premise, it will tie the hands of our commander in chief to respond in selfdefense to americans, our diplomats serving over there very bravely, and our american soldiers who are over there very bravely. It ties his hands to defend from an attack launched by iran. And lastly, to say, mr. Soleimani was not a good man. He was an evil mastermind of terror for two decades. He killed americans. He brought the russians into syria. They slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people in syria. Hes responsible for so much blood on his hands. So i would close and i do think theres consensus on this issue as well. That the world is indeed a better place without this mastermind of terror, the greatest mastermind since bin laden, removed from the face of this earth. With that, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Engel thank you, madam speaker. Ive said all along that this is not a partisan issue. And it suspect. Executive Branch Officials from both parties have tried to sideline congress when it comes to war. Its time we said enough. It may be in the executive branchs interest to Keep Congress out, but that doesnt ake it legal or make it right. Madam speaker, no one in this body mourns Qassem Soleimani. Certainly not me. No one doubts that he was a hardinned terrorist with the blood of americans and others on his hands. But thats not the issue before us today. The issue is that the Trump Administration decided to kill him without authorization from congress, without any prior consultation with congress. Then misled the American People about why that was necessary and then when the administrations explanation couldnt with stand scrutiny, they Tell Us Congress had already authorized military action against iran. Madam speaker, i think we would know if we had voted to authorize military action against iran. Those arent the kinds of votes you easily forget. So today we will vote on this resolution and send it to the president s desk and it carries with it a very clear, very important message. Congress has not authorized war and congress has not authorized war against iran. Its remarkable that we even need to say this. But as is often the case, up is down, down is up, laws dont matter, congress doesnt matter, because the constitution doesnt matter. The speaker pro tempore the entlemans time has expired. Time for debate has expired. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Third reading. The clerk joint resolution to direct removal of United States armed forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of iran that have not been authorized by congress. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to clause 1c of rule 19, further consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 68 is postponed. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, seek recognition . Mr. Nadler madam speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 891, i call up h. R. 6172, the u. S. A. Freedom reauthorization act of 2020, and ask for its immediate consideration. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk h. R. 6172, a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to prohibit the production of certain Business Records and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to House Resolution 891, the amendment printed in house report 116415 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read. The bill is amend as the bill, as amended, shall be. Batable for one hour the gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, the gentleman from ohio, mr. Jordan, the gentleman from california, mr. Schiff, and the gentleman from california, mr. Nunes, each will control 15 minutes. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. Ed in a in her mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Nadler i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Nadler the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or fisa, authorizes the government to collect foreign intelligence under the ed states supervision of a secret court. Its one of the most complicated handle. L statutes we but the story of fisa and how Congress Reacts to its use is simple. Ery some measure of surveillance is ecessary to keep our country safe. Left unchecked, however, the executive branch is all too unleash its considerable surveillance capabilities onto the American People. Ur jobs as members of congress is to make sure our intelligence but alsoies are robust to provide a critical check to claw back authorities who go too far and to press for changes that protect our Civil Liberties possible. Imum extent the u. S. A. Freedom reauthorization act is one step of hat ongoing project protecting our Civil Liberties. It is by no means a perfect bill. Other changes to fisa that i would have liked to this bill ere, but includes very important reforms. Ends the foremost, it calls details Records Program which began as part of a secret unlawful surveillance project almost 20 years ago. This experiment has run its responsibility is to bring it to its formal end. It never should have been but now at start, least we can finally end it. This bill also prohibits the use 215, to acquire information that would otherwise in the law rrant enforcement context. Our understanding the Fourth Amendment has come to recognize in our acy interest physical location, and this legislation provides new protections accordingly. To evolve, ontinues the public will see how the government applies these court. Ds in the fisa this bill requires the government to disclose all significant opinions of the fisa court within 180 days. The bill also requires one time review of all opinions issued by the court inception. The department of justice may have good cause to classify the details of any particular case, theres no reason that important interpretations of the law should be kept secret. Was, and we finally managed to get rid of it. Now since we circulated the bill, we raft of this have heard from a wide range of most olders, from the progressive members of the Democratic Caucus to the staunchest supporters of resident trump, and they convinced us to make yet additional changes. To address the concerns of those additional guarantees for privacy, we have added new toention limits, new reports explain key legal issues and an xplicit prohibition of section 215 to obtain g. P. S. And cell information. Other others asked us to address the eep structural laws in fisa identified by the Inspector General in the report late last year. That. E done just working with our republican colleagues, we have mandated dditional transparency in fisa applications, created scrutiny for cases involving elected elevated the consequences for misrepresenting information to the fisa court. Also address members on both sides of the aisle who urged opposition to this bill ecause it does not contain every reform we might have wanted. R. Speaker madam speaker, i agree. It does not contain every reform want. I am no fan of the underlying authorities. I represent lower manhattan. Was in congress when the World Trade Center was hit. Hen and now, i resented that the government exploited 9 11 to pass the patriot act, which was of civil estrictive liberties and other measures that i find dangerous and overbroad. For many years, i led the to reauthorization of the Business Records provision in fisa. Shall which were finally doing something today. Of the patriot act reform caucus to reform the patriot act. Every fisa against bill that did not contain significant reform, but the measure before us today does significant reform. Again, not every change we would like to see. Many of the changes i would like to see. But very decisive steps in the protecting our civil rights and our Civil Liberties. E are taking that step as we should, together in a bipartisan fashion and in complete greement that when it comes to safeguarding our Civil Liberties, we have done what we and we still have a great deal of work to do. I urge my colleagues to support measure, and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan thank you, madam speaker. Rise in support of the reform legislation. This bill is not perfect, as the said. An does not contain every reform i would like to see or the reforms for and many ed advocated for. But its a step. Most importantly, this bill is n improvement over what currently exists, over the status quo. The legislation begins to address the problems we saw with illegal. s surveillance of Trump Campaign associate carter page on 2019, the nonpartisan Justice Department Inspector General released a 400page report dealing the f. B. I. s misconduct and the ailures in its warrantless surveillance of mr. Page. Ongressman meadows and i urged our democratic colleagues to hold a hearing. Read the colleagues Inspector Generals report because it should concern every single american. Our Law Enforcement agencies can do this to a president , imagine what they can to you and i. The Justice Department inspector errors or nd omissions in the fisa warrant mr. Page. Ns for said more plainly, they lied to the court 17 times. Tell the court they used to get the warrant was, quote, stop trump and communicate that to the Justice Department. Inspector general found 51 assertions made to the fisa ourt that were wrong or unsupported. It detailed how the f. B. I. Was too eager to rely on phony Research Opposition conducted by christopher steele. As i said, funded by the democrats. Inspector o the general, quote, fisa request reform drew from steeles report the factual basis to establish probable cause to an agent of a was part was not ower which true. Steele was feeding the ossip and inwednesdayo of proof innuendo or proof. Hey didnt corroborate the information. This is a grave misuse of immense power that our federal agencies have. Of trust ere abuse now now there have been a lot foralk about accountability this misconduct. And i absolutely agree, there eeds to be accountability at all levels. The f. B. I. Attorney actually evidence. Piece of an f. B. I. Attorney did this. Octored a piece of evidence used to spy on mr. Page. The attorney took an email that would have cut against the surveillance order on him and changed its meaning. Change its meaning 180 degrees so it could support the surveillance. Totally unacceptable. Writing all kinds of things, la resistance. Muellers team about russian collusion. Limited touct is not junior staffers, as some of my asserted. Have such rampant and flagrant abuse can only occur because of senior failures. Mccabe and jim baker. Fact, the Inspector General said in his report. Here are his words. Was an if a this fail a failure of the and supervisors, including senior officials in the chain of command. No coincidence that the two most senior f. B. I. Officials nvolved, director comey and Deputy Director mccabe were both referred for criminal prosecution by the inspector for wrongdoing relating to the investigations. We cannot forget this background why this reform legislation, again, while not everything we hope for, is a step. Ary first this bill would add several requirements to ensure a fisa pplication is complete and accurate, requires the attorney eneral to sign off on fisa investigation of elected official or candidate for office, the bill enhances congressional oversight of the fisa process. To llows the fisa court appoint an amicus in cases involving Political Activities the u. S. Person because fisa process is ex parte, is not the u. S. Person represented, i hope the amicus will help the fisa court to liberties of u. S. Persons. Like i said, i think we can and should do more. With forward to working the chairman toward that end. But right now, this bill would mprove the civil liberty protections of u. S. Citizens. Thank you, madam chair, and i reserve the balance of my time. The peaker pro tempore gentleman reserves. The gentleman from new york. Madam speaker, i ask insert thisnsent to record. Into the to theield three minutes gentlelady from florida, ms. Jackson ee texas, lee. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. Ms. Jackson lee as a senior ember of the Judiciary Committee, im delighted to be able to join our Republican Democratic nd colleagues and those of us who have advocated for a progressive mind set as it relates to Civil Liberties in this country on reauthorization of the u. S. A. Freedom act. In that backdrop, however, i friend, ay to my good he knows that the Inspector Generals report indicated there the o political motive to beginning of the investigation and even though referrals have been made, none of the mentioned have been criminally prosecuted. Us. Hat is behind to a certain extent, but its a good backdrop to make sure no matter who the individuals are, that we do the impeccable constitution, the Civil Liberties, civil justice, and equality. Rise to support this legislation. Lthough i know that more detailed review might have fixes,ed some additional but i think its important to do have the t we prohibition of the government section 215 to collect any records that would the re a warrant if information being assessed was purposes. Forcement were trying to contain and constrain. And the bill requires the provide notice to individuals whose information is 215 and itursuant to strengthens the First Amendment protections by requiring fisa foreign the Intelligence Surveillance act to an amicus where application by the government by s significant concerns impinging on the First Amendment. Privacy and civil iberties cases and as well, it directs the privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to study of the use of fisa authorities may be premised. Transparency. Ves the bill strengthens reporting requirements, it strengthens, as said, privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. In debates, further, right after i worked on a number of legislative initiatives. One bill in 2013, the fisa court and sunshine act, bipartisan egislation that provided muchneeded transparency without compromising National Security and e decisions, orders, opinions of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. In this bill. Is opportunity to review those decisions and for those ecisions to be able to be reviewed as well. As a long standing supporter of act, s. A. Freedom particularly because section 301 of that bill, which is not in protections d against reversed targeting. Each moment that we have an opportunity to provide security this nation we also have the equal opportunity of infringing liberties of our fellow citizens. Its important today to stand on this floor and to say to the we do n people that believe in their Constitutional Rights and the bill of rights. This legislation is to further contain those infringements and the rights of our citizens. With that, i hope my colleagues will support this legislation. Back. D the speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan thank you, madam chair. The quickly say that gentlelady is exactly right. People should be prosecuted. It was so bad in the carter page application, heres what the former chief judge of the fisa court said. With which y representation made by f. B. I. Personnel turned out to be by pported or contradicted information in their possession and with which they withheld information detrimental to their into question whether information contained in other f. B. I. Applications is reliable. English, you lied so much, how can we trust any other representation you made to the court . Is s what this legislation designed to begin to address and who ct american citizens are being in front of this court. To the three minutes gentleman from wisconsin, who has been a strong advocate in this area, former chairman of Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from wisconsin. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. R. Sensenbrenner madam speaker, i am no stranger to this debate. 9 11, i termath of advanced the u. S. Patriot act. I still believe, i do now, the to protect our country from terrorist attacks, and in abuses of the surveillance authorities were brought to light, i fought for resulted in the passage of the u. S. A. Freedom act. Today i rise in support of this reauthorization bill. The expiring provisions are Still Necessary to the National Security of the United States. However, much like in 2015, we have been made aware of surveillance abuses that require our attention. I believe this bill offers ubstantial reforms to the act. Reforms that are imperative for accountability and the restoration of americans confidence in our intelligence system. The fisa abuses in the carterpage case were staggering. We learned about these when Inspector General horowitz released his support on december 9, 2019. I said at the time that congress had the responsibility to fully examine his findings and to take corrective actions. Unfortunately weve not fully examined this report. Despite being released three months ago, weve not had one hearing on the house side. Theres documented evidence of errors, missteps and omissions that resulted in the degradation of carter paiges Constitutional Rights. And to date the House Majority has largely ignored it. So im glad that the majority is finally acknowledging the abuses in the horowitz report by introducing corrective actions in this bill. There are several good provisions for accountability in the bill. For instance, the attorney general must now approve in writing the fisa investigation of an elected official or candidate for federal office. Also, the legislation expands the use of an amicus in cases involving the Political Activities of u. S. Citizens. And the legislation creates checks to ensure that information being presented to the fisk is accurate. Its impossible to legislation bad behavior by malicious actors. But this legislation places muchneeded safeguards to prevent another carter paigetype scandal from happening again. My colleagues who wish we should do more are right. But with the deadline sunday, we mist act now or let these must act now or let these securities expire. Since the insemmings inception of the peyton act, i have fought for oversight of the patriot act, i have fought for the oversight of the apparatus. I believe the forms presented in this bill are a good step to restoring the oversight. The reauthorization reinforces essential and effective tools that have been in place since 9 11. While also strengthening the protection of citizens Civil Liberties in the United States. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler madam speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. Quigley. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Quigley thank you, madam speaker. I rise in strong support of the u. S. A. Freedom reauthorization act of 2020. This bill strikes just the right balance between protecting our National Security and strengthening Civil Liberties. It preserves critical tools used by authorities to investigate International Terrorism and foreign intelligence matters. But also makes significant reforms to enhance privacy and transparency. Id like to quickly highlight some of the important privacy protections in the bill. The f. B. I. Will no longer be able to keep Business Records collected under fisa indefinitely. Those records would have to be destroyed after five years, except in very narrow circumstances. The government will also have to provide notice to individuals whose Business Records are used in a criminal case or other proceeding unless the proceedings adjudicate or finds that disclosure would harm National Security. Individuals who receive notice would then be able to challenge the legality of the governments collection, a right that should be maintained when intrusive National Security authorities are used to gather evidence. In addition to these privacy enhancements, the bill also requires Greater Transparency about how the government uses fisa. The bill imposes a 180day clock on declassification of significant opinions issued by the fisa court and requires the government to look further in its Historical Records than it has done before. Moreover, the bill enhances transparency in the intelligence communitys annual public reports, so we get a better sense of when the government conducts u. S. Person queries into fisa data. These are but some examples of the important transparency and privacy reforms contained in this bill. And these reforms are all accomplished without negatively impacting National Security. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Biggs thank you, madam speaker. And i thank the gentleman. The recurring theme that ive heard today is that we should be doing more to fix fisa. And thats not unlike what James Madison described in the federalists. When he described parchment barriers between the various departments of government, meaning the three branches of government. Afraid that all of it would be sucked into the vortex of power, those are his words, of the legislative branch. And here we are discussing parchment barriers for those who have basically abused the fisa process so far. And were putting more parchment barriers in place. But they dont mean anything, they dont mean anything if you never see someone prosecute. So lets talk about one of the things that have been touted. A lengthening of the time of sentencing from five years to eight years if youre found to commit abuse. How about contempt proceedings that are being put in here . But you know what, we know fisa was abused. We know that people lied to the court. And we know something else. The Inspector General recommended criminal charges be filed on people. These parchment barriers make no sense, have no strength, and no efficacy when we dont see someone indicted, charged or convicted. To Say Something is criminal in nature doesnt matter when you dont prosecute them. If you want to deter somebody, you must see prosecution. So that way you get specific deterrence for that individual or general deterrence to the rest of people who are inclined to commit bad acts. The flaws in this bill are that we dont see application of any of these reforms. So we can timeout them all we wish. A whole litany of them. But until you actually hold people accountable, this bill has no efficacy. For that for that reason, ill be opposing. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan i yield to the gentleman from ohio for two minutes, mr. Davidson. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Ms. Davids i thank the gentleman mr. Davidson i thank the gentleman. I just rise to caution my colleagues about this false dilemma of security versus freedom, supporting and defending our constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, by abridging the rights and freedoms protected by our constitution. I want to applaud frankly the behind the scenes folks on the committees that worked hard to make this bill better than the status quo. And many of my colleagues will look at this and, frankly, thats been the argument by the Ranking Member and the chairman, that this bill really isnt that good of a bill. That its really not what we should do, but its better than the status quo. And too often thats what happens here. And i think that might leave people with the false perception that we couldnt do better. But the reality is theres bipartisan agreement, bicameral agreement on safeguarding americans private records act. The bill that the committee was going to move forward with was pulled. The Committee Process didnt take place because there was a Bipartisan Coalition of conservatives and progressives that had a plan to amend the bill. It may in fact have been a completely different bill. We also didnt follow we didnt take it through committee. We didnt allow any amendments. So numerous good amendments werent even able to be considered. Amendments like the confess your transgressions amendment. That would say that of all these agencies that report, the director of National Intelligence would say, what has been done to discipline people that access these records in violation of statute . My colleague, mr. Bigs, highlighted the real problem mr. Biggs, highlighted the real problem. Theres one standard for Everyday Americans and a different one for the powerful and connected. Our Justice Department needs to hold someone accountable, whether its in my district in a republican district, or one of my colleagues district, in a democrat district. We get the same question. When is someone going to jail . We need to know that the law is being followed and that lady justice does have a blind fold on, that there is one standard. This falls far short of that and its not the standard that should be used against american citizens. Therefore its not the standard that should be used to secure our country. I yield. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan can i inquire of the chair how much time we have . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman has 2 1 2 minutes remaining. Mr. Jordan i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south dakota. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Johnson thank you. Mr. Jordan the gentleman from North Carolina. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from north dakota is ecognized for two minutes. Mr. Armstrong to my colleagues who think this doesnt go far enough, three days ago i was 100 in your camp. If you had told me today i was going to stand up and speak in favor of this bill, i would have told you that is not true. Yet here i am. And the reason is because i think were dealing with some issues that are important to discuss. One, theres no legislation that we can write that will make bad actors not be bad actors. There is no amicus provision or any provision that is going to allow for somebody who is going to lie to their own spears to not lie to somebody else superiors to not lie to somebody else. Two, the pro visions of lone wolves and rovinging wire taps are important to National Security. Theres not a lot of debate among those things. Three, fisa was originally designed because of abuses to civil rights. While we know that title 1 has been abused and thats why were here. But are we better off without title 1 . I dont think so. We werent before. We are better off with it. So what does this bill actually do . That is important. That is why a guy like me, who believes in the Fourth Amendment, believes in the First Amendment, believes in the privacy of our citizens, why would i stand here . Because it increases transparency, it moves it through the process faster, it puts real compliance checks in place, and it holds people accountable both through a content proceeding and enhanced criminal penalties. And when were dealing with something as important as Civil Liberties, i think we have to ask the question, are we better off tomorrow than we are today . This bill puts us in a better position tomorrow than it did yesterday. And with that, i would yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from ohio. Who seeks recognition . Mr. Jordan i guess, are we closing . I think i have 45 seconds. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio has one minute remaining. Mr. Jordan ok. Then i guess were closing. Thank you. Look, i do think the bill, as the gentleman from north dakota just articulated, the bill is better than where we are currently. Nocall detail records. Amicus kicks in if theres a First Amendment concern of any american citizen thats in front of the court. Penalties are real. You lie to the court, you omit information from the court or leak information about the application, you submit it to the court, there are enhanced penalties. Theres the transcript provision, theres now a transcript that will be given to the intelligence committee. That is a good step. Knowing that someones going to be looking at what youre doing, going to see it in realtime frame is important real time frame is important. The annual assessment from the i. G. , same i. G. That told us the f. B. I. Went to the court in the carter page application and lied 17 times, that irment g. Will be doing an assessment. Compliance within the d. O. J. So theres more people looking at application on the front end. Finally, as the chairman indicated, no selfsite g. P. S. Location indication without a warrant. Those are victories for the american citizen. Not as much as wed like, but it is a darn good first step and i would urge people to support the legislation and with that, madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Nadler i just want to say that im in complete agreement with the Ranking Member, minority member, that this is a very good bill. There are a lot of things we ought to do, we dont do a lot of things, unfortunately, that we should do. But we did what we could. Undoubtedly, the Ranking Member and i have different ideas. Some of the things which he thinks we did not enough, i think we did too much. And vice versa. But we did have some of the things he thinks we shouldnt have done, i wish we had done. But we did manage to reach agreement. As i said, i believe its a very good bill. Its not as protective of Civil Liberties as i would like to see it. But we got as far as we possibly could. And so i urge everyone to vote for this bill. I know there will be some dissent on our side of the aisle based on Civil Liberties concerns and i can only say that with most of those concerns that ive heard voiced, i agree with them. But we just couldnt get them. I want to recognize the staff who worked around the clock to a compromise and bringing this bill on the floor. I should single out the individuals aaron, staff. Sarah from my wells, nicholas, rafaela, william from the intelligence majority. Yan and bobby from the judiciary republican side. Steven and tyler from mr. Staff. S aura, megan, and alan for the republicans. The american should be proud here and accomplished i thank each and every one of them. In closing, i will say its our esponsibility to work across the aisle and across the branches of government to bring our National Security in line with our values. So here, but that work is an ongoing project. It must not end today because we a long way to go yet. I urge my colleagues to support the u. S. A. Freedom act, and i tion yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the back. Man yields the chair will receive a message. He messenger madam speaker, a message from the senate. The secretary madam speaker. The speaker pro tempore madam secretary. The secretary i have been directed by the senate to inform he house the senate has agreed to without amendment h. J. Res. 76, joint resolution providing disapproval onal under chapter 8 of title 5 United States code of the rules the department of education relating to borrower institutional accountability. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california, mr. Schiff, and the gentleman from each will, mr. Nunes, control 15 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff thank you, madam speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. R. Schiff madam speaker, i rise in strong support of the u. S. A. Freedom reauthorization 2020. This bill makes a number of critical and important reforms liberties en civil and privacy protections under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act while the taneously protecting National Security of the United States. In addition, the bill provides Greater Transparency and increased oversight and accountability to ensure the process. Of the fisa over the past several weeks, along n nadler and i, with Speaker Pelosi and majority leader hoyer, have worked with caucus from across the and the aisle to develop a set of reforms that our democratic proud to ld be support. This bill is the result of that effort. It builds on the achievements of u. S. A. Freedom act of 2015, which passed with 338 votes in house and the overwhelming support of the Democratic Caucus to put in place longsought fisa. S to the three expiring provisions that this bill would eauthorize are vitally important to protecting National Security. One of those measures, the provision, ap authorizes continued Court Surveillance of targets even if or change their phones other devices. Its expiration or that of the toer two provisions would be no ones benefit. Our counterterrorism and National Security activities hamstrung and ly we would have lost the opportunity to press for reforms seeking. Re at the outset of this process, Administration Officials like general, along with Senate Republican leadership, made it clear they preferred a lean and permanent reauthorization of these authorities. On a bipartisan basis, this bill ajects that demand, producing bill that holds firm to our commitment to Civil Liberties, oversight, and transparency, and importantly, has an appropriate sunset. Let me describe just a few of in this ms included legislation. The bill would end once and for n. S. A. s authority to collect call detailed records on allngoing basis and destroy records previously obtained under these authorities. This bill would require that the warrant under a fisa if one would be needed in the Law Enforcement context. Prohibit the d government from retaining Business Records for more than ive years with exceptions such as an imminent threat to human life. His bill would expand the appointment of amicus in fisa court proceedings, permitting to review access to more information and creating a framework for amicus to seek review of questions of law to the fisa courts. Also strengthen the requirement for the declassification release of fisa and apply the requirements retroactively to the enactment to of the 2015 u. S. A. Freedom act. Recognize there are additional reforms that members would like to see in the bill. As ught additional reforms well. As with any negotiation, no one side is getting everything they ant, but i believe its important to enhance transparency and privacy possible. Whenever but this is a strong result that makes substantial reforms that our caucus, rs of myself included, have worked hard to secure for many years, to work to tinue secure further protections for privacy and Civil Liberties and oversight ofgorous fisa. I support the bill, which makes important reforms to the fisa and urge members to vote yes. With that i will reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the reserves. The gentleman from california, mr. Nunes. Madam es thank you, speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Nunes madam speaker, the foreign intelligence fisa, is a act, or critical tool for thwarting collecting ots and intelligence on actors that are hostile to u. S. Interests. 2016 russia b. I. s collusion investigation, however, f. B. I. Officials abused fisa to spy on an associate of a president ial opposed. They the purpose of the bill before us today is to reauthorize fisa authorities while ensuring that other fisa tools turned r again be for st the American People political purposes. In 2017, in the course of our wn investigation on russia, House Intelligence Committee republicans received strong indications that fisa had been abused in order to spy on carter page, a former campaign. Of the trump as we investigated the matter, stonewalled at nearly every juncture by top officials departmenti. And the of justice. Their denials of any wrongdoing by the formly repeated media and by political figures ho were spreading the false accusation that Trump Campaign officials colluded with the russia government to interfere the 2016 president ial election. d like to thank my republican colleagues and staff on the committee who persisted amid the of determined obstruction any investigation this house has seen in a long time. Thank our ke to republican colleagues on the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees who worked hard to extent of this malfeasance. Full scope of the abuse was detailed by Michael Horowitz 2019, report , revealed 17 major mistakes and with many lesser abuses. Among many other abuses the is that general found the f. B. I. Had used unverified llegations from the steele dossier to get a fisa warrant on carter page. Reliability d the of those allegations to the court. Omitted exculpatory information from their submission. Nd had doctored an email to hide pages prior cooperation agency. S. Intelligence h. R. 6172 is the first step in imposing reforms to address abuses and restore accountability in the fisa process. These reforms include but are not limited to requiring the generals approval in order to obtain a fisa warrant or any candidate for federal office. Imposing strong penalties for those who conceal information fisa court or leak fisa derived information. Clear viding authorization for congress to access fisa materials so that better officials can oversee fisa cases without obstruction. This legislation makes strong reforms that will protect the merican people from government overreach while continuing to protect the homeland from threats. Close congressional oversight of the fisa process, which will be nhanced significantly by this bill, must continue in order to prevent future abuses. Hat happened to the Trump Campaign in 2016 can never be allowed to happen again. A Political Campaign and not to an american citizen. Speak for all republicans when i say that our work is not finished. We will continue to look for to improve both privacy protections and as well fisas effectiveness in diffusing National Security threats to our country. That i urge support of h. R. 6172, and i reserve the balance time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california, mr. Schiff. R. Schiff thank you, madam speaker. This point, im proud to yield four minutes to mr. Himes, the connecticut. M the speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. Mr. Himes thank you, madam speaker. Chairman. Mr. I want to compliment you and the Ranking Member and the chairman of the ing member Judiciary Committee for doing such good and bipartisan work at polarized tense and time around reauthorizing a number of authorities that have just important but ssential to keeping the American Public safe. And they did that, of course, mindful of the need to balance authorities and those activities with the very liberties civil interests that we all have and with our obligation to the constitution which we all swear support and defend. As the chairman said, this bill reauthorize, even as it a oses additional oversight, couple of very important authorities while ending the in the y that i think last several years was most problematic to me, to many to le in this chamber, and the American People, which was telephoneollection of metadata. That was the debate that led to the original u. S. A. Freedom act 2015, to those reforms, and gets us to where we are today where americans can know that n. S. A. , a foreign intelligence agency, will not be ollecting their records, their metadata, and i believe thats a very substantial achievement in bill. S i want to take a moment, though, charge that th a was leveled by my friends and the Progressive Side and their recommendation bill. Espect to this their statement called this sweeping orities unconstitutional surveillance, nd with respect, i would say that none of that is true. Sweeping, lets talk about sweeping for a second. We could argue exactly what that means, but of the uthorities that are being discussed, we are ending the metadata program. He lone wolf authority, which allows us to surveil a potential errorist who is not affiliated with a terrorist group, has never been used. Hat leaves, of course, the roving wiretap authority which is used in a pointed and careful ay and has been used to save lives and prosecute terrorists. That is not, i would suggest, sweeping. Ct, so constitutional, the charge that this is unconstitutional is we should examine and take seriously. In this time of overheated importanti think its that we be very clear and very specific in the words that we use. This about st say the charge that there is anything unconstitutional in authorities. No provision has ever been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, by the fisa court itself, or by any other court. And its not just the courts. These authorities have been ubject to review by the president s Civil Liberties Oversight Board and the they of these eemed any authorities unconstitutional. They have been subject to congressional scrutiny and, of famously and most recently, subject to review by he Inspector General who, yes, discovered very significant deficiencies in the way a fisa pplication dealing with an american citizen was dealt with. My friends who are concerned unconstitution the ossibility of an unconstitutional nothing has been deemed unconstitutional. Fisa nd over again the court and most recently Inspector General horowitz has on misbehavior, on negligence in this area. So what were left with here is balance. Chairman and as the Ranking Member have said, the reforms that are made in this ill with respect to empowering an amicus, with respect to giving the president civil iberty Oversight Board additional authorities, strike that balance. My close by urging colleagues to accept that weve that lot of progress, this was all about preserving Civil Liberties and to vote in u. S. A. H. R. 6172, the freedom reauthorization act of 2020. And i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california, mr. Nunes. Mr. Nunes i yield one minute the republican leader from california, mr. Mccarthy. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Madam arthy thank you, speaker. Before i begin, i want to thank ranking eman, the member of the intelom
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.