Withdrawing the amendment. If there is no further debate, the amendment we are back live at the House Appropriations committee. Theyre working on 2021 spending levels for the defense, commerce, justice and transportation department, as well as the department of housing and urban development. The markup is excited to go into the evening. You are watching live coverage on cspan. Chair lowey for what purpose does the member from california rise . The member of california . Thank you. I havent amendment at the desk have an amendment at the desk. Chair lowey the clerk will read the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to dispense of the reading. Chair lowey without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Thank you. This amendment is straightforward. It would block a president from starting a war with iran absent expressed authorization from congress. This amendment consists of language that the house is already adopted as part of h. R. 550 in january of this year. Let me be clear. This amendment would not have bit the president from using the authority he currently has under article two of the constitution to respond to any attack on the United States or our allies. He has that authority. It simply makes it clear that the president of the United States cannot go to war with iran without expressed authorization from congress. Madam chair, we know that the Trump Administration has taken very clear steps to escalate tensions with iran in an attempt to build up an unconstitutional and unauthorized war. First, this admin attrition pulled out of the joint comprehensive plan of action, the jcpoa, despite the fact the remainder of our European Partners stated they would remain committed to it and that iran was compliant with the deal. Then, this administration floated using the 2001 as a legal basis for engaging in military action in iran. Former state Department Legal advisor labeled this as ridiculous. So, this playbook is very clear. And we have been down this same road on iraq. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again. I know we do not all agree on how to manage the United States relationship with iran, and we have a lot of work to do to ensure that the United States will assume comprehensive diplomatic issues we have. We should all agree we should not send the signal that the president or any president must come to congress to assure that the full congress receives all the information that they need to make an informed decision. And that the president comes to congress to seek expressed authorization in accordance with the constitution. Madam chair, i ask for an aye vo te and i hope we can get a bipartisan vote on this one. Thank you again. Thank you. I support the gentlewomans amendment. The amendment would prohibit funds for military force against iran unless congress has the cleared war or authorized such force in line with the war powers resolution. I would want to be clear. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and threatens our interests in the region and israel. Having said that, and you decision to commit our forces against iran should not be taken lightly and must involve congress. I would ask for your support of the amendment. Chair lowey mr. Calvert is recognized. Rep. Calvert i strongly oppose this amendment. This abutment appears to be based on a no war against iran act which the house voted on several times in recent months, which has no chance of becoming law. This language would block funding for any use of military force in or against iran unless congress has declared war. A National Emergency is graded by an attack upon the United States. I cannot imagine a more counterproductive restriction on this or any other president. Just to remind my colleagues, there is no country that is more hostile to the interests of the United States and our allies, especially israel, than iran. There should be zero ambiguity. The right of the United States to defend itself and its allies from iranian hostile acts. These hostile acts include dozens of attacks against americans in iraq. Attacking the u. S. Embassy. Attacking our commercial shipping in the gulf. Providing aid to these groups across the region, including those aiming to attack israel. And ultimately, launching more than a dozen Ballistic Missiles in a deliberate attack against u. S. And Coalition Forces in iraq. Perhaps not all my colleagues on the other side would agree, but our response to this iranian provocation, strike on general soleimani, was appropriate and helped strengthen deterrence. Unfortunately, this provision directly undermines that enhanced deterrence by calling into question the ability and the will of the United States to defend our partners and our national interests. This amendment impermissibly and unwisely tries to tie the president s hands in iran, emboldens our adversary, and creates dangerous doubts about the American Power and purpose in the middle east. I oppose this amendment and i urge its defeat. Chair lowey mr. Price is recognized. Rep. Price thank you, madame chairman. I rise in strong support of this amendment. We have every reason to take cautionary measures to prevent war with iran. We have every reason to ensure that President Trump comes to congress before taking offensive military action. President trump recklessly upended an intricate diplomatic achievement to prevent a nuclear iran, the jcpoa. He had nothing to replace it. Indeed, he had no diplomatic path to the much lauded better deal. The administration then launched and ill defined maximum Pressure Campaign and assassinated the head of the force, general sola solemani, which sent us to the brink of war. The house already voted to require congressional approval for additional military action in iran. And we should reaffirm that position through this amendment today. Contrary to what colleagues on the others to the aisle have argued, this is not about whether iran is a good or bad actor. We know the answer to that. Its a matter of asserting the constitutional power of the Article One Branch of government. Yes, it is about that. It is also a matter of reining the extremely dangerous policies of this administration towards iran. I urge a yes vote. Chair lowey ms. Granger is recognized. Chair, iger madam strongly oppose this dangerous and highly partisan amendment. This measure would tie the hands of the president , undermining our National Security and putting u. S. Service members at risk. Iran had a long and bloody history of attacking u. S. And Coalition Forces, both directly and indirectly. Iranian regime remains the greatest threat to regional stability and security in the middle east. Iran continues to destabilize iraq. They are jeopardizing our partnership with baghdad by using malicious and violence to achieve their political agenda. Yet, this amendment would prevent the president from us money to new attacks on the u. S. And coalition partners, our diplomats, and commercial shipping in the persian gulf. Im deeply concerned this amendment would make conflict more, not less likely for the United States and our partners in the middle east, including our great ally, israel. For all these reasons, the president rightly threatened to veto a measure with similar language when it was debated by the house earlier this year. I oppose the amendment. And for the safety and security of our country and allies, i urge its defeat. I yield back. Chair lowey mr. Cole. Thank you, madame chairman. I strongly oppose this amendment. I think we ought to take a minute and review the facts. We are told that somehow the president did something wrong and pulling out of the Iranian Nuclear deal. It was a terrible deal. It was a deal that was so bad, it was not put before congress. There are people on both sides of this room, both sides of the aisle that opposed that deal. The majority of the house oppose the, the majority of the senate opposed it. If any of you think it was a brilliant deal, i beg to differ. We were told the iranians were keeping the deal. No kidding. If you get a deal that could, you will keep the deal. To allow them to continue to work towards acquiring nuclear weapons. 150 billion out of the deal. It basically improved their position. It was a bad deal for the United States. To be fair to the president , he said he was going to pull us out of that deal when he was running for office. This was not a mystery. For those of you who seem to think that President Trump is likely to lead us to war with iran, i would invite you to look at the facts. Look at what has happened on his watch and what the iranians have done, how he has responded. You all remember the fact we had a drug shot down drone shot down in International Airspace by the iranians and mr. Trumps own pentagon urged him to strike a rent. He didnt do it. Saudi arabia was attacked by the iranians. That would have been an excuse to attack. Is that with the president did . No. He said Missile Defense forces to help saudis defend themselves. Ships in the gulf attacked by the iranians. That would have been a good excuse to attack. Did he do it . No, he put together ignition National Naval task force to defend. We have the u. S. Soldiers attacked by iranians in iraq. Did the president respond with an attack . No. He attacked the iranian proxies in iraq. Only when we finally had a threat against the American Embassy did he act. Did he act by attacking iran . No. He took out a known terrorist, general solemani, who had killed hundreds of american troops, who was in the region orchestrating other forces to attack us. That is not the pattern of somebody who wants a war with iran. Maximum pressure, absolutely. This is a regime that deserves a leading sponsor of state terrorism in the world, in the world. It has killed hundreds of american soldiers. So, if the president wants to play tough against the people like that, i think it is the appropriate thing to do. I think this amendment would send the wrong message at the wrong time to a very dangerous enemy of the United States. So, for that reason, i urge its rejection. If there is no further debate, the member from california is recognized on the amendment for one minute to close. Thank you, madam chair. Let me just say, there are three branches of government and the constitution requires restrictions on the president. Two,again, under article the constitution allows the president to respond to any attack on the United States or our allies. So, these arguments opposing this amendment are not making the point. The point is what we are doing is ensuring that we exercise our constitutional responsibility when it comes to congress, based on the restriction, based on what the founders wanted, and based on what our Constitutional Responsibilities are and that is to come to congress, any president , to seek express authorization for any military authorization. And, it only makes sense for us to do our jobs, i would think, if in fact we want to continue to be a branch of government that does have oversight responsibility over the executive branch. The president can play tough, any president can. They have the authority under the constitution to do whats necessary in defense of our country or our allies. This is about us doing our job. Thank you, madam chair. I asked for an eyaye vote. Chair lowey the question is on the amendment offered by the member from california. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Chair lowey those opposed say no. No. Chair lowey in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Roll call, madame chairman. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Roll call vote, please. Chair lowey all those in favor, record a vote. Raise your hand. The sufficient number being in support. The clerk will call the roll. Ilar, aye. Bishop, aye. Mrs. Bustos, aye. Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Cartwright, aye. Mr. Case, aye. Ms. Clark, aye. Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Crist, aye. Ms. Delauro, aye. Mr. Fleischman, no. Mr. Fortenberry, no. Ms. Frankel, aye. Ms. Granger, no. , dr. Harris, no. Mr. Joyce, no. Mr. Killmer, aye. Mrs. Kirkpatrick, aye. Rs. Lawrence, aye. Ms. Lee, aye. Mrs. Lowee, aye. Miss mayne, aye. Mr. Molnar, no. R. Newhouse, no. Ms. Fingery, aye. Mr. Price, aye. Mr. Quigley, aye. R. Rogers, no. Mrs. Rutherford, no. Mr. Ryan, aye. Mr. Siriano, aye. Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Stewart, no. Rs. Torres, aye. Mrs. Wasserman schultz, aye. Mrs. Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack, no. Youre not recording. Mr. Amaday, no. On this vote, the aye have 30, nays 22. He amendment is adopted. For what purpose does the member from maryland rise . Madam chairwoman, amend am at the desk, amendment number two. And i would ask that the reading be dispensed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is suspensed with. Fleb maryland is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. Thank you, madam chair. This amendment is an amendment that the committee has seen last year also, but is still an important amendment. Its very simple. As we know, tricare spends billions of dollars out of the d. O. D. Budget. Those hospitals that want to contract with tricare have to have certain quality standards, and with this amendment does, it inserts a section in the bill that would require those hospitals to certify and have policies in case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive. They would have to be policies that that infant would be taken care and resuscitated. Its very simple. Its different from the child born alive act. There are no criminal penalties. Its just that if you want to receive money from tricare money, that you have to simply have this policy in place. There are dozens, probably many more than dozens of policies that these hospitals have to have in place that indicate quality, so this is not overly burdensome. The argument will be made that, well, this never occurs, but, in fact, over the period of 2005, 2014, the c. D. C. Identified 143 such cases in the United States. Thats the c. D. C. Numbers, not anyone elses numbers. And that might even be an underestimate. This is a simple way to make sure those quality measures would be in place at hospitals that request and would receive tricare funds. You know, its particularly important, because this issue came to light when the governor of a neighboring state, of course, when talking about this, the possibility of an infant born alive after an attempted abortion said, if a mother is in labor, i can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be resuscitated, if thats what the mother and family desired. Then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother. Adam chair, the fact is that the born alive infant protection act of 200 clearly identifies anyone after birth to be a person, human being, child, an individual, worthy of protections under the law. That bill, of course, in 2002 passed unanimously in the senate on a voice vote from the house, so hopefully theres no discussion about whether thats appropriate, that a human being born alive qualifies as an individual with protection under the law. All this does is it says that that healthcare facility has to offer that individual protections, including resuscitation and care following birth. And ive moved for the amendment and yield back the time. Madam chair, i am opposed to the gentlemans amendment, the born alive infant protection act of 2002 was signed into law in 2002 and provides full, Legal Protections to all born infants, regardless of their stage of development or the circumstances of their birth. I believe the amendment is redundant and am opposed to it. Mr. Calvert is recognized. Thank you, madam chairman. I support the gentlemans amendment that seeks simply to protect a baby born alive after an abortion and to ensure that every possible care and sprecks provided. We must have the humanity to protect living, breathing infants outside of the womb and its mother and have the courage to defend life, especially at its most vulnerable. I urge a yes vote on the gentlemans amendment. With that i yield back. Ms. Grainger is recognized. Thank you, madam chair. I strongly support the gentlemans amendment. We have a responsibility to protect life if a baby is born alive after an abortion. We must make sure that Everything Possible is done to preserve the life of the child. I urge a yes vote on this amendment and i yield back. Miss her air butler is recognized. Thank you, madam chair. I just wanted to urge adoption of this amendment. Unfortunately, because there are babies who are born alive during an abortion, and while state laws prohibit homicide, they cant clarify what a doctor is expected to do in that circumstance, and the hope here is that there is some guidance, so that if it happens, which i am sure is very distressing, that there is some guidance for how they take care of it, make sure that that baby is given the same equal medical care that any other baby of that gestational age would be offered in a hospital setting, basically theres language in theyre talks about the reasonable course of care, basically just making sure that theres equality under the law. For those who are not paying attention in this issue, again, there are government articles, the c. D. C. Did a 2003 to 2014 setting. My colleague mentioned that at least 143 babies were born alive, and subsequently died after an attempted abortion. Theres a g. P. O. Article that talks about it being an everyday occurrence. Its a little bit older. The state of arizona reported 10 babies born alive in just five months in 2017 after an attempted abortion. Canada reports 491 babies were born alive during an abortion between 2000 and 2009. And there is evidence, unfortunately, that babies born alive are being killed or neglected after the fact so that should concern everyone in this room whether youre prolife or prochoice f. A baby is born alive after an abortio