Appropriations Committee Debate on the 2021 Defense Department spending bill. After considering additional amendments, the bill passed by a vote of 3022. The memberpose does from california rise . Member from california . You. Ank i have an amendment. Will read the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. Without objection. Thank you, madam chair. Amendment is straightforward. It would stop the president from starting a war with iran. Has language the house has already adopted. This would not prohibit the president from using the authority he already has to respond to any attack on the United States or our allies. Makes it clear that the president of the United States cannot go to war without express authorization from congress. Chair, we know the administration has taken steps to escalate tension with iran justify an unconstitutional, unauthorized war. First, despite the fact that the remainder of our European Partners stated they would remain committed to the treaty ,nd that iran was compliant this ministration pulled out. Then this administration floated a 2001 act as a legal basis for engaging in military action in iran. So, this playbook is very, very clear. Quit i know we do not agree on how to manage the United States relation with iran and we have a lot of work to do to ensure the United States pursues diplomatic we should all agree that we should not send the signal that the president or any president must come to congress to ensure that the full congress receives all of the information they need informednd an decision and the president comes to congress to seek expressed authorization in accordance with the constitution. Madam chair, i ask for an aye vote, and i hope we can get a bipartisan vote on this. Thank you very much. I support the amendment, as she pointed it out, it would prohibit military force against iran unless congress has authorized such force in line with the war powers resolution. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and threatens our interests in the region and israel. Having said that, any decision to commit our forces against iran should not be taken lightly, and must involve congress. I ask for your support of the amendment. Mr. Calvert is recognized. I strongly oppose this amendment, it appears to be based on the 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. I cannot imagine a more counterproductive restriction on this or any other president. Just to remind my colleagues, there is no country more hostile to the interests of the United States and our allies, especially israel, than iran. There should be zero ambiguity about 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 or seizing commercial shipping in the gulf, providing legal aid for stabilizing groups in the region, including those inning 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. Not all my colleagues on the other side would agree, but our response to this iranian provocation, the strike on general solemani proved deterrence. This provision undermines that enhanced deterrence by calling into question the ability and will of the United States to defend our partners and national interests. This amendment impermissibly and unwisely tries to tie the president s hands on iran, emboldens our adversary, and creates dangerous doubt about the American Power and purpose in the middle east. I oppose this amendment, and i urge its defeat. Mr. Price is recognized. Thank you, madam chairman. I rise in strong support of this amendment. We have every reason to take , everyary measures reason to ensure President Trump comes to congress before taking offensive military action. President trump recklessly diplomatic achievement to prevent a nuclear iran, the jcpoa. He had nothing to replace it. He had no diplomatic path. The administration then launched an ill defined maximum Pressure Campaign and assassinated the head of the force, general soleimani that took us to the brink of war. It could happen again. The house voted for congressional approval for additional military action in iran, and we should reaffirm that through this amendment today. Contrary to what colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued, this is not about whether iran is a good or bad actor, we know the answer. It is a matter of asserting the constitutional power of the Article One Branch of government, it is about that. It is also a matter of reining in the extremely provocative and dangerous policies of this administration toward iran. I urge a yes vote. Ms. Granger is recognized. Madam chair, i strongly oppose this dangerous and highly partisan amendment. This measure would tie the hands of the president , undermining our National Security and service members. Iran has a long and bloody history of attacking u. S. And Coalition Forces directly and indirectly. The 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 by baghdad by using militias and violence to achieve their political agenda. Yet, this amendment what prevent the president from responding to new attacks on u. S. And coalition partners, on commercial shipping in the persian gulf. I am deeply concerned this amendment would make conflict more and not less likely for the United States and our partners in the middle east, including a great ally, israel. For all these reasons, it was debated by the house earlier this year. I oppose the amendment for the safety and security of this country and our allies, and i urge its defeat. I yield back. Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I strongly oppose this amendment. We ought to take a minute and review the facts. We are told the president did something wrong pulling out of the Iranian Nuclear deal. It was a terrible deal, so bad it was not put before congress. There are people on both sides of the aisle that opposed that deal. The majority of the house and senate opposed it. If you think it was a great deal, i beg to differ. We are told the iranians are keeping the deal, no kidding. If you get deals that good, you are going to keep the deal. It allows them to work toward acquiring nuclear weapons. They got 150 billion out of the deal. It basically improved their position. It was a bad deal for the United States. To be fair the president said he , would pull us out of the deal when he was running for office. This was not a mystery. For those of you who think President Trump is likely to lead us to war with iran, i would just invite you to look at what has happened on his watch, how iranians have responded. We had a drone shot down by the iranians, and mr. Trumps pentagon urged him to strike iran. He thought about it and did not do it. We had saudi arabia was attacked the iranians, that would have been an excuse to attack. President trump sent Missile Defense forces to help. We had ships in the gulf attacked, that would have been a good excuse to attack. He put together a Naval Task Force to defend the troops. We had u. S. Soldiers attacked by iranian proxies. Did the president respond within attack . No, he attacked iranian proxies in iraq. Have aen we finally threat against the American Embassy did he act. Did he act by attacking iran . He did not. He took out a known terrorist who had killed hundreds of american troops who was in the region orchestrating other forces to attack us. That is not the pattern of someone who wants war with iran. S is a regime that would that deserves. It is a leading sponsor of state terrorism in the world. It has killed hundreds of american soldiers. If the president wants to play tough against people like that, it is the appropriate thing to do. This amendment would send the wrong message at the wrong time to a very dangerous enemy of the United States. 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. , first of all, let me say there are three branches of government and the constitution requires restrictions on the president. , the article two constitution allows the president to respond to any attack on the United States or our allies. 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 restrictions, based on what the founders wanted ed based on what our Constitutional Responsibilities are. That is to come to congress any president to seek express authorization for military authorization. It only makes sense for us to do want toif in fact we continue to be a branch of government that has oversight responsibility over the executive branch. The president can play tough. Any president can, and they have the authority to do under the constitution to do what is necessary in defense of our country and our allies. Thank you, med chair, and i ask aye vote. Ll those in favor say aye roll call, madam chairman. The ayes have it. , roll callairman please. The person will call the role. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [inaudible] the ayes are 30, nays 22. The amendment is adopted. From what purpose does the member from maryland rise. German, madam chairman, i would ask the reading be dispensed with. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The member from maryland is recognized for five minutes. This amendment is an amendment that the committee has seen last year also but is still an important amendment. Tricare spends billions of dollars out of the dod budget. Those hospitals that want to contract with tricare have to have certain quality standards. Ist this amendment does require those hospitals to certify and have policies in case of an abortion or attempted abortion that attempts and a child born alive. There would have policies to have the child resuscitated. It is different from the child born alive act. If you want to receive money from tricare money that you have to have this policy in place. There are dozens, many more of dozens of policies these hospitals have in place to indicate quality. This is not overly burdensome. The argument will be made that this never occurs. Over the. Over 2005 2 that is city seat numbers. That might be an underestimate. This is a simple way to make sure those quality measures would be in place at hospitals that request ed would receive tricare funds. It is particularly important because this issue came to light when the governor of a neighboring state when talking about this the possibility of an infant being born alive after an attempted abortion. If a mother isnt labor, i can tell you what would happen. The infant would be resuscitated if that is what the family desired. Is thatair, the fact the born alive infant protection defines anyone to be born after birth and individual worthy of protections under the law. Bill passed that unanimously in the house. Hopefully, there is no discussion about whether that is appropriate. A human being born alive qualifies as an individual protection under the law. That Health Care Facility has to offer that individual protections including resuscitation and care following birth. I move for the amendment and yelled back the time. The am opposed to gentlemans amendment. The amendment was signed in to law in 2002 and provided full Legal Protections 12 point infants regardless of the circumstances of their birth. The amendment is redundant, and i am opposed to it. Mr. Calvert is recognized. I support the gentlemens amendment to protect the baby born alive after an abortion and to ensure that every possible care and protection is provided. We must have the humanity to protect living breathing events outside of the womb and have the courage to defend life at its most vulnerable. I urge a yes vote on the gentlemens amendment. Yield back. K misses granger is recognized. We must make sure everything is possible to preserve the life of the child. I urge a yes vote on this amendment and yelled back. Isms. Carrera butler recognized. I wanted to urge adoption of this amendment because there are babies who are born alive during an abortion. Well state laws prohibit a homicide, they cannot clarify what a doctor is expected to do in that circumstance. The hope here is there is guidance so that if this happens, which i am sure is distressing, that there is guidance for how they take care to make sure that baby is given the same equal medical care that any baby of that age would be offered in a hospital setting. This language talks about the regional course of care. It make sure there is equality under the law. For those who are not paying attention in this issue, there are government articles. The cdc did a 20032014 study. At least 143 babies were born alive and subsequently died after an intended abortion. There is a gpo article talking about it being an everyday occurrence. The state of arizona reported 10 babies being born alive in just five months after attempted abortion. Canada reports babies were born alive into 1009. There is evidence that babies born alive are being killed or neglected after the fact. That should concern everybody in this room whether you are prolife or prochoice. If a baby is born alive after an abortion, they deserve the same exact protections under the law that any other baby is equal to. This is a very double issue. In 2017, whether asking askingns about when whether there were standard procedures of babies being born alive and after the fact, dr. Taylor was an Abortion Provider in arizona it would not answer the question directly and later observed it depended on who was in the room. An example when observers do find it troubling, three former employees of an Abortion Clinic testified that the doctor they worked for in denton, texas actively kill babies want to live in an abortion. That should terrify everyone of us. Whether you are prolife or prochoice, you cannot argue with this. Planned parenthood representatives testified that even if a baby was born alive, the decision on what to do with the newborn would still be left up to the mother and doctor. While planned parenthood later issued a statement in response to the outrage generated by the original comments that they would provide care to the infant, it does not make the first statement obsolete. It happens on our watch, and happens among us. This amendment is taking that step where there are federal taxpayers involved two tricare beneficiaries then if that occurs those kids born alive would have access to medical care. I urge every person in this room to take a moment whether you like that this happens or not, the truth is it does happen, and we have a responsibility to provide guidance so it is not on a doctors conscience or an assistant in the room that we have taken the steps to make sure equal protection under the law is provided. We talk about what types of kids are going through these instances. There was a lot of defense on access for women, women of color to have if babies are born alive, they deserve access to equal treatment under the law and i would urge its adoption. With that, i yelled back. Ms. Franco . Thank you, madam chair. Here we are again. If you cannot get into front door, you get in the back door. You are stuck in a chimney, because we know this amendment fabricates a problem that does not exist. A law is already on the books that all Health Care Providers have an obligation to provide appropriate medical care in this situation. This obvious the motive by behind this amendment is to scare Health Care Providers come put them in fear of losing funding. This amendment i am sorry to say is just another attempt of the trumppentz administration which has aggressively tried to get the Health Rights and bodily autonomy of women. Women are in charge of our own reproductive destiny, not the president , not the vice ofsident, and not any member congress. I oppose this amendment and yelled back. Laura mr. Lauro seeks recognition. Thank you, madam chair. It would be let me be very blunt. This is an issue i feel with so much conviction, this amendment in the United States. The title is a fiction. Have anoman could abortion as she gives birth is untrue. It is not how medicine works. Woman is in a labor, she would not and could not have an abortion. That suggestion is not only it is callous. Where is your feeling . About the deep connection women thiswith childrearing amendment is not only degrading to women. It is demeaning. Abortions occur after the first three months of pregnancy account for only around 1 of all abortions. Exclusivelylmost because a woman is at risk or her pregnancy is no longer viable. It is a uniqueen they do not need doctors shaming the woman. This member is a ruse because it is authorizing language that is in an appropriations bill. It is unnecessary because there is no similarity between safe and the falsetion claims of infanticide. Abortion is safe and legal. I might add the law of the land. If there is harm or treatment of newborns, it must be investigated and prosecuted. I do not think anyone in this room disagrees. This amendment is not about that. It is a deliberate Misinformation Campaign to