[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 156 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7999-H8005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 54, TERMINATION OF NATIONAL
EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT ON FEBRUARY 15, 2019
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 591 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 591
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 54) relating to a national emergency declared by the
President on February 15, 2019. 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: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman
[[Page H8000]]
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 591, providing for consideration of
S.J. Res. 54, relating to a national emergency declared by the
President on February 15, 2019, under a closed rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and provides one motion to commit.
Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution, pursuant to the National
Emergencies Act, would terminate the national emergency declared by the
President issued in July of this year. The same day that President
Trump declared a state of emergency at our southern border, he,
himself, said, ``I didn't need to do this.'' It is now clear that
statement is true.
The President used an authority commonly used for construction at
military bases in foreign countries during a time of emergency. That
authority is now being used to divert $3.6 billion away from needed
military construction projects to build a wall that does not have the
needed political support in the House and Senate to be funded through
normal appropriations.
This emergency declaration was a politically motivated power grab
seeking to undermine congressional authority to oversee Federal
spending.
The executive cannot run roughshod over this constitutional principle
when the President fails to gain enough support for his policies. And
exaggerating the threat posed by asylum seekers at our border has not
been a convincing argument.
The American people have spoken. Over 60 percent of the public
opposed this emergency declaration.
What has been the result of the Presidential proclamation? Life
safety violations and fire risks at dilapidated military facilities are
going unaddressed. The Pentagon has been forced to defund billions of
dollars from 127 different military construction projects around the
Nation and the globe.
In Portsmouth, Virginia, a warehouse has life-threatening conditions,
but 330 servicemembers and civilian workers will continue to work in a
building without enough fire exits and without a working fire alarm or
sprinkler system. That doesn't seem to matter to President Trump,
though. Fencing and barriers along the border are more important to our
Commander in Chief.
In Maryland, money is being diverted from a planned childcare
facility to help soldiers balance their family commitments with their
service to our country.
In Kentucky, a middle school has lost out on $66 million in
construction funding.
In South Carolina, they won't be getting the fire station approved
and funded by Congress.
Our Armed Forces are also being denied a drone pilot training
facility, a ballistic missile field, a submarine maintenance building,
multiple training facilities, access improvements, and safety upgrades.
In my home State of New York, a $160 million appropriation is being
taken away from projects at the United States Military Academy at West
Point, including a state-of-the-art engineering facility to support the
Center for Innovation and Engineering.
After being promised that Mexico would be paying for this wall, we
are, instead, harming military readiness, safety, and innovation in
response to a politically exaggerated threat.
We, in Congress, have already done our job to put military
construction dollars where they are needed most. Now it is time for
Congress to do our duty again and prevent this overreach by the
President.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and for the
underlying resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am usually pretty excited to be down here on the House
floor talking about the rule. It is always an opportunity to set the
stage for what the House is getting ready to do, and this is a body
that is filled with men and women who want to get something done. The
honor that Mr. Morelle and I have to come down and always begin that
conversation is a special one.
Today, unfortunately, we are not coming down here to get new business
done. We are coming down here on the exact same language that we have
already considered this year, the exact same language that the House
has already passed this year, the exact same language that the
President has already vetoed this year, and absolutely no expectation
that anything different is going to happen this time.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about emergencies, the irony is not lost on
me that I do consider it to be an emergency when thousands upon
thousands of unaccompanied children are crossing the southern border in
need of housing, in need of healthcare, and in need of food, clothing,
and care.
I do consider it an emergency when we have a southern border that is
porous, that is the transit point for drugs, for human trafficking, and
for weapons trafficking. I do consider that an emergency.
My friends on the other side of the aisle take issue with the
President and his declaration of that emergency. Again, the irony is
that we had an emergency meeting in the Rules Committee last night so
that we could come down here and declare this a nonemergency.
It is a bipartisan, bicameral goal to provide safety and security on
every border of the United States of America. I would encourage my
colleagues to take a look at what happened in this body yesterday.
Again, I thank my friend from New York for his role in it on the
Rules Committee. We brought a resolution to the floor with the rule
that was going to demand the production of documents from the White
House. When we considered that resolution in the Rules Committee, it
was full of partisan accusation after partisan accusation after
partisan accusation before it got down to a request for a document.
That was going to come to the floor, and it was going to pass, but it
was going to pass in a strictly partisan vote. I would argue that
diminishes the institution and diminishes the cause that the majority
was seeking.
To the majority's credit, during consideration of the rule, they
rescinded all of those whereases, took all the partisan material out of
that resolution, brought the very same document request to the floor,
and it passed unanimously.
There is so much that we have in common, Mr. Speaker, that gets
overshadowed by the partisan nonsense that occurs here day in and day
out.
I want to ask my friends--and I regret that I didn't do it last night
in the Rules Committee; I should have--to take a look at H.R. 1410.
{time} 1230
H.R. 1410 is a bipartisan bill that does what I know we both want to
do as Article I Members, and that has changed the language of the
National Emergencies Act so that Congress does reclaim the power from
the administration.
Today, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the President gets to decide what is
an emergency. We delegated that authority to him. Right or wrong, the
Congress--not this Congress, but a previous Congress--delegated that
opportunity.
Mr. Reed from New York, again, in a bipartisan way, introduced
language in February of this year, as this was unfolding the first
time, to say let's fix this language once and for all. Let's not have
ourselves in a partisan debate on the House floor about whether we like
what one President or another did. Let's reclaim Article I's power and
decide that no President is going to be able to disburse funds as he or
she seats fit, that Congress is going to reclaim that responsibility.
[[Page H8001]]
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1410 has not moved
through committee. It certainly has not been considered by the Rules
Committee, and it certainly is not headed to this floor.
We have a choice, Mr. Speaker. We can continue to find things to
argue about, or we can unite around those things that we all know to be
right.
I don't disagree with my friends on the other side of the aisle who
want to reclaim Article I's authority. I share that goal, support that
goal, and would gladly apply my vote to that goal.
What I do disagree with is a Congress that has failed to create a
functioning budget process--that is functioning by continuing
resolution now through November--and, instead of responding to what I
think are very legitimate requests from this White House for additional
resources on the southern border, has chosen again to bring a bill that
may well pass this House but will not be signed by the President and
will not impact the future goings on in this government, as I know we
all want to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and thank my
colleague. Let me just point out, I will admit, when I arrived here in
November, having been elected in a special election, I was somewhat
curious that--I think the last emergency meeting of the Rules Committee
in the 115th Congress, the last one dealt with cheese curds. So I am
not exactly sure how my friend and colleague defines emergencies.
What I do know is that this section of the National Emergencies Act,
really, was constructed to help the President and the country deal with
emergencies that arise before the Congress can act, but it is not
intended to overrule congressional action. The Congress did act on this
issue--there can be no question about that--during the last
appropriations process.
The other thing that the gentleman mentions, which I do want to make
clear, is the reason that we are doing this now, it is different.
Perhaps the resolution is not different, but we now have a complete
list of all of the projects that are now being defunded in order to
move dollars over to the wall.
I would also just point out that, not only was the original
resolution bipartisan in the Senate, but the resolution which passed
within the last few days had 11 Republican Senators support it. I think
one was unavailable who had supported it in the past and indicated that
he would continue to support the resolution. So it is bipartisan.
This is truly the act of Congress. I know that my friend and
colleague is well-associated with Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the
United States Constitution: ``No money shall be drawn from the
Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. . . .''
So we are bound, and the Congress has acted. The Congress made the
decision not to fund this. The President is using powers in a way that
were not intended and diverting dollars away from much-needed,
necessary projects that enhance our military readiness.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that I disagree with my friend from New
York about the language being used as it was intended; what I am
certain about is the language is being used as it is written. It is
incumbent upon this Congress, if we don't like the way the laws were
drafted--that we drafted--that we go back and we change those laws.
As the Speaker well knows, yesterday, we dealt with marijuana on the
floor of the House. We didn't decide we were going to repeal the
schedule I classification of marijuana. We just decided that, for those
States that were ignoring Federal law, we were going to let them ignore
more Federal law, too, and go ahead and get involved in the banking
system as well.
It is lost upon me why it is that this body has concluded that,
rather than changing things we don't like, we should just ignore those
things or complain about those things. It is the United States
Congress, and we have an opportunity to do things. We weren't elected
to talk about it. We were elected to get it done, and I know my friend
from New York shares that same passion.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question today, we will have
an opportunity to get something done together. If we defeat the
previous question, I will bring up an amendment to the rule to make in
order debate on S. 820, the Debbie Smith Act of 2019.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, this authorization language is set to
expire at the end of this month, and it provides Federal grants to
States to reduce the DNA backlog in criminal investigations.
You don't have to turn on two news stations in your district, Mr.
Speaker, just turn on one. You will see the impact of what going back
and testing that DNA using technologies that are available today that
were not available years ago has meant, particularly in rape and sexual
assault cases.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we have subject matter experts and almost
everything in this institution, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to yield
to one of our passionate advocates and experts on this issue. I yield 5
minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), for his tremendous service and for yielding
to me this time to talk about this very pressing and important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so that the House of Representatives can finally
debate and vote on the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act.
While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle play partisan
games on border security and impeachment, critical programs authorizing
the testing of DNA evidence across the country are set to expire in
just 4 days, on September 30.
Along with my colleague Carolyn Maloney, I introduced and am the lead
Republican sponsor on the Debbie Smith Act, with the support of the
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network.
Debbie Smith programs provide funding to crime labs to process DNA
evidence and strengthen the national DNA database that provides justice
to victims.
The legislation requires that States like mine, Missouri, create
plans for the reduction of backlogs and the testing of rape kits and
other DNA evidence.
Since this program was created on a bipartisan basis, nearly 200,000
DNA matches have been made in criminal cases, since 2005, providing
justice to the victims in cases that may otherwise have gone unsolved.
The number of DNA samples collected is skyrocketing, sadly, and we need
the Debbie Smith programs now more than ever.
The Senate has already unanimously sent their version of the
legislation over to the House, but House leadership continues to refuse
to bring it to the floor. This, Mr. Speaker, is unconscionable.
Every Member of the House Republican Conference is demanding that we
bring the Debbie Smith Act to the floor, but our pleas for justice for
victims of sexual violence are being ignored.
Mr. Speaker, I beg of my colleagues to please join me in defeating
the previous question and urge House leadership to put politics aside
and reauthorize these critical programs to convict dangerous predators
and help end sexual violence in our country.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this is nothing more than smoke
and mirrors. The bipartisan Debbie Smith Act was included in the
Violence Against Women Act that was supported by this House and was
funded in the CR which we just enacted, which I was proud to support. I
am not sure all Members voted for the CR, but I did, and the funding
for the Debbie Smith Act is included in that.
Obviously, to suggest that this majority in this House is not
interested in supporting women and women who are victims of violence,
is, frankly, reprehensible.
[[Page H8002]]
But let me move back to the rule of law, which is what we are
actually debating here, and it relates to our authority under the
Emergency Powers Act.
I do want to note, to Mr. Woodall's point, we are not adding new law.
This is a resolution, which is clearly a provision in the National
Emergencies Act that allows the Congress to make the point that the
emergency, if it ever existed, no longer exists and this funding is
inappropriate, this shift of funding.
This is, again, a simple resolution passed by the Senate, and it
indicates that, in our view, the congressional authority is where the
appropriations process lies. It is articulated well in the
Constitution, and the Congress has acted, has acted before and will act
again.
The projects that are necessary for military construction around the
globe and throughout the United States are vital, and support of this
resolution and the rule would be something that I would think Mr.
Woodall and Members of the House would agree to.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I enjoy working with the gentleman from New York.
When I think about folks who are able to work across the aisle to get
things done around here, the gentleman from New York is up at the top
of that list.
If you have not tuned into the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, number
one, shame on you. It is a vibrant discussion. It happens every Monday
at 5 o'clock, at least once, if not twice, at least for an hour, if not
for 5 or 6. It is rare that Mr. Morelle is questioning witnesses up
there that I don't learn something new, that I don't gain from his
perspective.
He is absolutely right when he talks about the resolution that the
Rules Committee is trying to send to the floor being a bipartisan
resolution. When it passed the United States Senate, there were 11
Republicans who supported it along with all of the Democrats.
What Mrs. Wagner is proposing that we replace it with isn't something
that was passed by just 11 bipartisan votes; it is something that was
passed unanimously, Mr. Speaker.
It is true what my friend from New York says; we included this
language in the VAWA bill that passed the House earlier. That was a
partisan exercise, too. That bill hasn't moved through the United
States Senate.
In contrast to decades of reauthorizations here, Mr. Speaker, where
this DNA testing authorization passes as a standalone bill with broad,
bipartisan support, this Congress, this year, for reasons unbeknownst
to me, decided to play a political game with it.
What Mrs. Wagner is offering us the opportunity to do is to bring a
bill that passed unanimously in the United States Senate to the House
floor, where it can pass unanimously here, too.
Again, my friend from New York is right. What this Congress has done
is provide funding for this bill all the way through the month of
November--not the entire month of November, but 3 weeks in November.
That is absolutely true that Congress has done this important work for
at least a month and a half.
What Mrs. Wagner is offering us the opportunity to do is do this
important work for another 5 years, which I know my friends on the
other side want to do.
To speak on this issue, I told my friend from New York that I didn't
have any speakers on the underlying bill. It is true. I expect that to
be another partisan exercise. But on this language, Mr. Speaker, I do
have another speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Armstrong), one of our new Members, if he is willing.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I understand how CRs work, but also the
set-asides go away. We have a standalone bill from the Senate right
now. We could put it on the Consent Calendar.
Just to give a little history, the Debbie Smith Act originally passed
in 2004, and in 2008, under Democrat control, the House passed the
reauthorization under a suspension of the rules by voice vote. The
Senate, which was under Republican control, passed the bill with an
amendment by unanimous consent. The House subsequently passed the
Senate amendment version, and it was signed into law by George W. Bush.
{time} 1245
In 2014 under Republican control, the House passed the bill under
suspension by voice vote. The Democratic-controlled Senate passed it
under unanimous consent. It was signed by President Barack Obama.
So the question is: Why can't we take a standalone bill?
Why, all of a sudden, in this Congress did it need to be part of a
larger bill that turns into partisan gamesmanship and a fight between
the two Chambers and the two parties?
In 2017 there were approximately 136,000 rapes. Only four in ten
rapes even go reported. That is actually an improvement. Not so many
years ago it was only two in ten. Mr. Speaker, 90,671 of those rapes
are unsolved. Many of them are never charged. Out of every 1,000 sexual
assaults, 995 perpetrators will go unpunished.
Just earlier this week I sat in the Rules Committee, and we argued on
the repeal of forced arbitration. By the way, I agree with my
Democratic colleagues. Sexual assault should never be forced into
arbitration. But if we are going to make the argument of forced
arbitration and deal with that in a civil proceeding or an employment
proceeding or those types of issues, clearly, we can all agree that the
single best way to put violent sexual predators behind bars in jail and
in prison is with DNA testing.
Mr. Speaker, I said it yesterday, and I will say it again: You have
the best ability to convict criminals--the worst kind of criminals--and
you have the ability to do it without revictimizing the victim through
a criminal process, through a deposition, through a jury trial. Many of
the reasons these crimes go unreported or unconvicted, particularly
child victims of sexual abuse, are because of the trauma associated
with a criminal proceeding.
Do you know what happens in a criminal proceeding with DNA evidence?
You get guilty pleas, because you can't beat the evidence.
So conservative estimates say that the number of rape kits is around
170,000 which are untested. Every single one of those kits represents a
human being, and it is somebody's mother, sister, daughter, or
granddaughter. That person has gone through a horrible, terrible, and
grotesque trauma, and they deserve justice.
This is easy. This is easy to do. We could do it today. We could do
it tomorrow before we go home. But here's the deal: it expires in 14
days, and while we are gone for 2 weeks in recess, 5,000 more rapes
will be committed.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge I am a bit of a football fan--not much of
an expert, but a fan--and I know that from time to time a play will be
called and a quarterback will follow all the offensive line moving to
the right of the field and follow behind them and appear to be handing
the ball off to a running back behind the offensive line, but actually
the quarterback has the ball, turns around, and goes the other way. It
is called misdirection. And that is what is happening on the floor, as
we speak.
I understand why my colleagues don't want to talk about the
President's actions. I understand why the Members on the other side
don't want to talk about actions that we consider to be considerably
outside what was intended by the national emergency powers given to the
President. So I would like to get back, if I may, though, to the issue
at hand.
I want to just read something.
``We will vote on a resolution to reverse the President's ill-advised
national emergency declaration that funds the construction of a border
wall using money that Congress has appropriated and the President has
signed into law for other purposes, such as military construction. . .
.''
``By declaring a national emergency, the President's action comes
into direct conflict with Congress' authority to determine the
appropriation of funds--a power vested in Congress by the Framers of
our Constitution in Article I, Section IX. That is why this
[[Page H8003]]
issue is not about strengthening our border security, a goal that I
support and have voted to advance. Rather, Mr. President, it is a
solemn occasion involving whether or not this body will stand up for
its institutional prerogatives and will support the separation of
powers enshrined in our Constitution.
``Throughout our history, the courts have consistently held that,
`Only Congress is empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing
moneys to be spent from the U.S. Treasury.'
``For the past 65 years, the courts have determined the boundaries of
Presidential authority, vis-a-vis Congress, under the doctrine of
Youngstown Steel Sheet & Tubing, the 1952 Supreme Court case which
reversed President Truman's seizure of U.S. steel companies during the
Korean war. As Justice Robert Jackson explained in his profoundly
influential concurrence in that case, the question of whether a
President's actions are constitutionally valid should be determined by
examining the source of the President's authority, and in this
concurrence, the Justice goes through three scenarios in which he
assesses the President's power.
``According to Justice Jackson, when acts taken by the President are
against the express or implied will of Congress, the President's power
is at its lowest ebb. Mr. President, President Trump's declaration
clearly falls in that category.
``Now, the President rests his declaration on the National
Emergencies Act, and that act fails to define precisely what
constitutes an emergency, but there is a commonsense rule that we can
apply. It is a five-part test that was used by the Office of Management
and Budget under former President George Herbert Walker Bush to
determine whether or not requested funding merited an emergency
designation under our budget rules. Under that test, a spending request
was designated as an emergency only if the need for spending met a
five-part test. It had to be necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and
not permanent. Now, whether or not one agrees with President Trump that
more should be done to secure our southern border--and I do agree with
him on that goal--his decision to fund a border wall through a national
emergency declaration would never pass all of this five-part test.
``Another concern that I have with the President's declaration is
that it shifts funding away from critical military construction
projects. We don't know which ones. We have not been able to get a
list, but this could have very real national security implications.
And, again, I would note that the military construction appropriations
bill incorporated projects recommended by the President and his
Department of Defense, was passed by both bodies and signed into law by
the President.
``Let me emphasize once again that the question presented by this
resolution is not whether you are for a border wall or against a border
wall. It is not whether you believe that border security should be
strengthened or whether it is sufficient. It is not whether or not we
support or oppose President Trump. Rather, the question is a far more
fundamental and significant one. The question is this: Do we want the
executive branch now or in the future to hold the power of the purse--a
power that the Framers deliberately entrusted to Congress?
``We must stand up and defend Congress' institutional powers as the
Framers intended that we would, even when doing so is inconvenient or
goes against the outcome that we might prefer.
``I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval and
our Constitution.''
Now, some might think that was authored by a Democrat, but it was
not. Senator Susan Collins of Maine issued that back in March of 2019
when we considered the resolution for the first time, and, frankly, she
is far more eloquent than I.
I think I will let it stand at that, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I know my friend from Maine to be an eloquent speaker. I thought that
was classic Morelle there. It sounded exactly like what I would have
expected my friend to say.
As you would imagine, Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with Senator
Collins, and I don't disagree with Mr. Morelle. That is just not what
this resolution does.
Whenever anybody starts talking about constitutional law--that is why
I thought it was classic Morelle, Mr. Speaker, because he knows how
much the law gets me going. He is not a lawyer and makes that point
regularly in the Rules Committee, but I am, and when we start talking
about the foundation of self-governance in this country I get excited.
But this isn't a resolution about a constitutional question, Mr.
Speaker. Read this resolution: Pursuant to section 202 of the National
Emergencies Act--that is the act that this Congress passed in a
previous Congress and a previous President signed--the national
emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15 is
hereby terminated.
That is exactly one of the procedures that can be used--one of
three--to end a Presidential declaration of emergency. What we are
doing here today has nothing to do with reclaiming powers of Article I.
We are just following the law that folks already wrote. We are just
following the law that folks already have said is insufficient.
If you believe this law is insufficient, as I do, Mr. Speaker, and as
I know the majority does, H.R. 1410 is the bill to bring to the floor
to reclaim our power that we delegated away.
If you believe it is unconstitutional, the Court is the place to go
and reclaim that power.
This resolution simply says we disagree. It is the same one we passed
earlier this year. It is the same one the President vetoed earlier this
year. And we are going to have that same conversation again.
I pledge to my friend on the other side of the aisle, when we get
ready to reclaim constitutional power, count me in. I told my friend
that in the Rules Committee 2 days ago that I wanted to support Article
1 over Article 2. I cast that vote yesterday. I will cast that vote
again tomorrow.
But, Mr. Speaker, what my amendment will do if we defeat the previous
question is in no way a partisan exercise. It is in no way a divisive
exercise. It is not even the subject of disagreement passing
unanimously out of the United States Senate and historically passing
unanimously out of this House. As my good friend from North Dakota
described, it has been passed by Republican Congresses and signed by
Democratic Presidents; it has been passed by Democratic Congresses and
signed by Republican Presidents.
We do not disagree on the need to provide these dollars to those
communities to reduce that DNA backlog. I don't understand why since
May of this year when the Senate passed it unanimously this House has
failed to take it up at all.
Instead of spending our time taking up a bill that was unanimously
passed by the Senate and never considered here in the House, we are
using our time to take up a bill that has already been passed by the
House once and vetoed by the President once, so that we can pass it by
the House again and have it vetoed by the President again.
I get the headlines. I understand what the press releases look like.
I watch the Twitter feeds. I see the Facebook posts. I get the
communications narrative of ``look at us and look what we are doing.''
I just grow weary of it, as I know my friends on other side of the
aisle do, too.
I am ready to be out of the business of ``look at what I am saying.''
I am ready to get out of the business of ``look at what I am passing.''
I am ready to get into the business of ``look at what we are doing
together that is getting signed into law and actually making a
difference.''
S.J. Res. 54 won't fall into that category. It didn't in the spring,
and it doesn't today.
But DNA testing does, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to think
about what our choices are today: go down the same road we have been
down already and do nothing. Or go down a road that we have traveled in
a bipartisan way in every single authorization going back decades, and
let's repeat that success together today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H8004]]
Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with my colleague that we all grow
weary. I never do of spending time with him on the floor. I just want
to acknowledge that.
I would say a couple of things, because there is a lot to unpack
here. But fundamentally this resolution should--I think he read it--say
that, Pursuant to the National Emergencies Act, the emergency
declaration finding is hereby terminated. That is actually in the law.
What we are doing in this resolution that was already passed by the
Senate and it, hopefully, will pass--not only the rule, but the
underlying resolution as well--and do exactly what the law does. There
is no need to change the law.
We may disagree, and obviously we do, about whether or not the
President's use of the provisions violates the Constitution. I say,
yes, my learned colleague differs, but what is clear is we are using
this within the context of the existing law, and so that is why we are
here.
I think the one difference, however--and I apologize, I have to put
my eyeglasses on to see this fine print--but one of the differences
that I note is--and I may have noted this earlier, I apologize if I am
repeating myself--but we now have a specific list of projects. So when
I look at, for instance, in Virginia the Joint Base Langley-Eustis in
January of 2020 is expected to have dollars for the construction of a
cyber-ops facility. That is money that is being redirected.
If you look at in Oregon, Klamath Falls, replacing fuel facilities at
the base there. If you look at--I mentioned the child development
center, I believe. In Florida the Fire/Crash Rescue Station at Tyndale
Air Force Base. The list goes on and on.
We now have more evidence of the fact that these projects are vitally
needed by the military and by members of our Armed Forces and advance
the security interests of the people of the United States and around
the world.
So we have details now of, in my view, what amounts to an
unconstitutional move of dollars without congressional approval. We
have that. We are acting, once again, in conjunction with our
colleagues in the Senate to end the national emergency declaration by
the President. While we might agree or disagree as to whether or not
that is really an emergency, and we might disagree or agree on whether
or not the use by the President of the act in the way he did is
constitutional.
What is incontrovertible is that the current law allows us to do what
we are doing today to end the emergency, and that is really the
question before us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself
the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it pleases me to see you in the chair. It has been a
Northwestern day so far, but the State of Washington has a proud
tradition on the Rules Committee.
A lot of folks don't understand what the Rules Committee does up
there. If you look over here on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, it
looks like a representative sample of most of the Congress, but,
really, it is a lot of folks with some Rules Committee passion. You
can't get to the House floor without going through the Rules Committee.
As I think back on folks who have served, I certainly think about Doc
Hastings as being in that category that labored on the Rules Committee
year after year.
Mr. Newhouse labored on the Rules Committee, and I appreciate him
being down here to bring us to a close.
It is important what we do on the Rules Committee. We bring two kinds
of bills to this floor, Mr. Speaker.
We bring things that are worked through the process. They are
collaborative; they are agreeable. We get everybody on board, and we
bring those under the suspension calendar. That is that calendar for
things that we have already sorted out.
Then there are those bills that we hadn't quite sorted out, those
things that might be a little controversial. In fact, when we bring a
rule to the floor, almost every rule vote is an entirely partisan vote
because of disagreements about the way the underlying process was
structured.
I have an amendment and a motion in a defeating of the previous
question and amending the rule that has passed this House through that
suspension process, through that collaborative process, that is
undisputed in the way that it is going to help families and communities
across this community--again, passed the Senate unanimously in May of
this year.
In the alternative, we are going to bring a resolution that has
already passed this institution, only to be vetoed. It will pass this
institution again, only to be vetoed.
We often talk about how many legislative days we have left on the
calendar. We often talk about what it is that we can get done together.
In fact, I just came from a hearing on civility in the Select Committee
on the Modernization of Congress with folks bemoaning how partisanship
gets in the way of productivity.
Candidly, I don't see that in most of my day. The men and women on
both sides of the aisle that I have the honor of working with day in
and day out, Mr. Speaker, prioritize productivity over partisanship
across the board.
But as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), my friend, observed
in his football analogy, there is a quarterback who calls the plays in
this institution. That quarterback calls the plays, and one team runs
with the quarterback, and the other team runs against them.
This happened for decade upon decade upon decade. Occasionally, Mr.
Speaker, we have an opportunity to get outside of that ``who is going
to score, who is going to win, who is going to lose.'' We have an
opportunity for us all to win, for us all to win.
Support the previous question today, and we are going to have another
opportunity for one side to claim victory, one side to claim defeat,
and nothing to get done for the American people. But defeat the
previous question, have my amendment added to the rule, and then pass
that rule, and we have an opportunity to do something that I say with
no doubt every single Member of this institution believes needs to be
done.
The choice is with the Members as they vote here in just a few
minutes. Defeat this previous question, and then let's pass the rule.
In the absence of that, Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is not
defeated, then we are going to have to defeat this rule, lest we go
through the same partisan exercise that this House has already gone
through time and time again this year.
Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle),
my friend, both for his friendship and for his mentorship. He says he
never gets tired of visiting with me on the House floor, Mr. Speaker,
but inevitably, he only yields me 30 minutes and keeps the rest of the
time for himself. I don't fault him for that. I am actually grateful
for that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, I should note that I probably shouldn't get into a
football argument with the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, with
its long history of that sport. I also shouldn't do it because if my
wife is watching, she will be very unhappy that I used a sports
analogy, which she decidedly does not like.
But just to torture the analogy a little more, because Mr. Woodall
raised it, misdirection does have a quarterback, but the whole point is
to fool the opposition.
I think that is what, frankly, some of my colleagues here today were
trying to do, is to fool the American public about what this resolution
before us is all about. I think that is unfortunate because the
resolution on the floor is critically important.
Before I close, I want to compliment my friend. I do enjoy this. I
know this is a serious topic--and no one should see it as anything
else--but I always appreciate his passion, his intellect, his
eloquence. It is always a joy to be with him in the Rules Committee and
here on the floor, and I so appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank all of my colleagues in the Rules
Committee for their support of S.J. Res. 54, relating to a national
emergency declared by the President on February 15,
[[Page H8005]]
2019, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the
previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (S. 820) to strengthen programs authorized under the
Debbie Smith Act of 2004. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of S. 820.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Heck). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________