[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H579-H588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3621, STUDENT BORROWER CREDIT
IMPROVEMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO
H.R. 550, MERCHANT MARINERS OF WORLD WAR II CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL
ACT OF 2019
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 811
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3621) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act
to remove adverse information for certain defaulted or
delinquent private education loan borrowers who demonstrate a
history of loan repayment, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified
in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
116-47, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and
in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. 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 motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 550) to
award a Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the United
States Merchant Mariners of World War II, in recognition of
their dedicated and vital service during World War II, 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 Foreign Affairs 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.
Sec. 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 Foreign Affairs.
Sec. 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 116-48.
(b) An amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 116-49.
Sec. 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.
550.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman 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.
[[Page H580]]
General Leave
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 811, providing for consideration of
two measures: H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive CREDIT Act; and the Senate
amendment to H.R. 550.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3621 under a structured
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services. It self-
executes Chairwoman Waters' manager's amendment, which updates
definitions, amends requirements for issuance of final rules, includes
protections for workers affected by a Federal shutdown, and makes other
technical changes. It also makes in order 14 amendments.
The rule also provides for consideration of two House amendments to
the Senate amendment to H.R. 550. The rule provides for 1 hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for each House amendment. Finally,
the rule provides for separate votes on each House amendment.
Madam Speaker, on H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020,
credit scores and credit reports play a critical role in determining
which of our constituents across America will be able to pay for
college, rent an apartment, buy a car or a house, start a business,
meet major unexpected expenses, or even, increasingly, get a particular
job.
Most Americans do not have the wealth to pay out of pocket for major
expenditures, so credit is essential; and credit scores and credit
reports have become the key screening and sorting mechanism, the key
gatekeeper that makes the difference for millions of Americans between
having the money to pay for college or not, being able to buy a house
or rent an apartment or not, and, increasingly, qualifying as an
employee for a specific position or not, because so many employers are
increasingly using credit scores and credit reports as part of the
qualifying process for appointing and hiring new employees.
The system of credit scores and credit reports is deeply flawed
today, and we have done nothing to reform it in 17 years. The Federal
Trade Commission tells us that one in five Americans has an error on at
least one of their credit reports, and 5 percent of the people have
errors grave enough to result in their being denied credit or having to
pay substantially more for their mortgages or their auto loans or to
obtain insurance policies.
The three big CRAs, consumer reporting agencies--Equifax, TransUnion,
and Experian--have files on more than 200 million American consumers,
which means that there are errors in the credit reports of at least 40
million of our constituents and serious, potentially life-changing
errors in the credit reports of 10 million Americans across the
country.
Correcting these errors often takes considerable time and procedural
effort, as well as knowledge on how to communicate with the credit
reporting companies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the
CFPB, determined that, in 2018, credit reports were the single most
complained-about financial product in our country, and the three big
CRAs were the most complained-about financial companies in America.
Many vulnerable populations like seniors, stressed and busy working-
class Americans, and less financially literate young Americans describe
immense frustration in trying to solve problems with credit scoring and
reporting companies. Even beyond the errors and mistakes, the credit
system takes advantage of the financially insecure and precarious,
converting transitory lapses of poverty into a lifetime of financial
stigma and hardship. It is very expensive to be poor in America.
Consumers lack the right to a free annual credit score. Many
consumers who try to get a free annual credit report or to obtain their
scores get tricked into purchasing high-priced credit monitoring or
subscription services.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020,
comprehensively addresses these abuses and combines six bills carefully
constructed by our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee to
improve transparency, fairness, and accuracy in America's credit
reporting system. It reforms and upgrades the process for consumers
seeking to resolve errors in their credit reports, and it seeks to
ensure that consumer financial information held by the CRAs will be
accurate, complete, and verifiable.
This bill will:
Prohibit reporting on consumers' debt relating to medically necessary
procedures and delay reporting by 1 year for other forms of medical
debt;
Remove adverse credit file information relating to defaulted or
delinquent private education loans for borrowers who demonstrate a
history of essentially timely and faithful loan repayments for these
loans;
Permit reasonable interruptions in the consecutive repayment periods
for student borrowers facing unique and extenuating life events;
Prohibit most current and prospective employers from using credit
reports to make employment decisions unless required by a local, State,
or Federal law or government;
Shorten the time period adverse credit information stays on consumer
reports from 7 years to 4 years and from 10 to 7 years for bankruptcy
information;
Give consumers a new right to appeal the results of disputes with the
CRAs; and
Improve the oversight capabilities of the CFPB on credit reporting
agencies and their scoring modules and require these agencies to better
train their personnel on addressing consumer concerns.
It has been more than 15 years since we enacted comprehensive reform
of the credit reporting system. The House can be proud of the
significant progress this credit reform package will bring to
hardworking people across America for whom credit and credit reports
are the lifeline to education, housing, and, in many cases, good
employment and financial stability.
Madam Speaker, on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550, the House also
considers the rule on two important amendments to the Senate amendment
of H.R. 550.
The first amendment, based on Representative Ro Khanna's No War with
Iran Act, clarifies that Congress has not authorized military force
against Iran and asserts Congress' funding power to enforce the
congressional authorization requirements under the War Powers
Resolution of 1973. It, thus, prohibits funds for any military force in
or against Iran unless Congress declares war or enacts specific
statutory authorization for the use of military force against Iran or
there is a national emergency created by an attack upon the United
States or our Armed Forces consistent with the provisions of the War
Powers Resolution.
The second amendment, based on Representative Barbara Lee's bill,
will repeal the 2002 AUMF for the Iraq war against Saddam Hussein,
which authorized the President to use the Armed Forces to the extent
``he determines to be necessary and appropriate'' to ``defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq'' and ``enforce all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq.''
The commanding premise of the 2002 authorization was the need to
counter the threat of weapons of mass destruction putatively possessed
by Saddam Hussein. But Saddam Hussein actually never had nuclear
weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and was driven from office
in 2003 and was killed in 2006. The current government in Iraq is a
strategic partner of the United States in the struggle against nonstate
terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaida and poses no threat to our
national security.
The 2002 AUMF does not authorize, and has never authorized, the use
of force against Iran; yet it was invoked by National Security Advisor
Robert O'Brien as a primary source of the administration's authority to
engage in military hostilities against Iran, including the strike
against Qasem Soleimani.
[[Page H581]]
This is one problem with obsolete AUMFs hanging around decades after
they were approved. Presidents can treat them like a loaded gun sitting
on a table which can be picked up at will and used in a completely
different context for a completely different reason.
The 2002 authorization must be repealed to ensure that no President
now or in the future can use it as a pretextual justification for
deploying military force without congressional authorization or a
formal declaration of war as called for by the Constitution of the
United States.
Madam Speaker, the Framers gave Congress the power to declare war
because they had just had a revolution against the kings and the
monarchs who, for centuries, plunged their populations into wars of
vanity, intrigue, political advantage, and distraction of the
population. The Framers understood that the power over life and death,
over war and peace, was far too awesome to vest in one person, much
less a political actor motivated by the desire for fame, prestige, and
power. By giving Congress the exclusive power to declare war and to
appropriate funds for war, the Framers made certain that the momentous
decision to go to war, to send our troops into battle, would belong
primarily to the representatives of the people, both the people who
fight and die in our wars, their parents, and their families, and the
communities that they are drawn from.
Over the last month, the President initiated a dramatic escalation of
tensions with Iran without the consent of Congress and without
consulting Congress pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. In
the case of the strike against Qasem Soleimani, Congress was never
consulted by President Trump, although he apparently spoke with several
people who were guests of his at Mar-a-Lago, where the decisions were
apparently being made.
On January 7, Iran retaliated for the killing of General Soleimani by
launching ballistic missiles against our military and coalition forces
in Iraq. We now know that at least 34 troops have been diagnosed with
traumatic brain injuries from these strikes, injuries the President has
dismissed as headaches. We have still yet to receive any legitimate
explanation for the justification for the strike in Iraq, and the
administration's subsequent briefing on these actions left far more
questions than answers and troubled even many Republican Senators to
the point of extreme frustration.
On January 8, when administration officials briefed Members of
Congress on the President's actions, both Democrats and Republicans,
alike, expressed grave concerns about the briefing, with one Member
highlighting the administration had given no time, place, or method
justifying the attacks. The President later said there were four
threats to United States Embassies, an explanation which apparently was
withdrawn in the aftermath. So we still don't know.
In any event, Madam Speaker, we need to return to the Constitution of
the United States and the rule of law. The grave decision to go to war
is one that belongs properly with Congress.
If we can send our sons and daughters into battle and ask them to
exercise the most powerful courage in the world to do that, certainly,
we can exercise and summon up the moral and political courage needed
just to properly exercise our constitutional powers. We have the power
and we have the duty to declare war when we engage in military
hostilities abroad, and that is what we are doing with these two
amendments.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and thank my friend from Maryland for yielding.
Madam Speaker, it is not lost on me that you are in the chair for
this debate; and having put in the years that you have put in working
on this issue, I know you couldn't be down here for your amendment
later on this afternoon. I am glad that you are in the chair today.
It matters, folks who invest themselves in ideas around here; and
what I love about this Chamber is that, if a man or a woman, either
side of the aisle, any region of the country, commits themselves to
something, commits themselves in a transparent, heartfelt way, their
colleagues respond to that.
I have had the great pleasure of voting for your amendments on this
topic many times over the years because what my friend from Maryland
says is exactly right. When it comes to matters of war and peace, this
institution has, in many ways, by the wheelbarrow load, carried its
authority down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and left it down there, and
the American people deserve better than that. Our men and women in
uniform deserve better than that. And we, as stewards of this
institution, can do better than that.
Though, while I am pleased to see you in the chair, Madam Speaker, I
confess I regret that it is on this bill, at this time, in this way.
For decades, you have worked to build bipartisan support; you have
not tried to work alone. When you have had to, you do go it alone. When
you are going to be the only voice there, you will lead because you
believe, and you will follow that path. But when you can, you build
bridges.
What is so frustrating to me about the rule that is before us today
is we have an opportunity to come together; we have an opportunity to
speak with one voice; we have an opportunity to restore exactly the
kind of dialogue that my friend from Maryland suggests this House owes
the American people; and we are letting it slip.
{time} 1245
I will start with the easier one. That is the Financial Services
Committee bill that is wrapped up in this rule.
Madam Speaker, I don't know if you recall. It was just a few weeks
ago we had another Financial Services Committee bill. It was H.R. 2534.
It was the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.
It seems like something we ought to all be able to get together on,
but it was brought to the floor in a partisan way with absolutely no
consultation on the other side. It was going to be a straight party-
line vote, but to the credit of the chairwoman and ranking member of
the Financial Services Committee, they continued to work together right
up until the Rules Committee finished its meeting--you know that is the
last stop before the bill comes to the floor--and they found a
bipartisan pathway forward.
They changed directions from what was going to be a straight party-
line vote on the floor of the House that goes nowhere, to a vote--let
me consult my notes because I want to be right--410-13 was the result
when we got together and worked in a bipartisan way. That is a bill
that is going to go somewhere.
All the challenges my friend in Maryland talked about with credit
reporting agencies, they are real, and the ranking member on the
Financial Services Committee agrees with that. In fact, he has a
substitute that has supported those ideas in a bipartisan way that he
wanted to make in order to try to get us away from a partisan path.
The Rules Committee, in its wisdom, voted on a party-line vote to
deny the ranking member an opportunity to bring forward the bipartisan
language that he had.
So, we will go down this partisan road. Again, that is a partisan
road on protecting consumers. It is a shame that has to happen. This
bill is going to go nowhere. The President has promised he will veto
it. The Senate is not going to take it up. We are not going to protect
any consumers. We had a chance to, and we let that slip. Shame on us.
As shameful as that is in the financial services space, as you know
from your decades of work in the war and peace space, the consequences
of failure for war and peace are even greater.
Time and time again, oftentimes with your leadership, this House has
had opportunities to revisit the Authorization for Use of Military
Force that it passed in 2001 and that it passed in 2002. Generally, it
is in our appropriations bill, as you well know, because the committee
of jurisdiction, the authorizing committee, the Foreign Affairs
Committee, that has the ability to have a full-throated debate on this
issue to decide whether to repeal, whether to replace, how to structure
that, has not moved legislation forward. We are in that exact same
place today.
You introduced your language, Madam Speaker, in May 2019. That is the
language that this rule is going to stuff into the Congressional Gold
Medal bill for merchant mariners. We will talk about that here in a
bit. It is
[[Page H582]]
going to stuff your language that you introduced in May that has never
had a markup.
Now, you led this issue when President Bush was in the White House,
and we didn't get a markup. You led this issue while President Obama
was in the White House, and we didn't get a markup. You are now leading
this issue while President Trump is in the White House, and we still
have never had a markup.
Now, don't tell me about your commitment to men and women in uniform.
Do not tell me about what our Framers intended and bring language that
has never had a committee markup to the House floor.
I asked these questions last night in the Rules Committee, Madam
Speaker. I said: So which operations that are going on in Iraq today
are going to be curtailed if we repeal the AUMF tomorrow?
I am not misremembering, Madam Speaker. So many times, when you have
offered this language, you offered it for a date certain in the future.
You recognized that doing something immediately would have consequences
that would be very difficult for men and women in uniform to deal with,
difficult for the administration, difficult for our allies. So very
often you said: Let's put this down the road 6 months, 9 months, 12
months. Let's be certain that we are going to be done with it, but
let's give time to transition.
I asked: This language today, what is the impact of that?
I asked: Which members of the State Department have come to testify
that this is not going to put our allies in a predicament, in a
precarious predicament in Iraq?
The answer was: Well, we haven't had those hearings. We don't know
those answers. We believe that we know, but we have not had those folks
come to testify.
Well, what about the FBI? How is this going to impact
counterterrorism operations?
Well, we have not had those conversations. We have not had that in an
open hearing. We have not had a chance to talk about it.
Well, what does the Pentagon have to say?
Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to do this in a thoughtful,
bipartisan way.
The leadership that the new majority is providing in the House,
candidly, gives you an opportunity to do things that might not have
been possible in a Republican-led House. After your decade of work on
that, I think you have earned that, and it would have been a bipartisan
vote.
Instead, we are here today for a partisan exercise, with no input
from the minority, that the President has already recommended a veto
on.
I think our men and women in uniform deserve better. I think this
institution deserves better.
Madam Speaker, I don't know if you were paying attention as the
Reading Clerk read. He did not go through and read all the amendments
that were offered.
For the very important issue of credit agencies and how we regulate
them, the majority, in its wisdom, has made 14 amendments in order.
Fourteen different ideas are going to be considered for how we regulate
credit reporting agencies.
For the question of war and peace--what should be the wind-down
timeline, how quickly should it take effect, who should be affected,
what are the impacts of that, should it be replaced, should it just be
repealed--for those very complicated life-and-death questions, no
committee hearing, not one amendment made in order.
The majority, in its wisdom, has provided 1 hour of debate on the
floor of the House.
My friend from Maryland is very adept at quoting our Framers. His
knowledge of the Constitution runs deep. Debate has never meant an hour
to come down to the House floor in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion.
Debate, as our Framers intended it, meant that we were going to engage
in dialogue with one another, that we were going to have a conversation
about how to get it right together, that we were going to do what you
have done for much of your career, in terms of building coalitions. We
are doing none of it today.
Madam Speaker, I have 30 minutes on the rule. We will have an hour of
a take-it-or-leave-it debate.
For our men and women in uniform, as I hold the veto threat from the
White House here, and we are going to produce a partisan outcome with
no hope of overriding a Presidential veto, if the Senate were even to
take it up, which it won't, we are going to be absolutely no closer to
achieving the goal that you and I have striven for together. In fact, I
believe we are going to be further away from that goal at the end of
this.
I used all the ability I had as a Rules Committee member to try to
keep this from going forward last night because I believe it is a
missed opportunity. But on a 9-4 party-line vote, I was defeated.
Madam Speaker, the only way to get back to the partnership that our
men and women in uniform deserve, the partnership that the efforts that
you have brought forward over the years have received, is to defeat
this rule today and have the open hearing in the Foreign Affairs
Committee, to have that testimony from the experts in this field, and
then to move forward, not on a party-line vote that goes nowhere in
this House, but in a big, big, big bipartisan vote that moves through
the Senate and either receives the President's signature or overrides
that veto. This isn't going to get that done.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the House
Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin) for yielding me the time and for his leadership on the Rules
Committee.
Madam Speaker, something has been happening over the last few
decades. Power meant to be held in these Halls, granted to us by the
Constitution, intentionally given to us by our Founders, has ended up
instead in the hands of whoever sat in the Oval Office.
It wasn't stolen by any particular President. No, Madam Speaker. We
gave it away.
Congresses run by both parties surrendered it to Democratic and
Republican administrations alike year after year after year.
Nowhere is this more pronounced than when it comes to matters of war
and peace. Make no mistake, the Constitution is clear on this: The
President may be Commander in Chief, but only Congress has the power to
declare war. It is right there in Article I, Section 8.
But we abdicated that responsibility. We have been too content to
stand on the sidelines and watch as wars were crafted and carried out
by the White House with virtually no input from the people's House.
Our troops, the very people we represent, have received orders to
deploy. Taxpayer dollars have been shoveled overseas. Policies have
changed from one administration to the next. But too often, Congress
remained silent, not because we were too engaged on other urgent
matters, but because we feared the political risk of a vote.
Many of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, have tried to force
debates and votes. I have joined many of my colleagues, from Adam Smith
and Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna to Tom Cole and Walter Jones and Matt
Gaetz.
In fact, I have stood here more than two dozen times and pleaded for
the chance to vote on many conflicts, like Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Syria.
Too often, these simple calls for debate were ignored, but these are
precisely the issues our constituents sent us here to debate, the hard
ones, the ones where lives are at stake.
Now, I don't care who is President. I don't care who controls the
House. When our troops are ordered to engage, they do not do so
casually. And once they are deployed, it is not easy for them to
withdraw. We all know this. Wars are easy to start but are very, very
hard to end.
This is why how they begin is the most crucial decision. It cannot be
left to one person. The Constitution enshrines that power in our hands,
the people's representatives, the people's voice, and the people's
House.
Today, Madam Speaker, the process of reclaiming that authority
begins. This rule contains two measures.
The first is a resolution from Congresswoman Lee to repeal the 2002
Iraq
[[Page H583]]
AUMF. For nearly two decades, this AUMF has been used by multiple
Presidents to unilaterally engage our troops in conflicts that Congress
never imagined when it was first passed.
It was used to justify the recent strike against Iranian General
Soleimani.
If you think the consequences are limited, bear in mind that 34 more
of our troops now suffer from traumatic brain injuries from Iran's
retaliatory strike.
Pay attention to the words of Marine General Frank McKenzie, U.S.
commander in the Middle East, who told our troops on Thursday that
20,000 newly deployed troops to the region could be there for ``quite a
while.''
Repealing this AUMF isn't just about ensuring that this President
cannot use it as justification for asserting military force without
proper congressional authorization. This vote is about ensuring that
no President can.
The second item included in this rule is legislation from Congressman
Khanna to prohibit funding for military action against Iran that is not
authorized by Congress.
The situation with Iran remains volatile. If tensions should escalate
again and President Trump wants to use military force, he must come to
Congress first, period.
These measures passed overwhelmingly as bipartisan amendments to the
House-passed NDAA bill last year. These are not new items or new ideas.
Unfortunately, both were stripped out of the bill in final conference.
It is my hope that this House will again approve these measures and
that the Senate will recognize the urgency of their passage.
Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk about what it means to
support our troops. Let me just say this: We respect their service when
we give them an honest, thoughtful debate about their sacrifice, about
possible deployments that impact not only them but their families and
their loved ones.
Members of our military put their lives on the line for this country.
The least we can do is have the guts to vote on their fate.
Let's respect our troops. Let's respect this institution. Let's
finally get back to respecting the Constitution, doing our jobs, and
voting on issues of war and peace.
I have to tell you, I am just sick and tired of hearing excuse after
excuse, not only now, but over the last several years, from my
colleagues as to why we can't have these debates, why we can't vote on
these issues.
Madam Speaker, it is time now for my colleagues to support the rule
and the underlying measure.
{time} 1300
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Newhouse) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
rule to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to
H.R. 550 so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of
war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Does the gentleman from Maryland yield for the purpose of this
unanimous consent request?
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, no, I do not yield for that purpose. All
time is yielded for the purpose of debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland does not yield;
therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Kevin Hern) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
amend the rule to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate
amendment to H.R. 550 so that minority voices can be heard on the
critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Guthrie) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550
so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx), because I have seen the gentleman from Maryland
change his mind many times over the years when he was on the wrong side
of an issue to make himself right.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
amend the rule to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate
amendment to H.R. 550 so that minority voices can be heard on the
critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Griffith) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
rule to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to
H.R. 550 so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of
war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from West
Virginia (Mrs. Miller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. MILLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550
so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Lamborn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550
so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
amend the rule to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate
amendment to H.R. 550 so that minority voices can be heard on the
critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Olson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550
so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550
so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
[[Page H584]]
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550
so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Babin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550
so that minority voices can be heard on this critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to provide for a motion to recommit on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550
so that minority voices can be heard on the critical issue of war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Spano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. SPANO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the
President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Does the gentleman from Maryland yield for the purpose of this
unanimous consent request?
Mr. RASKIN. No, I do not. I have yielded for the purpose of debate
only, and I would love to have a real debate about the resolution that
is before us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland does not yield;
therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I share with my friend from Maryland that if the
gentleman is interested in a real debate, the gentleman would allow
minority voices to be heard.
If the gentleman is not following this, the reason that Members are
coming to the floor to make this request is because these resolutions,
as they pertain to dealing with Iran, do nothing to protect our ally,
our strongest friend in the Middle East, Israel, and we would like to
make sure that Israel is protected.
I ask my friend if he would yield for the debate on protecting our
friend, Israel, and to have an opportunity for not dozens of minority
amendments, but my friends are asking unanimous consent for one single
Republican amendment to the underlying bill: a right that has been
guaranteed to the minority for over 100 years, but has been turned off
by clever procedural tricks in this particular rule today.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Hartzler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
rule to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the
President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Posey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request,
understanding that my friend from Maryland has called for a real
debate.
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the
President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the
President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Marshall) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
rule to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the
President can protect the United States and her ally, Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we would
amend this rule, which then would make in order the Cole-McCarthy
amendment.
Now, that amendment would ensure the President can protect the United
States and our ally, Israel. I don't think that is asking too much.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
The Chair would advise Members that even though a unanimous consent
request is not entertained, embellishments accompanying such requests
constitute debate and will become an imposition on the time of the
Member who yielded for that purpose.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Thornberry) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
rule to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the
President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure that the
President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to amend the rule to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that
will ensure the President can protect the understand and our ally,
Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. LaMalfa) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
[[Page H585]]
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the
President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Palmer) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule
to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the
President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
{time} 1315
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, your rulings here today follow very clearly the Rules
Committee meeting we had just across the Chamber last night that
allowed for absolutely no amendment or discussion of any kind on two
war resolutions that have received no markup of any kind in the
committee of jurisdiction.
I know that seemed like a bothersome and worrisome procedural process
to have just gone through. Madam Speaker, in those few minutes that you
were ruling those unanimous consent requests out of order, we have just
discussed whether or not our commitment to Israel and its safety and
security will be hampered by the underlying Khanna amendment in more
detail than any committee of jurisdiction has ever done. In these few
minutes of Members' asking for a debate and being told no, ironically,
when time was yielded for the purpose of debate only, we have discussed
the issue more than in any markup in any committee of jurisdiction.
There is not one Member of this Chamber who does not think our
Nation's sons and daughters in uniform deserve better. There is not one
Member of this Chamber who does not think our ally Israel deserves
better.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rarely fail to be moved by my good friend from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) with his directness, his charm, and his
legislative prowess. But I have to say I fail to be moved by this last
jack-in-the-box procedural maneuver of people getting up and asking for
unanimous consent to do something that my friends failed to do for the
last 8 years when they could have had a hearing at any point on the War
Powers Act, yet they didn't do it.
Now, I believe that all of my friends who got up in the line were
operating under a misapprehension because there was a hearing in the
House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 14--that is about 2 weeks
ago--called ``From Sanctions to the Soleimani Strike to Escalation:
Evaluating the Administration's Iran Policy'' and all the implications
in terms of Congress' war powers.
For the life of me, I can't understand why my good friend is not
joining us today. I understand that it is always possible to summon up
a procedural objection when the substantive task at hand is too
difficult to do politically. I understand this would require people to
make the President of the United States mad because, like every
President before him--and this is a bipartisan issue, as Chairman
McGovern said--this President wants to be able to decide for himself
whether or not the United States of America is going to be plunged into
war.
The very simple proposition that we bring before the House that
everybody in the Chamber can speak to right now, and everybody in the
Chamber can vote on, is the repeal of the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
That was 18 years ago. We have kids who could die in a war against
Iran in Iraq, or a war in Iran, based on this resolution, and they
weren't even born when this Authorization of Use of Military Force was
adopted by Congress.
The real question is: Are we going to have the courage to stand up
for the Constitution and to stand up for our constituents and say that
we will not go to war unless there is a specific statutory
authorization by Congress or a declaration of war or there is an actual
attack on the United States such that the President is really acting in
self-defense?
Both Democratic and Republican Members of Congress were bewildered
and frustrated by the presentation of this administration as to why the
United States of America needed to commit that strike when they did.
There were changing stories. About every 20 minutes, we got a new
story about why it was necessary. I have not heard a single word on the
other side--to their credit--defending any of the justifications or
rationalizations or pretexts that were offered by the administration.
So, we come back to a constitutional point that is not difficult, and
that is one that came up at that Foreign Affairs Committee hearing a
couple of weeks ago. It is one that we talked about in the Rules
Committee last night in debate. It is one that every one of us is
invited to join in right now on the floor of the House to discuss,
which is the one that was made by the chairman of the Rules Committee.
I have to say a word in honor of our great chair on the Rules
Committee. He has been invoking the Constitution and the exclusive
power of Congress to declare war for two decades, through Democratic
Presidents, Republican Presidents, Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, and now
Trump. He has been saying the same thing, which is that we should not
be committing American troops to wars abroad without a vote of
Congress, which was the explicit design of the Framers of the
Constitution.
Go back to the Preamble of the Constitution:
We the people, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general welfare, and preserve
to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty do
hereby ordain and establish the Constitution of the United
States of America.
The very next sentence in Article I states that the legislative power
is vested in a Congress of the United States, a House of
Representatives and a Senate. Then, it sets forth all of our powers,
including the power to declare war, the power of taxes, the power to
appropriate money, the power to raise armies, the power to maintain a
navy, and so on. All of that is with Congress.
You go all the way through Article I, Madam Speaker, and then you get
to Article II, where the President is denominated the Commander in
Chief of the Army and the Navy in times of actual conflict and
insurrection, and the President's core job is to take care that the
laws are faithfully executed.
That includes the Constitution itself, of course, and it includes the
War Powers Resolution of 1973.
This is a very clear principle. It is a constitutional axiom we are
advancing today. We had a hearing on it a couple of weeks ago, but we
don't need weeks and months of hearings. Obviously, our good friends
didn't think it required any hearings over the 8 years that they were
in control of the House of Representatives.
It is a simple proposition, which is that the war power belongs to
Congress. We have to declare war. We can't run away from it any more
than our brave troops can run away from battle when they have been
committed to battle.
All we are saying is that if there is going to be war against Iran,
if there is going to be a war against the new government in Iraq--not
Saddam Hussein, who is gone and dead--then we have to declare the war;
we have to authorize the war; and we have to debate and deliberate over
it as contemplated by the Founders of our country. That is our job.
We had a bipartisan vote invoking the War Powers Resolution on
January 9. It ended up 224-194, but we had Democrats and Republicans
invoking the War Powers Resolution with respect to the situation in
Iran.
Again, I am not quite sure why our colleagues don't want to do this
with us. I understand it is easier to do it when the opposing party is
in the White House, but we have many Members on both sides of the aisle
who have demonstrated their courage by invoking the War Powers
Resolution and by
[[Page H586]]
standing up for the Constitution. That is what we have to do today, and
we have the perfect opportunity and legislative vehicle to do it right
now.
I reserve the remainder of my time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I don't question my friend from Maryland's passion at
all. He says that we have the perfect vehicle to get this done today. I
refer you back to the rule. That perfect vehicle is called H.R. 550,
the Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of
2019.
You haven't heard us talk about merchant mariners or gold medals yet
today because, as you know, Madam Speaker, this rule would strip out
all the language in the underlying bill that deals with gold medals and
merchant mariners and replace it with matters of war and peace.
I will quote the author of one of the amendments that is stuffed into
the merchant mariners bill in place of the merchant mariners language,
Mr. Khanna, who said in Politico last week: ``Majority Leader Hoyer has
done an excellent job in figuring out a procedure for how we can get a
vote on the floor on these bills without an MTR,'' a motion to
recommit.
Madam Speaker, a motion to recommit is what you heard folks asking
unanimous consent for. A motion to recommit in this case would be the
only opportunity for any voices to be heard at all on this issue.
My friend from Maryland proudly talks about a single hearing that was
held 2 weeks ago, but it wasn't held on this bill. There has been not
one markup, not one word, discussed in committee, marked up, and
reported to the floor of this House--not one.
My friend from Maryland says that we have to debate and deliberate
over matters of this gravity, that that is our job.
Madam Speaker, let's do our job: debate and deliberate.
What does it tell you? That I have been voting with the Speaker on
these issues for almost a decade, on issues of war and peace, and I am
offended by the process that you are using to bring this to the floor
the first time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Again, just to recapitulate, today's rule provides for consideration
of legislation to do two things: one, to limit funding for any military
action in or against Iran; and, two, repeal the 2002 Authorization for
Use of Military Force. I do believe it is correct to advocate for
Congress to retake Article I powers, and it is correct to negotiate a
new Authorization for Use of Military Force.
I was not here in 2002. I was not able to vote on that legislation.
However, we should not repeal the existing 2002 authorization without a
hearing, without a markup, and without fully assessing how it will
affect our troops in the region. Further, we should evaluate whether or
not a new Authorization for Use of Military Force should take its
place.
In fact, 2 or 3 weeks ago, Democratic leadership of this House
brought H. Con. Res. 83. The House passed this earlier this month. In
the findings, the majority stated: ``The United States has national
interests in preserving its partnership with Iraq.'' Yet, here we are
now just a few weeks later considering a repeal of that very authority.
If it was important 3 weeks ago, how did it become unimportant today?
We don't know because we haven't had a hearing.
Limiting funding for any military action in and against Iran simply
broadcasts our plans or lack thereof to the enemy, potentially inciting
further aggression. Weakness is provocative.
I voted for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act
prohibiting funding for authorized military action in Iran because it
was offered, considered, and voted on following regular order. But
neither piece of legislation addressing war authorities before us today
has been marked up or has had committee consideration.
We heard last night in the Rules Committee that there have been
hearings focused on Iran and that, in fact, suffices. But,
realistically, regional hearings do not allow for the serious
discussion required for an Authorization for Use of Military Force and
including funding for military action.
In addition, currently, the Democratic majority is using a vehicle
that removes minority Republicans' ability to offer that one
opportunity to amend the bill that is known as the motion to recommit.
That is a long-honored tradition of both sides that there should at
least be one opportunity for the minority to be heard.
So, I believe it is wrong to rush to limit war authorities, and it is
irresponsible.
Do you know what, Madam Speaker? In a dangerous world, it is
downright dangerous. Congress should be authorizing action through a
renegotiated Authorization for Use of Military Force rather than
passing a resolution prohibiting funding for military activity.
{time} 1330
I remember on the floor of this House, a former colleague, Rob
Simmons from Connecticut, a Republican, when there was an effort to
limit funding during the most kinetic part of the Iraq war. Mr. Simmons
had served in the Armed Forces during the Vietnam conflict, and he
related, from one of these very podia, how, as a young soldier in
Vietnam, he had heard that Congress had withdrawn the funding for what
he was doing. I will never forget his words. He said: At that moment, I
hated the United States Congress.
That is the effect we can have on the young men and women whom we
have sent to answer the call of duty, that Congress could and should be
working to provide the necessary authorities for our Commander in Chief
as he directs these brave young men and women in uniform rather than
broadcasting our limitations to the enemy.
Again, weakness is provocative.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we
will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order a
bipartisan resolution, an amendment to deal with fentanyl and its
listing on schedule I.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden) for the purpose of explaining that previous question vote.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend on the
Rules Committee for yielding me the time.
Our proposal to defeat the previous question and offer this amendment
would do no underlying violence to the two bills--it has nothing to do
with them--but it would save lives of all kinds of people in America.
You see, fentanyl is a synthetic, manmade opioid. It is 50 times more
potent than heroin. It is 100 times more potent than morphine. It is a
scheduled drug under the Controlled Substances Act. However, Madam
Speaker, drug traffickers are able to make small changes to fentanyl
and its chemical structure, and that creates a new variation of the
substance.
Now, these so-called analogues are not on the schedule of controlled
drugs. They are outside of the control of law enforcement, and they are
incredibly dangerous--may I say, deadly.
For example, one of these analogues, carfentanil, is 100 times as
potent as the same amount of fentanyl, 5,000 times more potent than a
unit of heroin, and 10,000 times as potent as a unit of morphine.
Now, the creation of analogues outpaced the Drug Enforcement
Administration's ability to schedule them, so the DEA used emergency
authorities to place all of the analogues in schedule I.
The Controlled Substances Act, the CSA, provides the Attorney General
with the authority to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of
the CSA for 2 years if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid
an imminent hazard to the public safety. In 2018, the Trump
administration's DEA used this authority to place fentanyl analogues
and fentanyl-like substances on that schedule I.
So here is the issue: The emergency scheduling order expires next
Thursday, February 6, and Congress has yet
[[Page H587]]
to extend it. The Senate passed an extension, Madam Speaker, I believe,
unanimously; but, so far, Democrats in the House have not acted.
There is no excuse for this. There is no reason for this. Lives will
be lost. We have seen a series of delay tactics, and that is leading to
an expiration of this incredibly important authority.
With the United States Senate dealing with impeachment, there is no
time for the House to generate a new product, a different bill, before
this expires. So the House needs to pass the Senate extension this week
so law enforcement does not lose or have a lapse on this important
capability to fight fentanyl, which is deadly, which is added to
heroin, which causes deaths all across America.
We are using this limited tool we have asking for a defeat of the
previous question so that we can offer this should-be-unanimous
amendment to get it on a vehicle so it can become law.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put the text
of our amendment to amend the rule to add S. 3201 in the Record
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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Everything we have talked about has been partisan and divisive. What
you have just heard from the gentleman from Oregon is to say, in the
midst of why ever it is the majority has chosen to use this rule today
to move partisan priorities, to make statements instead of policy, that
we have one opportunity to make policy, actual policy, policy that
passed the Senate unanimously, policy that America needs, desires, that
is going to expire next week, and that, if we added it today, would go
straight to the President's desk for his approval.
I can't count the number of times my colleagues have said that issues
deserve debate. I didn't come here to be part of a debating society. I
came here to be a part of a getting-something-done group, conscientious
men and women who want to do the best they can to serve their
constituents.
My friend from Oregon is offering us a chance to do exactly that
today, and I would ask my friends--they have seen fit to use a very
strange procedure to turn a Congressional Gold Medal for merchant
mariners bill into a bill on war and peace. They have seen fit to strip
away an opportunity for any voices to be heard on any of those measures
whatsoever.
They could, as long as they are setting precedent, go ahead and
support our defeat of the previous question today to add one more item
so that we don't leave here today having just made a point, so that we
can leave here today having made a difference, as my friend from Oregon
is giving us the opportunity to do.
Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman's passionate statements are
all accurate and true. It was not that long ago we came together as a
Congress, the last Congress, under my leadership of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and passed nearly 60 pieces of legislation into
one, the SUPPORT Act, that deals with the opioid crisis, the substance
use disorder crisis in America, and one of the key points of that was
dealing with this illegal fentanyl that is coming in.
If we let this authority expire, the real practical consequence is
these evil actors, these chemists in their labs, will simply alter the
chemical makeup, which they do all the time, create an even more deadly
or powerful fentanyl that can go into heroin and other drugs and kill
our citizens, and they can do that lawfully because that new substance
will not be covered.
Now, we would hope the majority would move the Senate bill. But we
have seen no text; we have heard no schedule. This authority expires
next week on February 6, and we only have a legislative day or two
left.
Madam Speaker, lives hang in the balance. This, we should adopt.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I know my friend from Maryland is
prepared to close.
We had a bipartisan pathway forward on credit reporting agencies and
reform, but the majority, in its wisdom, saw fit to shut those voices
out; and this rule makes in order a partisan pathway forward that will
go to the President's desk, if it makes it through the Senate, for a
veto.
For decades, you have worked to build bipartisan support for finally
reexamining an AUMF that should have been reexamined decades ago. The
majority, in its wisdom, has decided to shut out all voices, Republican
and Democrat, hold no markups, change language not at all, and make a
partisan exercise of what should be a bipartisan issue, a resounding
bipartisan issue, in this House; and my friend from Oregon is offering
us an opportunity to take what has always been a bipartisan effort to
protect our young people from the harms of opioids, to prevent
traffickers from making chemical changes that allow them to thwart the
law, and move that to the President's desk immediately.
Madam Speaker, defeat the previous question. Defeat the previous
question so that we can at least do one thing that we know will make a
difference today, one thing that will bring us together, one thing the
Senate did unanimously and the President would put a signature on
tomorrow. Let's do that one thing: defeat the previous question.
I tell my colleagues, if they won't defeat the previous question,
they are going to have to defeat the rule, because they have turned
protecting consumers into a partisan exercise, protecting men and women
in uniform into a partisan exercise, and all of the goodwill that men
and women of this Chamber have put into building for decades becomes a
little bit weaker today.
Defeat the previous question; if not, defeat the rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to thank my good friend from Georgia for our robust and active
exchange today.
We came to debate matters of war and peace and the reassertion of
Congress' essential constitutional powers over the declaration of war
and the commitment of our troops and our funds to foreign wars.
These are critical issues that our friends, when they were in charge
of the Chamber, routinely ignored; but we are confronting them, and we
invite them in enthusiastically to be part of this process of
reasserting Congress' war powers.
But the minority's previous question is obviously unnecessary and an
irrelevant distraction from the important issues that we have come to
address. And I want to be clear about this: It is an unnecessary
distraction because the House majority leader committed this morning to
bringing up S. 3201, which extends the ban on all fentanyl-based
substances. It took place this morning. Check docs.house.gov, which has
the complete running explanation of what is taking place. This morning,
he scheduled it for the very first item of business tomorrow.
So the bill that my friends are valiantly promising to bring to the
floor if we defeat the previous question is already scheduled to be
considered as the first item of business tomorrow morning under
suspension of the House rules.
And I will remind my colleagues of what defeating the previous
question means. It gives control of the floor to the minority. We are
not going to do that because we are here to prevent unauthorized war
with Iran; to repeal the obsolete and unnecessary 2002 AUMF, which
addressed the situation with Saddam Hussein; and to modernize the
credit reporting system, which is failing millions of Americans, our
constituents.
For all of the reasons that we have discussed during this robust
debate, we need to ensure that the whole House gets the chance to vote
on all of these things: on the repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF and on
reforming the credit reporting system so our people have better access
to credit and we have real transparency and fairness in people's credit
reports and credit scores.
[[Page H588]]
I hope that all of our colleagues, both in the majority and the
minority, will join us in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and
``yes'' on this rule so we can move on to serious, thoughtful,
deliberate consideration of all of these critical measures that we
bring before the Congress and the American people.
I also hope that all of our colleagues will join me in supporting S.
3201, the fentanyl legislation, which our colleague discussed, on
suspension tomorrow.
Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RASKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, we agree on the fentanyl issue, I think.
My understanding is that the leader posted this, Madam Speaker, at
11:50 this morning, about a half an hour after we posted our previous
question proposal to bring this to the floor.
We are just curious what text, when it is scheduled. We need to
resolve this issue, we would agree.
{time} 1345
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time. I am thrilled to be
able to assure the gentleman that we are taking up the exact Senate
bill in its exact verbatim text.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman when that will occur.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, this will occur tomorrow morning on the
first bill at 12:15, 12:30. It is the first bill.
Madam Speaker, let me just say that I hope our friends take yes for
an answer, and I hope that this will perhaps usher in their ability to
support the underlying legislation here because I know that they agree
with us that the Constitution gives the House of Representatives and
the Senate the power to declare war. It gives Congress the power to
declare war, to spend money on war. We should not allow a President of
any party--Democratic, Republican, or anything else--to usurp that
power and to engage in unilateral Presidential wars without our
specific authorization, without our declaration, unless there is an
attack on the land, the people of the United States, or our Armed
Forces, as specified in the War Powers Resolution.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 811
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (S. 3201) to extend the temporary scheduling order for
fentanyl-related substances, and for other purposes. 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 Energy & Commerce; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of S. 3201.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam 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.
____________________