[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.

                          ____________________