[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 103 (Monday, June 14, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H2716-H2722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 256, REPEALING THE AUTHORIZATION 
 FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002; PROVIDING 
 FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1187, ESG DISCLOSURE SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 
                      2021; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 473

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 256) to 
     repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against 
     Iraq Resolution of 2002. 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 Foreign 
     Affairs or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1187) to 
     provide for disclosure of additional material information 
     about public companies and establish a Sustainable Finance 
     Advisory Committee, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. 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 117-5 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. 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: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services or their 
     respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in 
     section 3 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc 
     described in section 4 of this resolution; and (4) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  After debate pursuant to section 2 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as part of 
     amendments en bloc pursuant to section 4 of this resolution 
     shall be considered 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, may be withdrawn by the proponent 
     at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to section 2 of this resolution for the chair of the 
     Committee on Financial Services or her designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Financial Services or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 5.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments 
     en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 6.  The provisions of section 202 of the National 
     Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) shall not apply to House 
     Joint Resolution 46.
       Sec. 7.  House Resolution 467 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 8.  (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Thursday, June 17, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions 
     offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with 
     respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and 
     the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without 
     debate or intervening motion.
        (b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any 
     measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules 
     on the legislative day of June 14, 2021, or June 15, 2021, in 
     the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were 
     ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 
     8 of rule XX.
       (c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection 
     (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas 
     and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with 
     respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such 
     motions are considered as withdrawn.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Lee of California). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 473, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 256, to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force against 
Iraq resolution of 2002, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and one motion to 
recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1187, the Corporate 
Governance Improvement and Investor Protection Act, under a structured 
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
Services, makes in order 10 amendments, provides en bloc authority to 
the chair of the Committee on Financial Services, and provides for one 
motion to recommit.
  The rule provides that the provisions of section 202 of the National 
Emergencies Act shall not apply to H.J. Res. 46. The rule also deems 
passage of H. Res. 467.
  Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the 
ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills 
considered on June 14 or June 15. This authority lasts through June 17.

                              {time}  1715

  Madam Speaker, there are two critically important measures contained 
in this rule.
  H.R. 1187 will build on landmark reforms like the Dodd-Frank Act and 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It will help hold corporations accountable, help 
investors make informed decisions, and build a more sustainable and 
equitable economic recovery. These improvements are badly needed, 
especially at a time when we are seeing a new era of sustainable 
investors.
  I want to discuss one bill in particular here today, Madam Speaker, a 
bill that was authored by the distinguished Chair, Congresswoman 
Barbara Lee from California, because this Congress is doing something 
extraordinary.
  Nearly 20 years after we passed a measure to address the overthrow of 
Saddam Hussein and 10 years after the conflict in Iraq officially 
ended, we are reasserting our constitutional responsibility over 
matters of war and peace by finally repealing the 2002 Authorization 
for Use of Military Force.
  This isn't an arcane legislative maneuver or simply some rhetorical 
exercise. This AUMF has been used over and over again to expand the 
mission and range of targets of U.S. military operations in Iraq never 
imagined when it was passed.
  In fact, President Trump misused it as recently as last January to 
justify the strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. The 
impacts of that decision dramatically escalated tensions between the 
United States and Iran and throughout the region, tensions that persist 
to this very day.
  Madam Speaker, the process that we are starting here today with H.R. 
256 provides a roadmap for Congress to get off the sidelines and to 
stop abdicating its constitutional responsibility to debate matters of 
war and peace.
  That is what our Founders intended. They knew that decisions of such 
magnitude should not be made in a vacuum solely by a President. That is 
why the Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief but gives 
only Congress the power to declare war.
  It is no secret that for a long time there were Members on both sides 
of the aisle who preferred to skirt that responsibility. They left such 
consequential decisions to whoever sat at 1600

[[Page H2717]]

Pennsylvania Avenue, Republican or Democrat.
  But each of us was elected and sent here to do more than just make 
the easy calls. We were sent here to make tough decisions, especially 
when it involves sending our uniformed men and women, the people we 
represent, into harm's way and shoveling billions upon billions of 
taxpayer dollars overseas.
  A growing number of Members, both Democrats and Republicans, have 
been working together to reclaim our Article I powers. There is now a 
bipartisan, bicameral consensus that we not only have to end endless 
wars, but we have to reexamine the shrinking congressional authority 
and the expanding executive powers that get us into global conflicts in 
the first place and, like inertia, keep us there for decades.
  The Rules Committee has been working with the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee to do just that because everything has changed since Congress 
enacted the original War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto 
more than 50 years ago.
  When we fight, how we fight, and why we fight, these are big issues 
that merit our most engaged attention and resolve. We have a 
responsibility to make sure that these laws and authorities work in the 
modern age.
  I want to thank, in particular, Ranking Member Cole on the Rules 
Committee for working with me in this effort. He has been pushing to 
reclaim Congress' Article I responsibilities, no matter which party 
controls Congress or who sits in the White House. I know that sometimes 
it has been a lonely journey, but he has never stopped fighting because 
it is the right thing to do for this country and for this institution.
  I also want to thank Chairman Meeks and Ranking Member McCaul for 
working with us on this bipartisan effort.
  Again, I want to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for being consistent 
and never giving up in her effort not only to end endless wars but to 
make sure that Congress lives up to its constitutional 
responsibilities.
  I am grateful that we also have a President in office today who 
supports reevaluating executive war powers. I have to be honest, Madam 
Speaker, I never thought I would see that day. But President Biden 
spent decades in the Senate grappling with the limitations of the War 
Powers Resolution, and he has a record of looking for ways to change 
it.
  This opportunity is like lightning in a bottle. We have a coalition 
in Congress trying to get this done, and now the missing piece, a 
President in the Oval Office with the political will to take this on, 
is hopefully now falling into place.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in seizing this moment. 
Let's make the repeal of the 2002 AUMF the first step in not only 
repealing and reforming outdated AUMFs but reimagining the War Powers 
Resolution for the modern age.
  President Johnson once said that it is damn easy to get into a war, 
but it is awfully hard to get out of one. We are here today because of 
the truth of that statement.
  It should never be that Congress, and the people we represent, are 
sidelined on the life-or-death questions of when to go to war and when 
to come home.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of 
two pieces of legislation. The first is H.R. 256, which would repeal 
the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or the AUMF. This 
AUMF authorizes the President to defend the Nation against threats 
posed by and in Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, as an Iraq war veteran, I sat literally face-to-face 
with bombmakers, murderers, and other terrorists who were willing to 
give up their lives in their quest to destroy America. The 2002 AUMF is 
the only current legal framework for fighting Iranian-backed militia 
operating in Iraq.
  I agree that there are important conversations to be had about the 
War Powers Resolution and the future of the 2002 AUMF. However, 
Congress should undertake a collaborative process and work with 
stakeholders, like the Department of Defense and the intelligence 
community, and we should work with them to draft a replacement for the 
2001 and 2002 AUMFs before we repeal important authorities for 
confronting and eliminating terrorists.
  If we don't do this, we leave our Nation open to threats from Iran, 
which is already emboldened by President Biden's kowtowing and his 
capitulations, so we would be more vulnerable to Iran.
  We also leave ourselves vulnerable to other terrorist organizations 
that are intent on destroying and taking American lives both at home 
and abroad.
  This rule also makes in order H.R. 1187, the so-called Corporate 
Governance Improvement and Investor Protection Act. In reality, this 
measure is nothing more than House Democrats' latest attempt to force 
their radical, far-left agenda on the American people.
  Republicans support securities regulation and disclosure regimes that 
are actually helpful to American investors and entrepreneurs. The bill 
before us today is meant to appeal to social activists and woke 
corporations rather than Main Street investors looking to save money 
for retirement, pay for their kids' college education, or simply build 
a better life.
  H.R. 1187 will push the SEC to focus on social activism rather than 
investor interests and use our securities laws to push a partisan 
progressive agenda.
  If you don't believe me, just don't take my word for it. Look at the 
words of Senator Elizabeth Warren. She put out a press release about 
provisions in this bill, which she claimed will ``accelerate the market 
transition from fossil fuels to cleaner and more sustainable energy 
sources that mitigate climate change.''
  Those are her words. The activism is right there. It is written into 
this bill.
  Clearly, H.R. 1187 is about the social justice Democrats' war on 
American coal, oil, and gas producers and the people who actually work 
in those industries. It is more about that than enhancing shareholder 
value.
  I would just like to remind my colleagues that under the law, public 
companies are already required to publicly disclose any material 
information that investors would find important to making investment 
decisions. If the mandatory disclosures in H.R. 1187 were actually 
material, public companies would already be required to disclose them.
  Rather, each of these disclosures, but particularly the climate and 
socially related disclosures, are intended to what I would call name 
and shame public companies and bully them into compliance with the 
House Democrats' radical, far-left progressive agenda.
  Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, H.R. 1187 discourages private 
companies from going public; it encourages public companies to then go 
private; and it limits investment opportunities for hardworking 
Americans.
  While my colleagues across the aisle continue to bow before the woke 
mob and continue to appease woke yuppies, House Republicans will stand 
and fight for everyday Americans trying to save their hard-earned money 
and work toward a better life for themselves and their families.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I include in the Record a June 1 Newsweek article titled ``Congress 
Has a Chance To Reclaim Its War Powers.''

                             [June 1, 2021]

            Congress Has a Chance To Reclaim Its War Powers

                           (By Dan Caldwell)

       In response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, then-President 
     George W. Bush signed into law the 2001 Authorization for Use 
     of Military Force to provide the legal authority to pursue 
     and punish those responsible. The following year, the 2002 
     AUMF was passed to authorize the ill-conceived invasion of 
     Iraq and the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein.
       Over the last 20 years, both laws have been used to justify 
     military actions disconnected from their original intent. 
     These laws--unmodified since their original passage--have 
     sanctioned combat operations in at least 19 countries.
       Successive congresses have abdicated their constitutionally 
     prescribed role in foreign

[[Page H2718]]

     policy, allowing four presidential administrations to exploit 
     the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs and stretch their Article II 
     authorities. Multiple military conflicts have been expanded 
     or initiated with minimal congressional oversight and debate.
       It is past time for Congress to firmly reassert its role in 
     shaping U.S. foreign policy. After 20 years of endless war, 
     it owes its constituents--including our men and women in 
     uniform--a better foreign policy that prioritizes keeping 
     Americans safe. Rather than abdicating its solemn duties, 
     Congress must inquire, ``Why, at what cost, and toward what 
     end?'' are young American servicemembers sent to fight and 
     die for ill-premised objectives that are fundamentally 
     disconnected from vital national interests. Further evasion 
     of these hard questions cheapens the ``true faith and 
     allegiance'' they swore to uphold when elected to office.
       Over 7,000 Americans have lost their lives and tens of 
     thousands more wounded in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and 
     Africa. These conflicts have cost the American taxpayer over 
     $6.4 trillion dollars--a number that will surely continue to 
     grow as wars drag on and the cost of caring for veterans of 
     these wars is tallied.
       Congress has several ways it can help bring an end to our 
     endless wars while helping shape a better foreign policy.
       First, in the coming months the House of Representatives 
     will likely have an opportunity to repeal the 2002 AUMF by 
     passing legislation introduced by Representative Barbara Lee 
     (D-Calif.)--a stalwart champion of Congress reclaiming its 
     powers in matters of war and peace. A similar bill has been 
     introduced in the Senate by Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.) and 
     Tim Kaine (D-Va.), which has been endorsed by the Biden 
     administration. Additional legislation repealing the outdated 
     1957 and 1991 AUMFs has been introduced by Representatives 
     Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) and Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.). 
     Passage of these bipartisan bills should be a no-brainer for 
     a Congress bitterly divided on other issues and an important 
     first step toward Congress reclaiming its most important 
     prerogative.
       Congress should also consider revision--or outright 
     repeal--of the 2001 AUMF. More than the 2002 AUMF, this law 
     has been stretched to justify conflicts far afield from its 
     original intent of authorizing operations against Al-Qaeda 
     and the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11. It is worth 
     acknowledging that the underlying purpose of the 2001 AUMF 
     has been satisfied: Osama bin Laden is dead, Al-Qaeda has 
     been decimated and the Taliban severely punished. And despite 
     never being amended, this authorization has been cited to 
     account for operations against groups that didn't even exist 
     on 9/11 in places such as Somalia and Libya.
       If Congress repeals the 2001 AUMF, the executive branch 
     still has the authority to authorize military operations to 
     repel imminent attacks and to engage in self-defense 
     (although Congress should take steps to ensure that this 
     authority isn't stretched too far, as it was by President Joe 
     Biden's recent airstrikes in Syria). If Congress identifies a 
     need to replace the 2001 AUMF, it should authorize force 
     against clear targets given specified objectives, geographic 
     boundaries and clear sunsets.
       Congress should also use its power of the purse to assert 
     its authority in foreign policy. This is in many ways the 
     most effective tool Congress has and it has been used 
     successfully in the past to end American involvement in 
     conflicts, including Vietnam.
       Repealing outdated AUMFs and helping end our forever wars 
     around the globe would enjoy broad support from the American 
     people. Poll after poll has shown a majority of Americans 
     want an end to our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while also 
     supporting Congress playing a greater role in authorizing 
     military conflicts abroad.
       I am proud to have deployed to Iraq as a U.S. Marine. Many 
     of those I served with are still in uniform and are still 
     deploying to war zones on a regular basis, even if they 
     harbor doubts about the necessity of those conflicts. 
     Congress owes it to them to step up and do its job by 
     reasserting itself in matters of war and peace. Failing to do 
     so dishonors those who have and who continue to serve 
     overseas in the wars that have dragged on in part due to 
     congressional inaction.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, over the last 20 years, both the 2001 
and 2002 AUMFs have been used to justify military actions disconnected 
from their original intent.
  I want to say to my colleague from Pennsylvania that we are grateful 
for his service to our country. But the fact is that we are still 
operating under an AUMF that we passed almost 20 years ago, almost two 
decades ago.
  When we were debating that AUMF--an AUMF that I voted against--there 
is no way that we would have anticipated what the realities are now. 
The notion that somehow we can't, as a body, come together and revisit 
these AUMFs on a regular basis, to me, is beyond comprehension.
  We owe it to the men and women who serve our country in our Armed 
Forces to make sure that we are doing our due diligence.
  The President has multiple authorities, by the way, to be able to 
respond to any threats against individual U.S. citizens almost anywhere 
in the world. But if people are trying to use this AUMF as a way to 
potentially have a war with Iran, let me just say this: If that is what 
anybody's goal is, you better damn well come back to Congress and have 
a debate, and people ought to be able to vote yes or no on it.
  Many of us are concerned that these lingering AUMFs are going to be 
misconstrued and misinterpreted and misused.
  I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy. 
President Biden supports the Lee bill. He doesn't see any need to have 
a continuation of the 2002 AUMF. If the President of the United States 
doesn't see a need to continue it, I don't know why we feel we have to 
continue something that is clearly outdated.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 h.r. 256--repeal of authorization for use of military force--against 
      iraq resolution of 2002--rep. lee, d-ca with 134 co-sponsors

       The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 256, to 
     repeal the Authorization for Use of of Military Force Against 
     Iraq Resolution of 2002 (``2002 AUMF''). This bipartisan 
     legislation would terminate the October 16, 2002, statutory 
     authorization for the use of military force against Iraq.
       The Administration supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF, as 
     the United States has no ongoing military activities that 
     rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and 
     repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on 
     current military operations. Furthermore, the President is 
     committed to working with the Congress to ensure that 
     outdated authorizations for the use of military force are 
     replaced with a narrow and specific framework appropriate to 
     ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from 
     terrorist threats.
       In working with the Congress on repealing and replacing 
     other existing authorizations of military force, the 
     Administration seeks to ensure that the Congress has a clear 
     and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action 
     and of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and 
     interests around the world. As the Administration works with 
     the Congress to reform AUMFs, it will be critical to maintain 
     the clear authority to address threats to the United States' 
     national interests with appropriately decisive and effective 
     military action.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank Congresswoman Lee, our Speaker pro tempore, 
for her longtime advocacy on this very important issue. Her leadership 
on the fundamental question of the role of Congress in matters of war 
has been unwavering, and we owe her a debt of gratitude for her 
commitment to bringing this issue to the forefront.
  Nearly two decades ago, Congress passed a resolution authorizing 
military force against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. That 
resolution was aided in its passage by deeply flawed intelligence that 
we now know had no basis in fact.
  It has been 18 years since Saddam Hussein was deposed. It has been a 
decade since the United States declared a formal end to operations in 
Iraq. The Iraqi Government is a regional partner, and the U.N. Security 
Council resolutions referenced have been fulfilled.
  There is no reason to allow the 2002 AUMF to stand. It does not 
enhance our national security. It does not make Americans any safer. It 
does not make the mission of our men and women in uniform any easier.
  We must act so that Congress again asserts its responsibility in 
authorizing war.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and H.R. 256.
  Again, I thank Congresswoman Lee for her extraordinary leadership.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, in addition to making H.R. 256 and 
H.R. 1187 in order, the rule before us today includes a budget-deeming 
resolution that puts the House on track for a $1.5 trillion spending 
spree.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my good 
friend and ranking member of the Budget Committee, to discuss this 
reckless spending spree.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, this is complete madness that 
the Democrats are trying to push through a deeming resolution to spend 
$1.5 trillion, and they have yet to even bring it up in the debate.
  They want the American people to believe that what we are about to 
vote on on this floor right now is a bill that

[[Page H2719]]

is in Financial Services or a bill that is in Foreign Affairs. But yet 
they are trying to pass a resolution to bypass the budget process to 
spend $1.5 trillion.
  The Democrats have been in power for almost 900 days, and they have 
yet to put a real budget on the floor of the House of Representatives, 
even though the Budget Control Act of 1974 clearly states the process.
  What is it? What are you trying to hide? Why don't you want debate 
over $1.5 trillion of spending? Why are you hiding it from the American 
people? Why are you being so dishonest?
  $1.5 trillion is a lot of money. Your President submitted a budget 
just 2 weeks ago, the latest budget in the history of the United 
States. Are you not wanting to debate it? Are you not wanting to 
discuss it? Because the Speaker said the budget is a statement of your 
values. Show us your values.
  You don't want the American people to see your values because in the 
President's budget, the largest amount of spending in the history of 
this country, $69 trillion, you are putting $80 billion to hire 87,000 
IRS auditors to go after the American people. The largest tax increases 
in the history of the United States. $55 trillion. Tax increases on low 
income, middle income, all incomes. It is the big lie.
  But you know what? Across-the-board average increases on everything 
by at least a 16-percent increase except for things that deal with 
security: Our men and women in uniform, flatlining our national 
defense. Not one additional dollar could be found for border security 
when we are facing the Biden border crisis right now.
  More people have illegally crossed the southern border since January 
20 than the entire population of Kansas City, Missouri, and you all 
can't find one additional dollar? It is because you are divided within 
your party. You all are fighting to defund the police. You are fighting 
to defund our men and women in the Army, the National Guard, the Navy, 
the Air Force. Where are your priorities?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Houlahan). Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, where are your party's 
priorities in defunding the police, defunding our military? Put this 
legislation on the floor. Don't try to put it in one sentence, one 
sentence in a rule.
  We are 3\1/2\ months from a government shutdown, 3\1/2\ months. Let's 
pass a budget, a budget that was supposed to be passed by April 15, 
according to the law. April 15. Let's prevent this government shutdown.
  But yet, Madam Speaker, your side is trying to hide $1.5 trillion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman such time as 
he may consume.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I will just plead to the House 
Democrats, I will plead to you, Madam Speaker, please be transparent 
with the American people. We don't want a government shutdown.
  But the fact that you won't even bring forth a budget to be debated, 
your President's budget, you will not bring it to the House floor 
because you don't want the American people to see exactly how you are 
trying to destroy the working class, to raise taxes on the low-income 
and the working class, to put 87,000 tax auditors to go after the 
working class.
  The people see it. They see right through it. And history will 
definitely, definitely not read well for the House Democrats.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, what a crock. I mean, it is hard to hear anybody on 
the other side of the aisle talk about government shutdowns. I remember 
when they lost this place 3 years ago. What did they do? They left us 
with a government shutdown. First time ever in history, the Republican 
majority did that.
  The gentleman is saying we are not going to vote on this stuff. Maybe 
he doesn't understand the legislative process. Let me remind everybody 
that we have to vote on every single cent that we put forward here.
  We have an appropriations process. Maybe the gentleman doesn't 
understand that. But every cent that we spend has to be voted on by 
people in this Chamber. So nobody is not going to vote on anything.
  Let me just put this in perspective. Yes, the President's budget was 
late, and given the timing of the President's budget, the 
Appropriations Committee needs to get started to start doing their 
work, unless my friends don't want the Appropriations Committee to do 
their work. Deeming a top-line number for appropriators is a 
housekeeping item that we can take care of so they can move forward, 
and we can then turn our attention to a budget resolution and enacting 
the transformational policies included in the President's American Jobs 
Plan and American Families Plan.
  Here's the thing that really gets me when I hear people have 
meltdowns on the floor. This process has been used by Republicans and 
Democrats alike in order to allow appropriators to get started on their 
work. Ever since the first deeming resolution in fiscal year 1999, when 
Republicans were in charge, overall House Republican majorities used 
deemers nine times, including for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 
and 2019. Boy, how convenient it is to forget about all of that. But, 
then, again, facts don't seem to matter.

  Just one other thing. When the gentleman used the term ``big lie,'' I 
don't want to be lectured by anybody about a big lie, especially by 
individuals who voted deliberately to overturn the will of the American 
people, to undermine our democracy. I will not be lectured to by 
anybody on that matter.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), 
a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
rule we are considering and to speak to the necessity of Congress 
repealing the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against 
Iraq.
  Repealing the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force is a good 
first step towards Congress reasserting its constitutional authority 
over when and if the United States goes to war. This country has been 
in a state of perpetual war for almost 20 years. We now have members of 
the Armed Forces deployed overseas who are the children of soldiers who 
were sent to war under the 2002 AUMF.
  Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the sole authority 
to decide whether to allow the President to take the country into a 
prolonged war. Before this Nation sends our children, our 
servicemembers into harm's way, Members of Congress have the duty to 
consider and approve or disapprove such use of force. Americans have 
the right to hold us accountable for those decisions.
  Repealing the 2002 AUMF does not impede the President's ability to 
use military force without congressional approval in the event of a 
sudden threat or imminent attack, but we cannot continue to operate 
under a system where U.S. Presidents can place American troops in 
harm's way with no checks or balances. That is unacceptable.
  Congress' failure to repeal or replace the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs for 
two decades has done lasting damage to the constitutional separation of 
powers between Congress and President. It is time for this practice to 
end.
  I urge all of my colleagues to approve this rule and vote to repeal 
the 2002 AUMF.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, last month there were over 180,000 encounters at the 
southern border, almost 200,000 encounters at the southern border. That 
is a new 20-year record for illegal border crossings, 20-year record.
  Alarmingly, CBP has seized more deadly fentanyl so far in 2021 than 
in all of 2020. Based on our current trends, we can expect overdose 
deaths in 2021 to meet, if not exceed, the 90,000 Americans who lost 
their lives between September 2019 and September 2020, 90,000 American 
deaths.
  Yet Vice President Harris, who President Biden put in charge of 
stemming migration at our southern border, refuses to go firsthand to 
see the crisis in person. In Vice President Harris' own words, ``If you 
want to fix a problem, you have to go where the problem exists.'' That 
is what the Vice President said.

[[Page H2720]]

  Alarmingly, she hasn't gone to the southern border at all.
  It would be laughable if this wasn't a humanitarian crisis. It would 
be laughable if Americans weren't going to die of overdoses because of 
fentanyl crossing our southern border.
  That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congresswoman Ashley 
Hinson's See the Crisis Act. This legislation would restrict Vice 
President Harris from using taxpayer dollars to travel internationally 
until she actually visits our southern border.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) to explain the amendment.
  Mrs. HINSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call for immediate 
consideration of my See the Crisis Act. This legislation would prevent 
Vice President Kamala Harris from using taxpayer dollars to travel 
internationally before seeing the southern border crisis firsthand.
  Vice President Harris was named as the administration's point person 
on the illegal immigration crisis at our southern border 80 days ago, 
and this crisis is worsening by the day. Yet the Vice President has 
refused to go to the border herself and talk to the brave law 
enforcement officers, the men and women who are fighting this on the 
front lines.
  This out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach is a disgrace, Madam Speaker, 
but let's back up and look at how this crisis has developed on the 
Biden administration's watch.
  On day one of this administration, President Biden stopped 
construction of the border wall. Shortly after, he reinstated catch-
and-release. Now, this turned on the green light at our border. It 
incentivized the historic surge of illegal immigration that we are 
currently experiencing in this country.
  Open border policies are music to the ears of the cartels, the drug 
smugglers, and the traffickers who make their living on human 
suffering. Make no mistake, business is good for cartels and drug 
smugglers under this administration right now.
  Snuck into this rule here tonight is a provision to set the spending 
levels for Congress, and these historic spending levels rise in nearly 
every category except for one, the Department of Homeland Security. 
This sends a pretty clear message to the cartels that the U.S. 
Government doesn't think it is a priority to stop them.
  Madam Speaker, I recently visited the border to see the crisis for 
myself, hear what those on the front lines are facing every day. They 
told me they are completely overwhelmed. There are major 
vulnerabilities along our border. These are vulnerabilities that the 
cartels and the drug smugglers are exploiting every day.
  Border Patrol officers are apprehending sex offenders, gang members, 
even people on the terrorist watch list trying to come into our country 
illegally, and these are just the people that they are catching. Deadly 
drugs are pouring across the border in droves. Fentanyl seizures at the 
border have increased by 233 percent this year. 233 percent.
  When I was at the border I heard from both Democratic sheriffs and 
Republican sheriffs about these devastating realities and the damage 
that is being inflicted on our communities.
  But apparently, even as the administration's point person on the 
illegal immigration crisis, hearing from those on the ground is too 
much to ask for the Vice President.
  She has been the border czar for 80 days. She has been to yarn shops, 
she has been to bakeries, and she just flew right over the crisis at 
our southern border to meet with foreign countries, with the taxpayers' 
checkbook in hand.

                              {time}  1745

  When asked why she hasn't visited the southern border, she laughed. 
She laughed, and this is not a laughing matter.
  The border crisis impacts the safety and security of every Iowan, of 
every American. Every State is a border State right now.
  As Members of Congress, regardless of our party, it is our job to 
hold the administration accountable when it is failing the American 
people.
  Right now, Vice President Harris, Madam Speaker, is failing the 
American people. She is failing law enforcement at the border. She is 
failing the families who will suffer because of the drugs coming across 
our border and falling into the wrong hands.
  Vice President Harris needs to see the crisis for herself and take 
action. That is exactly what my See the Crisis Act will force her to 
do. This bill will prevent the Vice President from traveling 
internationally on the taxpayers' dime until she visits the southern 
border and reports back to the American people on how the 
administration will secure our border.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
tonight to join me in defeating the previous question and holding this 
administration accountable for the border crisis.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I don't even know what to say. The response to the situation at our 
border and to the people who are fleeing their countries in Central 
America to try to seek refugee in the United States, the response that 
the Republicans just came up with basically is saying we are going to 
withhold any money for Vice President Harris' travel budget unless she 
goes to the border and does a photo op.
  We are supposed to be a serious legislative body. We are supposed to 
be the most serious, most deliberative legislative body in the world, 
and my friends say we are going to withhold her travel budget unless 
she goes to the border and does a photo op. That is what this is.
  Never mind that Vice President Harris represented California as a 
United States Senator, which is a border State. Never mind that she 
just went to Central America because people are coming to our border 
from places like El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Never mind she 
went to some of these countries where people are fleeing so we can try 
to figure out how to deal with this issue.
  My Republican friends have brought to the House floor a bill that 
basically says: You know what? Our solution is you either go and do a 
photo op at the border or we are going to withhold your travel budget.
  I mean, really? That is a serious legislative proposal?
  I don't even know how to respond to that, other than to say that, you 
could have come up with something better. This isn't even worth any 
more of my time talking about it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Roy), my very good friend.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I note that the gentleman from Massachusetts just 
referred to the possibility of the Vice President of the United States 
going to the border for a photo op.
  Well, if she can find the border on a map and actually use her 
taxpayer-funded airplane, go to Andrews Air Force Base, fly to the 
great State of Texas, fly directly to the border at the Rio Grande and 
actually find the time in her duty as the Vice President of the United 
States to give a whit about the people of Texas, then maybe she could 
actually have a photo op.
  Perhaps the people of this country and the State of Texas, which I 
represent, would like more than a photo op. Perhaps we would like a 
Vice President who actually cared about the people of Texas, who 
actually cared about the ranchers.
  As I see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle muttering under 
their breath right now, how dare I speak up about the people of Texas 
who want to be protected? How dare I stand up about the ranchers whose 
fences are being torn down?
  The narcotics flying up I-35, running through Boerne, Texas, running 
through San Antonio. The nine immigrants found in a car being driven by

[[Page H2721]]

an American citizen, being paid by the Cartel Del Noreste of Los Zetas 
out of Nuevo Laredo; the two that were bound in a trunk. The boy that 
paid $4,000 to pick grapes but was being sent to a stash house in 
Houston, Texas, to be put into the slave trade; and little girls to be 
put into the sex trade.
  The 7-year-old girl who I talked to on the border at the Rio Grande 
at 1 o'clock in the morning, when I don't know where my colleagues 
were, but I can tell you that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle were not with me. They were not down on the Rio Grande River. 
They were not talking to that 7-year-old girl who had a phone number 
written on her arm, or talking to any of the others who were being 
potentially abused, as many NGOs and nonprofits estimate up to 25 to 30 
percent of the women on this journey are abused by dangerous cartels.
  It is not the Mexican Government that operates Tamaulipas or the 
state across the Rio Grande. It is the dangerous cartels making tens of 
millions of dollars moving human beings for profit.
  That is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sell as 
compassion?
  Then I watch the Vice President of the United States go down to 
another country to say, well, what could we possibly do to stem the 
tide?
  How about actually secure the border of the United States?
  How about actually use Title 42 in the middle of a global pandemic to 
make sure that we control the flow at the border?
  How about actually have the infrastructure in place that we know 
works?
  How about a return to Mexico policy where we can work with our 
friends in Mexico to stop the flow?

  How about not putting a big neon sign on the border saying: ``Come on 
in. Don't mind if the cartels abuse you on the way.''
  Meanwhile, Texas takes the brunt of it: an 800 percent increase over 
the last 4 years total in fentanyl; 800 percent more this year alone.
  Do you know how dangerous fentanyl is, Madam Speaker?
  We have had 7,500 pounds of fentanyl. 7,500 pounds that have been 
acquired by border patrol. Imagine what they might acquire if they 
weren't limited in resources. Imagine what they might acquire if they 
weren't undertaking processing in McAllen instead of having wide open 
spaces between our ports of entry. 7,500 pounds, an 800 percent 
increase in Texas. My State is under siege. My State is taking it on 
the chin because Democrats refuse to secure the border of the United 
States.
  It is the fundamental duty of a nation to secure its border. The 
fundamental duty. I come back here after 3 weeks talking to ranchers 
and people in my State who are getting abused, losing their ranches, 
losing their homes, watching their kids die in overdoses, all while 
migrants get put in stash houses and get abused running up through my 
neighborhood and my communities.
  Well, forgive me if I am not all that bothered by a resolution on 
this floor by my colleague from Iowa. And I think it is a good idea to 
try to call into question what the Vice President of the United States 
is actually spending her time doing.
  What on Earth is more important than securing the border of the 
United States? And how hard is it to get on your taxpayer-funded plane 
and fly to south Texas and go meet with the border patrol and meet with 
the ranchers and meet with the migrants and meet with the business 
owners who are getting killed?
  It is happening every single day in our State. It is our duty in the 
people's House to secure the border of this Nation. And I have 
constituents and people back home in Texas asking: What are we getting 
out of this deal? What are we getting out of our deal as being a part 
of the Union when the country won't even secure the border of our State 
and our communities? They are asking me that question.
  We have a job to come together here on this floor in this body and do 
our job to secure the border of the United States.
  I commend the gentlewoman from Iowa for offering this resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentleman can come and huff and puff all he wants on the House 
floor, but, again, I remind people that the solution that is being put 
forward by my Republican friends is to withhold the Vice President's 
travel budget until she does a photo op. I think this is beneath, quite 
frankly, the dignity of this legislative body.
  I would also say to the gentleman that what the Vice President was 
trying to do was get at the source of migration, of people coming to 
our border, trying to solve the problem. She was spending her time 
trying to figure out how to solve the problem, not try to figure out 
how to overturn the last election; not trying to figure out how to 
reinstate the last President who lost the election not only fair and 
square, but by a pretty big margin, but actually trying to solve 
problems.
  It is hard to sit here and listen to some of the things we have 
listened to here today and then be told: Oh, here is our proposal.
  I mean, come on. Give me a break.
  Let's get back to trying to figure out to solve problems rather than 
try to score political points. And if you are going to try to score 
political points, certainly you can come up with a better idea than 
this.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1187 is House Democrats' latest attempt to force 
a radical progressive agenda on the American people by turning the SEC 
into the social policy police.
  While my colleagues across the aisle continue to capitulate to the 
woke yuppies, continue to bow down in fear to the woke mob, House 
Republicans will fight for policies that help everyday Americans build 
better lives for themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
``no'' on the underlying measure.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I don't know what the gentleman was talking about, about woke yuppies 
and all this other kind of stuff he was talking about here today, but 
Democrats actually believe in science. We believe that climate change 
is real. We believe that we ought to have some accountability, 
especially in the corporate world, as to what they are doing and how 
they are reporting their actions.
  I find this so concerning that we can't even have a debate on what, 
in fact, the underlying legislation is. I think the bill that 
Congresswoman Waters has brought to the floor is a commonsense bill 
that I hope even some Republicans might support.
  I would also say that the other piece of legislation that we were 
talking about here today is Barbara Lee's bill to repeal the 2002 
Authorization for Use of Military Force. Many of us have been urging 
that we repeal that 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force for 
quite a while now. It has passed the House and it has passed committee. 
Yet here we are again, and now we have a President of the United States 
that says that he no longer wants that, that he actually supports what 
we are trying to do here. Yet we still have people on the House floor 
who say, no, we need to hold onto it, an Authorization for Use of 
Military Force that we passed almost 20 years ago that somehow is 
applicable today. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
  People like Congresswoman Lee; Congressman Adam Smith; the late 
Republican Congressman, Walter Jones; and Congressman Tom Cole have 
talked about the need for us to reclaim our constitutional powers when 
it comes to committing American forces into harm's way.

  Quite frankly, many of us have been raising this issue--didn't matter 
who was in the White House, whether it was a Democrat or a Republican--
because we think it is the right thing to do. We think somehow it is 
cowardice for Congress to just keep on kicking the can down the road to 
ignoring these important debates.
  You have those debates, and if people decide to continue the same 
old, same old, fine. That is what the majority of people here vote for. 
If people decide to end it, that ought to be fine, too. That is what we 
are here for.

[[Page H2722]]

  I think this institution would be better served if we took our 
constitutional responsibilities with regard to war and peace more 
seriously.
  Today, I hope we will pass this rule and we will then pass the Lee 
bill. But it isn't the end of our work. We are going to need to 
continue to review and repeal and reform outdated Authorizations for 
Use of Military Force, and we need to reimagine the broader issues 
embedded in the War Powers Resolution, because never again should we 
acquiesce and allow Congress to sit on the sidelines as wars are 
crafted and carried out by the White House, wars that never end, wars 
that sacrifice lives and sacrifice treasure.
  Let's respect our troops. Let's respect their families. Let's respect 
this institution. Let's finally get back to doing our jobs, taking 
responsibility and voting on issues of war and peace. And let's start 
today by supporting this rule and the underlying measures.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 473

  At the end of the resolution, add the following:

       Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 3403) to limit travel by the Vice President until 
     after certain activities are undertaken with respect to the 
     southwest border, 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 
     Oversight and Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3403.

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________