Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. House Of Representatives U.S. House Of Representatives 20240713

Which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. The clerk the speakers rooms, washington, d. C. January 10, 2020. I hereby appoint the honorable david n. Cicilline to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. Signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. The speaker pro tempore the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, rabbi barry h. Block, from church, from little rock, arkansas. From congregation bnai israel, from little rock arkansas. The chaplain source of blessing we come before you today asking your blessings upon the United States house of representatives. At this time of grave division, inspire these members of the peoples house to reach across every kind of aisle, to build new friendships that may grow into opportunities for greater understanding, speaking shared solutions to americas greatest problems. As the winds of war threaten all humanity, inspire the members of the peoples house to work toward peace, for the ability to wage peace is a greater measure of the nations strength than the capacity to wage war. Consecrate this house to perfect the nation our founders could not even envision. Stice, liberty, freedom from persecution and discrimination for every person within our borders. Then will this house and our nation truly be blessed. Let us say, amen. The speaker pro tempore the chair has examined the journal of the last days proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. The pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. Davis. Mr. Davis those in the gallery, please join. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. Hill, is recognized for one minute. Mr. Hill mr. Speaker, thank you. Today i rise with my friend, john boozman, former member of this house and now senator from arkansas and welcome todays guest chaplain, my dear friend, rabbi barry h. Block of congregation bnai israel in little rock, arkansas realizing his love for reform judaism at a young age, he earned his master of arts in hebrew from he breaux union college, Jewish Institute of religion before being ordained three years following completion of his degree. Having devoted much of his life to the church, rabbi block found his way to congregation bnai israel in my hometown of little rock, arkansas in 2013 after serving over 20 years at temple bnai el in san antonio, texas. He has served reform judaism nationally and regionally as a member of the board of central conference 6 american rabbis and chair of the resolutions and nominating committees and president of the southwest association of reform rabbis. Hes the loving father of his two sons, robert and daniel. I want to thank rabbi block for his gracing us with the wonderful opening prayer and wish him, his family, his congregation continued success in our community of little rock. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the chair will entertain up to five further requests for oneminute speeches on each side of the aisle. For what purpose does the the gentlewoman from oklahoma seek recognition . To address the house for one minute. Revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to mourn the tragic death of dustin parker. At 25 years old dustin was a loving father, a hardworking, and a generous member of his community. As a man who happened to be transgender, dustin helped found the mcallister chapter of oklahomans for equality. Sadly justin was shot and killed on new years day. While we do not know who is responsible for his death, we do know that Transgender Americans are disproportionately the victims of violent crimes. Last year more than two dozen transand gender nonconforming people were rye vently killed that we know of. Every death underscores the nations need for urgent action to address this epidemic. Mr. Speaker, our country lost a champion for equality and as we continue to search for answers following dustins death, we must continue to fight to ensure that all americans are treated with dignity and respect. My prayers are with dustins entire family for their loss, and my heart goes out to our communities bearing this pain. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from North Carolina seek recognition . Ms. Foxx i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Ms. Foxx thank you, mr. Speaker. Since 2002, january has been recognized as National Mentoring month. We all should recognize the positive impacts pakt that mentoring has on young people that mentoring has on younger people. To the volunteers of the greensboro united way, the students and staff of wake forest university, to the journeymen of asheville, north carolinians remain actively engaged in mentoring opportunities across my state. According to mentoring. Org, atrisk youth who were paired with mentor are 55 more likely to enroll in college, 78 more likely to volunteer regularly in their communities, and 130 more likely to hold leadership positions in their careers. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. Mentoring is a cornerstone of the growth and development of young people across our country. I commend the individuals involved in being mentors. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition . Mr. Cicilline mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Cicilline thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, i just returned from overseas, i led a delegation of our colleagues, bipartisan delegation, to visit our troops during the christmas holiday. And of course we all were struck by the Extraordinary Service of these brave men and women serving our country. One of the things they shared about was their concerns about things back at home with their families. And tree minded me that the agenda we developed to address the urgent priorities of the American People remains important. That is to drive down the cost of health care. To raise family incomes and rebuild the crumbling infrastructure of our country. And to take on the corruption and selfdealing in washington and get the government working for the people again. Thats what democrats have been working on in a bipartisan way. We passed over 400 pieces of legislation, 275 of those bills are bipartisan. Sadly, 80 of those bills are stuck on Mitch Mcconnells desk. So as we returned from this trip im reminded this is an opportunity to call on the Senate Majority leader. We are working hard to prevent war with iran. We are working hard to hold the president accountable. Our most important priorities is to deliver on those promises we made to the American People to drive down the cost of health care, raise family incomes, rebuild the infrastructure of our contry, and get the government working for the people again. Its time for the Senate Majority leader to take those bills up, give them a vote. Our men and Women Deserve nothing less. With that i yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, january is Human Trafficking Awareness Month so i rise today to renew my resolve to eradicate the horrific injustice that is Human Trafficking. Human trafficking is a modern day form of slave whichry as it strips individuals of their freedom and dignity. It has absolutely no place in our society. In my part of minnesota, many of the women and children preyed upon by human traffickers are native american. In fact minnesota currently ranks ninth in the nation for missing and murdered indigenous women. Mr. Stauber as a member of congress, i believe we have a moral obligation and legislative duty to protect the most vulnerable. Thats why i proudly support savannahs act, a bill that will empower tribal Law Enforcement to address this devastating issue. I will also ensure that the recently created federal task force on missing and murdered native american women coordinates with state, local, and tribal officials to more effectively solve unresolved cases and prevent similar violence. While these are steps in the right direction, our work is far from done. As a father, former Law Enforcement officer, and a member of congress, i will not stop until Human Trafficking is eliminated and the criminals who have chosen to exploit others have been brought to justice. Mr. Speaker, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. Revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, mr. Speaker. Over the last week our relationship with iran has fallen to its most difficult period since 1979. The United States killed Major General soleimani, a bad man, whom we do not mourn, and yet it was a provocative and disproportionate event. Iran responded with a missile with missiles on two of our military bases. Im grateful, thankful that none of our soldiers was hurt in that attack. And that tensions between our countries appear to be ease iing easing. I hope we can use this moment to assess where we are, how we got here, and find a bert path that lies ahead. Ms. Dean first i call on the administration to share the intelligence with congress about the timing and rationale for the strike. Second, i urge continued deescalation. We stand less safe in heightened tensions with identify rafpblet it is essential we emphasize diplomacy once again. Third, i ask we treat this moment as an opportunity to redefine our relationships with foes and friends alike and how we act as a nation. We will always defend americas security, but we should never create needless provocation as matthew tells us, blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of god. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield the remainder of my time. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition . Mr. Carter ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. Revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the honorable gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Carter mr. Speaker, i rise today to recognize mr. Vick power, who retired as the owner of kevin barrys irish pub in savannah on december 31, 2019. Kevins irish pub was not only a stalwart of locally owned business in downtown savannah, but also an excellent representation of Irish Heritage in our city. Although irish individuals have been calling savannah home since its founding, the irish potato famine in the mid 18 hundreds caused an influx of migration to savannah. By 186 o, one in three whitehouse holds could claim Irish Heritage. Today savannah has one of the largest st. Patricks day parade in the world. This is why its fitting that when the pub opened in an vanna in 1980, it was the first irish pub in South Washington d. C. , to average irish music seven days a week. With this live music, topnotch Customer Service and quality food, it quickly became a mainstay. In 2016 kevin barry even won an award for being the most awe theptic irish pub outside of ireland. With mr. Powers retirement, kevin barrys will be sorely missed. Congratulations on your retirement, mr. Power. Thank you for letting all savannahans and visitors alike enjoy kevin barrys for the last 40 years. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. Revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, mr. Speaker. America is less safe when the words and actions of our leaders cast unnecessary suspicion on our fellow citizens. Mr. Takano america is less safe when families, including children, are targeted by government officials based on their ethnicity or by their country of origin. Reports of unjust prolonged detentions of iranian americans and he permanent residents at our borders should be alarming to everyone. It calls to mind the unjust internment of japanese americans during world war ii. My own parents were toddlers in japanese american internment camps, and they along with 120,000 others were unjustly incarcerated having committed no crimes or acts of disloyalty. What happened to my family was the result of a failure of political leadership. All of us in this body have a duty to remain vigilant and to defend the dignity of all citizens. To do nothing is to be complicit in violating the spirit of our constitution and the individual liberties it guarantees. Thank you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition . Ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. Revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. I rise today to call attention to the 2020 census and emphasize the importance of ensuring that Rural America is accounted for. Our once a decade counting of all americans is important for numerous reasons. Most importantly census data provides us with a road map for allocating hundreds of billions of dollars annually in government services. These include investment in things like education, roads, and bridges, and other areas of importance to rural districts like mine. I appreciate to including an response option this year. However, im very concerned that like kentuckys first Congressional District could get left behind. District lacks Internet Access or access to reliable connection. Numbers are unacceptable and could have dire consequences including ensuring serve are accounted for. Of access tog lack Internet Access to the internet is critical. Must do more to expand Internet Connectivity so our be undercounted and left behind. Without action, small towns our entire cky and risk being left out of the census. I yield back. For peaker pro tempore what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for revise and nd to extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, on july on 21, 2019, the North High School Football Team baseball backtoback state ootball champions and it was a hardfought win but they won because they worked together as displayed much hard and grit on the field and this win of an entirenation years worth of practice and hard work under the leadership coach kay. They took nothing for granteded nd they granted and they showed that with hard work nothing is impossible. Mr. Ms. Garcia as their i was not there but i was watching from afar, cheering them on, and im so to share their achievement with all of congress on this loor of the house of representatives. Amazing ations for an win. I know we can make it a threepeat. Yield back, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition . To ask unanimous consent address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore boyd, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Davis mr. Speaker, in honor appreciation ment day, i rise today to recognize the united of States Capitol Police force for their heroic actions to save as part of their highly trained and committed Service Throughout 2019. When they heard the radio call about an unresponsive individual respondedtwo officers and ultimately saved the life of a man who had suffered a heart attack. They helped get that person to a hospital after a shooting. Three officers saved the life of shockingly had a heart attack during his visit to this building. These are only a few occasions in an impressive list of heroic actions. We owe our gratitude to all of the officers of the United States Capitol Police force for they do here. Thank you. Thank you, all, for going the only to protect and defend us here in the Congressional Community but for our ou do in all of communities. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the yields back. 779suant to House Resolution and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of for further 535. Deration of h. R. Will the gentleman from texas, mr. Cuellar, kindly take the chair. The chair the house is in the committee of the whole house on he state of the union for further consideration of h. R. 535 which the clerk will report title. The clerk a bill polyfluoroalkyl substances as Hazardous Substances under the comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and 1980. Act of 1090 the speaker pro tempore common he committee of the whole the chair when the committee of rose on january 9, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from iowa, mrs. Axne, had been disposed of. In order to consider amendment number 19 printed in 116366. F house report for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition . Ms. Tlaib mr. Speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. Number 19 amendment printed in part b of house ms. T 116366 offered by tlaib of michigan. The chair pursuant to house 779, the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. Tlaib, and a member opposed, each will five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. Ms. Tlaib thank you, mr. Speaker. Alongsidenor to fight dingell and kildee in protecting water. Ironment and i thank chairman pleau for working on chairman pallone working on this critical issue to michigan. Y people have been directly armed by the environmental injustices. They have a true seat at the table when addressing this crisis. Up in Southwest Detroit that houses the most polluted where then the state, smell isnt normal, where our kids go to schools that dont Drinking Water, where our parks are closed down, literally, barred away from having access to it because the soil is too contaminated and where so many residents live in fear that polluting industry nearby is killing them. I represent es within wayne county, michigan, pfas contamination. Tragic s powerful yet statement on what residents are forced to live with. Are the fruit trees, vegetable gardens. Grow producelonger because the air and the ground are too contaminated with substances. The amendment before us clearly exposed isadvantaged communities and ensures that riority for infrastructure goes to o combat pfas this and other neighborhoods. We dont put our resources to areess this crisis, then we air anding to get clean water. The e you to support frontline communities amendment and safeguard the health and nvironmental justice of the neighborhoods that have hires torecally been historically a victim of racism. Cosponsor of this amendment, rep barragan. The chair the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Barragan too often our communities of color are left behind. Often they are on the front lines of environmental injustice. Hats why im proud to cosponsor this bill with epresentative tlaib and ocasiocortez. Our amendment makes sure that help gets to the people who need it the most. T requires the newly established Grant Program to help communities who are exposed harms and ental Public Health impacts from pollution. Any of those communities are communities like my very own district. Communities of color and owincome communities are disproportionately exposed to pfas contamination. They often face a variety of environmental threats, such as congested highways, water runoff, or air pollution chemicals in close proximity to landfills. A bill is under consideration, these communities and have exposure first worst should get priority. Be an afterthought. Critical this is a first step to ensuring the safe prioritizes r act environmental justice. I yield back. The chair the gentlewoman from expired. As time has for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition . I rise in opposition to the amendment and i reserve my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. Michigan. Woman from ms. Tlaib thank you so much, mr. Speaker. Rise in support of this amendment and thank my colleagues, again, for working on this. Growing up in Southwest Detroit, the stories of the fact thatnot only the we didnt understand why parks and certain chemicals and so exposed to us is so important. Is so why this amendment critically important. My neighborhood but from the s away Detroit River front and thats why its so critically important o addressing the pfas contamination across this nation. Again, i want to thank my colleagues in understanding why for the great lakes and our state our great we s state of michigan that eed to be to be able to ensure that we have access to clean water universally. Thank you so much. Reserve my time. The chair the gentlewoman from michigan reserves the balance of time. The gentleman from illinois. Mr. Shimkus i reserve my time. He chair the gentleman reserves. Michigan. Woman from the gentlewoman from michigan minute left. Ms. Tlaib thank you so much. Yield the rest of the balance of the time to chairman pallone. Mr. Pallone we obviously yield the amendment and the balance of the time. The chair the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from illinois. Mr. Shimkus thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Shimkus thank you. The Safe Drinking Water act makes special priority for whats termed disadvantaged on unity which is based affordability criteria. I wish my colleagues who offered would have been here last night when we passed n amendment to support rich communities whove already funded their cleanup and are back into em to dip federal funds to make the payment. If they have had had a chance to be here for that amendment voted against communities that have already able to afford to clean up but were going to dip into this expense of poor communities. So thats what thats kind of what occurred last night. This covers a range of lowincome communities that may for trouble paying infrastructure needs and has been widely supported as an taxpayerte function of support. This amendment creates a broad new category that exposes whichtely appears to expand coverage eyond economic factors which may undermined the straightforward support for the oor and disadvantaged already in statute. I respect prioritization to communities that may hit with otherrd economic and environmental the new t the work of definition has not been examined resources to mise those communities that need it. A better way to do this is rulemaking to spell out the best approach to people. Taged i know this will be moved in general leave. I ask unanimous consent to record a letter upported by the water communities and one paragraph says i hope my colleagues would listen to this community we ry have Water Companies that are supposed to provide safe to our citizens. O the Water Companies have written to us about this bill. Is the American Water works ssociation, metropolitan water agencies, National Association of Water Companies, the National Association, National Rural water association, water and whatnt federation, they these are the people that are going to provide clean Drinking Water to our and this is what they say about this bill. Would nately, h. R. 535 leave municipal water and waste water customers subject to pfas ial liability for under circumstan cleanup circla, the superfund. Disposal, ed to pfas this is in direct contrast of polluters responsible. Its amazing that just last ight, the National Journal published an article called pfas bill could spark tort bananza. N association of lawyers is helping to push a sweeping chemical regulation package that for a ave the way prolific legal bumper crop. Not just forever chemical debate. His is a forever litigation debate. Litigation after litigation as superfunds get established and decades. Here for as i quoted last night numerous sites we have superfund that have been identified that 30 to 40 unremediated years after they were is an shed, so this bill attempt to use the superfund as address r bullet to this concern. And then as i mentioned last day, because it is a new the this is the first time in superfund of the legislation that we are identifying a chemical as hazardous, not using process. Tific for that and all the other reasons i ask a no vote on this my dment and i yield back time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment the gentlewoman from michigan. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. He amendment is agreed to. Is now in order to consider order to w in consider amendment number 20 printed in part b of house report 116366. For what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition . Mr. Malinowski i have an amendment at the desk. The chair record the amendment. The clerk amendment number 20, printed in part b of house report number 116366, offered by mr. Malinowski of new jersey. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. Malinowski, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. Mr. Malinowski i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form i have placed at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the modification. The clerk modification of amendment number mr. Malinowski i ask to dispense with the reading of the modification. The chair without objection, the read something dispensed with. Is there objection to the modification . Without objection, the modification is agreed to. The gentleman from new jersey is recognized. Mr. Malinowski mr. Chair, i rise today in support of h. R. 535, the pfas action act and my amendment to the bill which gives manufacturers an opportunity to be transparent with consumers and make clear that their products are, indeed, free of pfas. Pfas chemicals are found in coatings that Line Products like nonstick pots and pans, waterproof clothing, and grease resistant in fast food containers, items that we use every day and rarely think about. We are now well aware of the devastating harm that these chemicals can cause. Growth in learning delays in infants and children, increased risk of birth defects, weakened immune systems, decreaseder if tillity, and increased risk of cancer. Decreased fertility, and increased risk of cancer. Each year they are burned in incinerators releasing pollutants into the air, water, soil, contaminating the food we eat and the water we drink. In my district in new jersey, there are over 133 contaminated sites. More than 30 of which, 30 are schools. And right now consumers have no way of knowing for sure whether products like the water resistant stray that we put on our shoes and jackets, or the stain resistant sprays we put on our furniture, rugs, and carpets are or are not contaminated with pfas coatings that can harm our health. My amendment would alleviate this problem. It will add stain, watter, and grease resistant coatings to the list of products eligible for a voluntary label indicating the absence of pfas, which will allow consumers to make safer, more informed decisions about the products that we purchase. We must Start Holding polluting Companies Accountable for the chemicals that they are putting into our products, that we bring to our homes and give to our children. But we should also be giving companies that do the right thing, that protect consumers, a way to be recognized, a way to be rewarded for responsible behavior. Thank you. I look forward to voting for this legislation tomorrow. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from new jersey reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition . Mr. Shimkus i rise in opposition to the amendment. And i reserve my time. The chair the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from new jersey is recognized. Mr. Malinowski once again this is simply about greater transparency. Its about giving consumers choice. Its about American Companies that have done the right thing, that are facing competition often from abroad, from companies that have not done the right thing, giving them a chance to put a credible label on their product that says this is safe, this is pfas free, this is a commonsense amendment. I would hope that everybody would accept it. I yield back my time. The chair the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from illinois is recognized. Mr. Shimkus thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Shimkus thank you, mr. Chairman. We addressed an amendment like this last night from the gentlelady from maine, i believe, ms. Pingree, very similar. Same objections ill raise. I was i have been here a long time and i actually remember the alar scare. I also remember b. P. A. And thats the plastic. It was kind of the same type of debate its going to kill everybody and we ought to ban it. We didnt. We went to the scientific process, found out that it wasnt, but in the meantime did we need the government to offer a labelingfree product . The answer is the exact of b. P. A. , no. It was used in baby bottles, company retailers who made botwls other substances had no problems. It was a great marketing attempt for them to say, its b. P. A. Free. They didnt need government to do that. They did it because of the advertising and the consumer potential to do that. There will be companies, and there are companies trying to do the right thing. They should take advantage of that opportunity especially in this environment when we are and g with 7,866 per polley floor nated compounds polyfluorinated counts. The debate is every one of those 7,866 compounds are hazardous and destructive to individuals. If you are making a product, this is a perfect time to be able to do that and say its pfas free. Why would we have the government do that . Some could argue that this is a corporate perk. That we are incentivizing and Rewarding Companies through Government Action to do something if they are good stewards they should be able to do on their own. Thats why i have some concerns with this. Let me use let me continue with another letter that ill ask to get submitted at the appropriate time from numerous of these companies. Some of you would label bad actors. Some good actors. As they submitted a letter in opposition to this overall bill. They say in this letter, any federal action should not address pfas as a class or with predetermined outcomes but rather should be based on sound science. Again as i have said before, this is the first time in the history of the country we are labeling a chemical formulation as toxic politically, using Political Science not science. They also go on to say, and the weight of the Scientific Evidence furthermore congress should not circumvent existing regulatory authorities. The Environmental Protection agency as well as other relevant agencies should retain their traditional power to study pfas and determine whether to regulate certain pfas. Many provisions included in the National Defense authorization act, we talked about that last night, for fiscal year 2020 signed into law at the end of last year took important steps toward meeting these goals. And there is a list of 30 or 40 organizations. I wont read them all this morning. I appreciate my colleagues amendment. We actually were close when we were thinking about getting a bipartisan bill bringing to the floomplet this was one of the provisions that was on the table. My friend, i believe, couldnt say yes. Here we are fighting this bill that the senate will not take up, the president will not sign, and youll have to wait for the next congress to address this issue. With that, mr. Chairman, i thank you for the time. I yield back my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment as modified offered by the gentleman from new jersey. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment as modified is agreed to. It is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in part b of house report 116366. For what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition . Mr. Levin mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 21, printed in part b of house report number 116366, offered by mr. Levin of michigan. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman from michigan, mr. Levin, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. Levin. Mr. Levin thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment requires within five years a comprehensive report to congress by the Environmental Protection agency, or the e. P. A. , regarding the actions the agency will take to clean up and remediate pfas contamination sites once we pass the important bill before us into law. Id like to begin by thanking my friend, chairman pallone, and his staff, for working with me on this. As well as my fellow michiganders, congresswoman dingell, congressman upton, and congressman kildee for their bipartisan leadership on this bill. Im proud that this bill includes my bill cosponsored with representative cana, the pfas safe disposal act, which prohibits unsafe incineration of pfas. We need to ensure that when pfas chemicals are destroyed by incontinue racial, pfas particles are not emitted into the air. The monumental effort of pfas cleanup will be for natt if pfas is simply transmit interested water and soil into the air we breathe. We in michigan know all too well of the growing threat that pfas chemicals pose to our communities and our water resources. They have been linked to cancer, dang to both reproductive and immune systems, developmental issues, and changes in liver immune and thyroid function. The troubling reality is that both industry and the e. P. A. Itself have known about the risks from pfas chemical for decades. Decades. We know, for example, industry studies have demonstrated the Adverse Health effects of these chemicals since its early as 1950, thats 70 years ago. We also know that even though the e. P. A. Has recognized the risks of pfas since at least 1995, the agency is continuing to allow new pfas chemicals on to the market to this day. By passing h. R. 535 into law, we can finally begin to reverse decades of the e. P. A. s failure and finally deliver the protections impacted communities need in both the short and long term. But after decades of the e. P. A. Failing to treat this matter with urgency, we need to make sure that the cleanup process that will be set in place once we finally designate p foea and pfas as Hazardous Substances is both timely and effective. My amendment is a commonsense transparency and accountability measure that requires the e. P. A. To submit a comprehensive review to congress after five years of cleanup efforts. The report required by my amendment will include the number of sites that have to be remediated, the types of pfas chemicals present at each site, an analysis of discrepancies in cleanup between federal and nonfederal contamination sites, and more. For the sake of our constituents and after so many years of inexcusable threats to their health, Congress Must ensure that e. P. A. s pfas cleanup efforts are effective. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition . Mr. Shimkus thank you, mr. Chairman. I seek time in opposition and would like to reserve my time. The chair the gentleman is recognized. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Levin at this time id like to yield one minute to the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. The chair the gentlewoman from california is recognized. The speaker thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Congratulate him on this important amendment which i hope will be part of this legislation. An important study. Mr. Speaker, im pleased to come to the floor to join our colleagues, the distinguished chairman of the energy and commerce committee, former chair, mr. Upton, and their bipartisan support of this legislation. I want to salute congresswoman debbie dingell, crusader in this Urgent Mission to protect our communities from pfas chemicals. And i thank also to mr. Tonko, the chair of the environment and Climate Change subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee. But the list goes on and on. And ill name some more. Last year our members worked relentlessly to pass bold legislation to tackle the pfas crisis. We salute the members whose bills were included in the bipartisan National Defense authorization act agreement reached by the house. Unfortunately at the end of the year, the senate g. O. P. Refused the house to protect gainst pfas chemicals and key provisions were cut from the ndaa, the National Defense authorization act. We are here today because chairman pallone promised we a chance to vote on a robust legislation after the first of the year. Chairman. Mr. Pfas chemicals are serious ublic health contaminating the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. Forever chemicals, forever hemicals, which we do which do not break down easily, are exposing millions of americans liver disease, asthma, thyroid dysfunction, multiple of cancer, and further health threats. Americans, y all including newborn babies, expected mothers, children, have pfas in their blood and up to 10 Million People may be drinking tainted water including, as our colleagues from michigan have indicated the challenge in their state, represented by indicated by indicated by the leadership demonstrated on the floor in a bipartisan way on this issue. Our colleague from new york, mr. Delgado, has been a champion of issue. There, contamination from a raised the tory level of pfas chemicals in residents blood 100 times the average, mr. Shimkus. From ncoteague, virginia, a Flight Center forced a local community to find an entirely Drinking Water supply. We thank come woman lauria for of this. Rship in all r. Pappas, also with annie a situation in ortsmouth, New Hampshire, pois poisoned people, including and infants. Before we were in the majority, we had a hearing. Really a number of issues. Environmental justice being one them. Reverend barber brought people from all over the country to talk about this. Particularly remember our conversations in the testimony peggy price. She came, told a story of her were and how they affected by what was happening at camp lejeune in North Carolina. It was a very sad story. Suffered. Ily the parents, children. Just a horrible situation. Our country inng camp lejeune and therm the and they were victimized by the water supply there. Particularly egregious is the contamination on military sites, as i mentioned ust now, and more than 400 sites across the United States are affected. It is unacceptable that our men women who sacrifice to keep us safe around the world face in their health at home. Big corporations and the e. P. A. Have known about the chemicals for decades but they have failed to prevent the spread of contamination. Trump administrations e. P. A. Is breaking its own day that it y delays and puts polluters ahead people. Merican in stark contrast, the house is taking action. Our e cleaning up communities by designating pfas as a Hazardous Substance by the is a keer barrier o cleaning clear barrier to cleaning up military and industrial sites. We will help states with cleanup remediation efforts. Hopefully we will be adding this important study that mr. Levin is proposing to this were helping d stem the tide of further contamination with tough new esting, reporting, and monitoring requirements, strict limits on the introduction of chemicals, banning incineration, strong measures to hold contaminating Companies Accountable. The senate g. O. P. Fought to prevent many of these ifesaving measures from becoming law in the ndaa. Now, senator mcconnell will have explain once again to the American People why hes action our bipartisan to clean up contaminated communities. Urge a strong vote on this legislation to keep the american and safe and, again, salute all of those hove worked so hard to bring this legislation to the floor in a bipartisan way. I urge a yes vote and yield back balance of my time. Thank you. The chair the gentlewoman back. S the gentleman from michigan reserves. The gentleman from illinois is recognized. Mr. Shimkus i reserve my time, mr. Chairman. The chair the gentleman time. Es his the gentleman from michigan. Mr. Levin yes, thank you, mr. Chairman. The gentleman has 3 4 of a minute. Going to close. People say they may have all on this opinions underlying issue, this amendment is simply about sunshine. Ts simply about good government. Will our federal agencies tell our article 1 body here what up to and i think it just makes all kinds of sense to give us a comprehensive report after a reasonable period of time. Hope everyone can support this amendment and with that i close. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from illinois is recognized. Mr. Shimkus thank you, mr. Chairman. As i may ch time consume. Im happy to follow the speaker. Do have Great Respect for her. Gives me trouble in my district very now and then when i talk about our relationship. You know, it has to be said that cant allow revisionist history to report on what occurred, especially on the Safe Drinking Water act, in the final negotiations. Its well reported that there agreement. Corner one corner couldnt get there. Thats why we didnt have it. I wont name names. I wont point fingers. To point this over at our of the in the other side building where they had come to n agreement, thats just not accurate. Would also point out that in this bill, we are exempting airports from superfund liability. Were not exempting medical devices. Ere not exempting military contractors. Were not exempting Water Companies. Exempting airports. Toxic probably the most of all these chemicals. Fire foam. They were able to get a carveout other companies, industries could not. The only other organization that was the trial lawyer association. I want to mention that again. Came mazing the article out last night. Im not sure how that happened. In the article, association of trial lawyer with lining pockets is helping to push sweeping chemical egulation package that could bumper crop. For where would it happen in this bill . It happened in the kildee we passed last night, which would federalize publication that states should handle. We get that at the federal level. Could go trial bar through this information. The pappas amendment had unrealistic deadlines. This litigation based upon not being able to meet a deadline. Hen you have section 2 of the superfund designation without cience and unrealistic review deadlines, section 4, labeling f unrealistic risk without a review. Section 15, Clean Air Act designation without science and review deadlines. The britain dissy Brindisi Brindisi amendment. So if this colleague of mine would amend this amendment, on the ve transparency class action lawsuits and the of gation and the law cost doing this, we know that designation is not a Silver Bullet to cleanup. Numerous times last night. Old Springfield Landfill vermont, was added on the superfund list september 8, 1983. It is. Here 6 years later, still on the superfund list. Spokane, dfill, washington, 1983. Uess where it is, still a superfund site 34 years later. We should do a transparency look litigation and money has been spent both by the overnment and lawyers on these superfund sites. If we want to talk about transparency, i think that would be also a good way. Maybe we could have a bipartisan agreement on timelines and follow the but also money. Where is the money going . This amendment does not require congress of private clean up pfas to under the superfund and its unclear how much cleanup is other federal agencies. This is something the Government Accountability office or the congressional committees could to the ut such expense federal government. I would like to oppose this and ment, mr. Chairman, with that i yield back my time. The chair the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of the time. On the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Its now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in 116366. House report for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition . Ms. Slotkin mr. Chair, i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment number 22 printed in part b of house offered by ms. Slotkin of michigan. The chair pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. Slotkin, and each will posed, control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. S. Slotkin thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of my amendment to the pfas action act which would require the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Consultation with other relevant Government Agencies to report to congress on efforts to identify viable alternatives to fas Firefighting Foam and our related equipment containing pfas. Pfas contamination hits particularly close to home for and my constituents. We in michigan are confronting widespread pfas contamination in water, chemicals that we know are linked to cancer and other diseases. Summer, i toured strawberry lake, part of Livingston Countys beautiful of lakes in my district where foam resulting from pfas in plain visible sight. I held a forum focused on pfas contamination in a community been under a do not eat fish advisory for over a year foam advisoryouch for many months. The more than 200 attendees about thedeep concern impact of pfas contamination on their health, safety, and and had simple questions about how to know whether their water is safe to eat fish from, or even touch. In september, i met with the fire chief, michael obrien, and fire chiefs from Livingston County and talked about their concerns foam that hadting concentrations of pfas. C. D. C. , expose o pfas can affect health, learning in infants, lower a chance of women getting pregnant, increase the risk of and impact the immune system. One of my constituents who spent mechanic as an auto and was exposed to pfas contaminated materials on a aily basis is now connecting his diagnosis of m. S. Or an autoimmune disease to his at work. To pfas in michigan, high levels of pfas 34 sites, etected in including a diamond chrome plating in my district. Addition, these chemicals have been found at some level in unicipal Drinking Waters serving more than two Million People across the state. In 54 s been detected michigan schools, including five schools in my district. Michigan r, the department of health and Human Services issued an emergency do advisory regarding all heron om sections of the river after fish from flint lake pfas. Ned high levels of let me be clear. I believe access to clean water out of your tap is a right and privilege. I believe that Environmental Security is homeland security. Threatening the safety and security of your family and the preservation of your way of homeland security. Bele michigan families cant comfortable that giving them sick or wont make them give them a learning disability, if they cant hunt in the areas years, ve hunted for thats a threat to our security, to our way of life. It doesnt matter if you are a an crat or a republican or independent, if youre going to hand your child a glass of water, you should be confident cancer or other Lifelong Health issues. Thats your family and that is safety. My amendment would simply to report to p. A. Ongress an effort to report viable products that contain fas including Firefighting Foam. Robust legislation will respond o this and my amendment will hold federal agencies accountable for finding viable pfas atives to contamination. Thank you for listening. Urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. The gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. For what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition . R. Shimkus thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Although i do not believe i will oppose the amendment. Ill reserve my time. The chair without objection, reserves. Eman recognized. Man is ms. Slotkin mr. Speaker, i have no more speakers and i am close after the gentleman closes. The chair the gentleman from illinois has the right to close. So the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. I ask for the bill to be supported. And i close. Thank you. The chair the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. The gentleman from illinois is recognized. Mr. Shimkus thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Shimkus thank you, mr. Chairman. The lady brings up an issue about firefighter foam. She talked about military installations. She does not talk about commercial aviation and waterway issues in which is exempted in this will. Bill. Again im not sure why we are wanting to clean up all pfas contamination the world is endling, but we exempt airports. We dont exempt medical devices. Let me hold up this. This was used last night. This is a medical device thats inserted into a child, maybe an unborn child, to close a hole in the heart. F. D. A. Said this is safe. You want to talk about daily exposure . Heres daily exposure in an infant child. So the nexus between the gentleladys amendment and this debate is that maybe when we are investigating firefighter foam for alternatives, maybe we are going to investigate alternatives for this type. It is f. D. A. s approved this. Why are we going to toxically ban chemicals mr. Chairman, the floor is not in order with the staff talking over where i cant understand what hes saying. The chair the house will come to order. The gentleman from illinois is recognized. Mr. Shimkus thank you, mr. Chairman. And we also mentioned last night that in food and Drug Administration has claimed pfas lining for food packages is safe. We already have Government Entities that have investigated portions of the pfas world. Remember, we are talking about 7,8866 7,866 different permanent mutations. Not one, not two, but 7,866. This is the first time in the history of our nation that without science and Due Diligence we are going to label a chemical as toxic. Thats part of the objection. Lets use real science. I get beat up all the time being a science denier, Climate Change. Here my friends on the democrat side arent ready to rely on science. To address each of these 7,866 different applications. In fact, they are trying to in this legislation cause a rush to judgment, create an inability for the e. P. A. To make a decision. So then the company can be sued. Because there is no way they can meet the timelines based upon this bill. Id like to also read from the American Council of Engineering Companies in a letter that ill ask at the appropriate time to submit to the record. And it says this. This is the American Council of Engineering Companies. By designating certain pfas chemicals as Hazardous Substances under cercla we are concerned that such action could upset progress already made to address this challenge, divert resources away from pressing threats to water quality, and impose significant costs and liability on our Water Utility clients and the ratepayers they serve. I already asked for inclusion in the record by the local municipal water plants or the rural water associations or the forprofit owned Water Companies who said this makes it more difficult for us to clean up the water. We are going to be held to super fund liability. We have to pay the court costs. We have exempted airports. We havent exempted the Water Companies. Thats a passthrough. They are receiving, they are cleaning up, and then they are disposing. But we are not going to exempt them. We are going to extempt airports. We are not going to exempt medical Device Manufacturers who are saving their lives and unborn children who have daily exposure of pfas and this is a lifesaving application. This is one of many. I could pull up heart stints. Last night we talked about f16s in our defense industry. Maybe with this amendment well do Due Diligence and find a suitable chemical formula that will replace this. So i applaud it. I think its well its meaningful. I will also like to in the end, because this will be probably my last time to talk on this. We on both sides of the aisle really need to thank legislative counsel because of the short time frame they had in the amendment official, their response to the majoritys concerns and writing, and actually we are probably more difficult because we are trying to really dig in and find the fallacies of the coming amendments. So my personal thanks to legislative counsel, professional staff who worked tirelessly on behalf of both sides. With that id like to then tell them thanks and yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from illinois yield back the balance of his time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. T the amendments agreed to. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments in printed part b of house report 133666 on which proceedings were postponed in the following order. Amendment number 2 by mr. Burgess of texas. Amendment number 6 by mr. Balance der ron of ohio. Amendment number 13 by mr. Pappas of New Hampshire. The chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. The Unfinished Business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report number 116779 by mr. Burgess on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will redesignate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report number 116366. Offered by mr. Burgess of texas. The chair a recorded vote has been requested. Those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and e counted. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This will be a 15minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the chair on this vote the yeas are 161. The nays were 246. The amendment is not adopted. 247. He amendment is not adopted. The Unfinished Business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 116779 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. Balderson, on which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will reeath designate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report number 116366, offered by mr. Balderson of ohio. The chair a recorded vote has been requested. Those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. Members, twominute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the chair on this vote the yeas are 170. The nays are 239. He amendment is not adopted. The Unfinished Business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report 116779 by the gentleman from New Hampshire, mr. Pappas, on which further proceedings were postponed on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will redesignate the amendment. The clerk amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report number 116366, offered by mr. Pappas of New Hampshire. The chair a recorded vote has been requested. Those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes y electronic device. Members, twominute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the chair on this vote the yeas are 242. The nays are 168. The amendment is adopted. Further ng no amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. The chair mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole house on has had of the union h. R. 535 andration ursuant to House Resolution 79, i report the bill, as amended, by that resolution back to the house with sundry further adopted in the committee of the whole. The speaker pro tempore the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the reports the committee has under consideration the bill 535 and pursuant to house resoluti 779 reports the bill back to the house with sundry further mendments adopted in the committee of the whole. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. Is a separate vote demanded on by the dment reported committee of the whole . If not, the chair will put them en gros. Adoption on is on the of the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. It. Ayes is the amendments are agreed to. He question is on en grosment and engrossment and third reading of the bill. Those in favor say aye. No. E opposed, third reading. The clerk a bill polyfluoroalkyl substances as Hazardous Substances under the comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and Liability Act of 1090 1980. The speaker pro tempore members, please take your the floor. Ns it off can we have order. The hat purpose does gentlewoman from washington rise . Mr. Speaker, i have a motion recommit at the desk. The speaker pro tempore is the opposed . An in the gers i am current form. Of clerk mrs. Rodgers washington moves to report the forthwithto the house with the following amendment. Age 10, line 14, insert the speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized the for ewoman is recognized five minutes. Mr. Speaker, the house is not in order. The speaker pro tempore the correct. Is mrs. Rodgers this amendment is amend t opportunity to the bill and does so without delaying paej. We all agree that pfas chemicals present health risks to the public should be cleaned up as quickly as possible but it be done according to the best available science. He majority often likes to claim they are the party of science. Unfortunately, this bill ignores facts. And for scoring political talking points by grouping together an class of pfas chemicals, these kchemicals are the to icals are important lifesaving medical technology. Evidence,ng scientific this bill would kill innovations that could help further lift peoples standard of living and save lives. I understand and share for slow cleanup of in dangerous pfas chemicals my old district. Dealing with pfas. However, we just passed ipartisan legislation based on science through the ndaa that will ensure that affected are cleaned up quickly. This bill would ignore those efforts. Unprecedented that congress would unilaterally classify kim under cercla chemicals cercla. Like ould classify those eights under the superfund site. We should be proud of the bipartisan achievement of the continue to work to clean up our communities and get results. This amendment is a good faith ffort to improve this legislation in a way that enhances its efforts to protect from harmful chemicals. 535 seeks to. R. Guarantee protection of from able populations potential pfas dangers in their Drinking Waters. States that the new rule shall be protective of the health of subpopulation at risk. R the Safe Drinking Water act lready identifies pregnant women as an atrisk group. Just one. Heres not mr. Speaker, the house is not order. The speaker pro tempore members. Rs. Rodgers when it comes to pregnant women the speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman is recognized. Mrs. Rodgers when it comes to risk,ant women that are at there are two people at risk. The pregnant woman and the unborn child. The science is clear. Echnology today allows us to look inside the womb. We see the babys development day, week by week. That person is the most vulnerable population that protected. This motion to recommit is simple. Its clear. Its direct. Protection of e vulnerable populations must child. Any unborn yesterday, chairman pallone recognized the potential harm these chemicals can have on Child Development. Today, Speaker Pelosi reiterate protecting ance of expectant mothers. By rejecting this amendment, you would be further denying the of the development of a child in the womb. This motion is consistent with itself has t e. P. A. Employed. Considering the impact of babies in posures to the womb. For example, in 2011, the president obama, decided to regulate certain chemicals in Drinking Water in part to the impacts in person. Tero Congress Also passed bipartisan the unborn in 2004, victims of violence act, of anizing the personhood unborn child. This motion makes a small but this bill. Vement to its an improvement thats necessary to preserve the bills goal of the sponsors, protecting vulnerable populations. Goal, s the majoritys then this amendment should be accepted. It does not strike or delay bill. Ing in the it only clarifies what is considered a vulnerable on the same sed language in bipartisan in the 2004 act. And most importantly, it unborn child, something that i hope everyone in this room can agree should be greatest priorities. To protect people before they born and at every stage of their life. To support lleagues science, by supporting my motion to recommit, and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the expired. Ans time has for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan rise . Mrs. Dingell mr. Speaker, i opposition to the motion to recommit. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for minutes. Mrs. Dingell mr. Speaker, i for my at respect colleague, but i oppose this amendment because its really than a political stunt. This bill will protect country. Es across this the Drinking Water standard in protective of be the health of populations at greater risk. Hat we generally call vulnerable populations. Drinking that requirement republicans. Y the mr. Shimkus had an amendment to strike that provision of the bill. Opposed protecting vulnerable populations, and i deeply colleague, but he opposed it every step of the way. Nd yesterday, he withdrew that amendment. If republicans want to protect ulnerable populations, including pregnant women, infants and children, they bill. Support this lets be very clear. Health and rgent environmental threat, period, that. One can deny the number of contamination ites nationwide is growing at an alarming rate, including our military bases. Lmost 400 military installations in this country. Pfas isd in the 1940s, a forever chemical. Of more than ood americans. It poses potential health risks, we know it. Has known the risk for decades and allowed this contamination to spread. Mr. Speaker, the house is not in order. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman will suspend. The house will be in order. The gentlelady is recognized. Mrs. Dingell e. P. A. Is not care of this problem. Congress needs to act. Worse ger we wait, the the contamination becomes. Pfas me is now to act on action. Together. Do it the American People count on us. The bill is a strong and serious is supported by some republicans. Cleanup. Jumpstart it will get pfas out of our Drinking Water. Will limit pfas in the air. Rivers limit pfas in our and streams. Drive and require comprehensive testing for pfas, our first give responders and consumers tools themselves. No ge my colleagues to vote on this motion to recommit and rge you to support the underlying bill so we can work ogether to enact laws to protect the American People. Back. Ld the speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman yields back. Without objection, the previous ordered on the motion to recommit. Is on the motion to recommit. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The noes have it. Ask rodgers mr. Speaker, i for a recorded vote. The speaker pro tempore a recorded vote is requested. Hose favoring a recorded vote will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes device. Ronic pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, vote on the ute motion to recommit will be ollowed by a fiveminute vote on passage of the bill. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on is vote the yeas are 187 and he nays are 219. And the motion is not adopted. The question is on passage of the bill. So many as are in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. It mr. Speaker, i request thank you, mr. Speaker. I request the yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore the yeas and nays are requested. Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes y electronic device. This is a fiveminute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 247 and the nays are 159. The bill is passed. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition . Mr. Scalise i rise to ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring the schedule to the majority leader. Without objection. Mr. Scalise i ask unanimous consent to revise and stepped my remarks. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader. Mr. Hoyer mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it meet on monday next when it shall convone at noon for morning hour debate and 2 00 p. M. For legislative business. On monday, the house will meet at 12 p. M. For morning hour debate and 2 00 p. M. With votes postponed until 6 30. Tuesday and wednesday will meet at 10 00 a. M. Morning debate and on thursday the house will meet at 9 a. M. With last votes of the week expected no later than 3 00. We will consider several suspensions. Pt complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today. The house will consider the protect Older Workers against diss krim nation act. This ensures that victims can enforce their rights so Older Americans are able to strengthen our economy by contributing their talents to the work force. A proposition that i believe is very important. In dig, the house will consider view s 76, congressional re ct of dissprolve of the bureau that leaves student loan borrowers who were defrauded with little or no recourse. Mr. Scalise i appreciate the majority leader going through those bills. There were a few bills that the speaker referenced earlier this week that would also be considered. Congresswoman lees resolution to repeal the 2002 aumf and congressman khanna. I wanted to ask if those two bills are part of that package for next week . Mr. Hoyer that is a possibility but have not yet been scheduled. Mr. Scalise as it relates to the war powers act, we had heated debate on the floor yesterday r. Hoyer mr. Speaker the speaker pro tempore the chair would ask members to take their conversations off the floor. Mr. Scalise we have had a robust debate for years in this house on whether or not to modify, make changes to the 2002 aumf. It has been a constant debate. There is lack of ability to form consensus clearly on both sides. There are a number of members on our side who brought up this issue before as well as your side. I was yesterday, in the time of crisis where we are in the middle of a crisis, we had just taken out one of the most beautyal terrorists that we have seen in soleimani. There isnt disagreement that he is a terrorist. President obama said he was head of terrorist organization and in violation of International Law that prohibited from him being in iraq. Instead of having a conversation separate from that on actual changes to the aumf that that is where your majority would like to go and clearly on our side, there were people who were interested in having that debate. We went into what turned out to be an effort to take a cheap shot at the administration by bringing a resolution that has no effect of law. The aumf is going to be changed, there has to be an act of congress. Instead of engaging in that kind of conversation, debate, negotiation, instead it was just a resolution that everyone recognizes would not have made any changes to the aumf, so why during that time that were in ight now the path to go as opposed to whether or not real changes to the aumf should take place. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for his question, the authorization of use of military force consistent with the constitution of the United States which sets forth clearly that it is the congress and only the congress that can declare war, we believed and still believe it was necessary to move as quickly as possible to clarify that the expectation that the congress of the United States is that it would be included in any conversation, discussion and debate with reference to whether or not we ought to take an act of war. Now without getting into the complexities and i would call your attention to an extraordinary good article that was in todays paper by jim webb, the former secretary of winner, a navy cross ee who fought in vietnam and served in the United States Senate Whether or not the action that was taken by the president was justified. Let me say something, mr. Speaker. I would hope this debate, and i said this yesterday during the course of the debate, would not descend into demagoguery. I was very disappointed with the remark made by one of the republican members of this house when he said, they are in love with terrorists. Referring to the democrats, presumably, who were proponents of assuring that the war powers act would be honored by the president and the constitutional requirement that we are the ones and only ones who declare a war. Not one of us loves terrorists. He went on to say we see that they mourn soleimani more than think mourn or gold star families. Now thats interesting from, frankly, a member of a party whose president criticized very, very sharply and directly a gold star family. It is ironic coming from a party whose president , our president , but of the republican party, said he didnt respect john mccain, one of americas great war heroes. Who showed such courage. So my point to the gentleman is hat i would hope contrary, proverbs, 19 5 says this, a false witness will not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies will not escape. I would hope the gentleman that uttered these comments would apologize to every member of this side of the aisle. The gentleman correctly, just now, i thought made a very calm and correct statement with respect to that we ought to have a substantive debate. I have criticized this congress , others have criticized this congress on both sides of the aisle for not, over the last 30 years, passing authorizations of the use of military force. The last one we did was in 2001 and 2002. The gentleman asked whether those bills may come to the floor. We voted on them as you know previously. Those amendments passed. They were in the National Defense authorization act to direct, directly address the issue of authorization of military forces, and the expenditure of funds in military action. Nobody laments the loss of mr. Soleimani. Who did, in fact, not only plan , execute, and fund terrorist actions that resulted in the loss of american life. Having said that does not absolve us from the responsibility for policies hich are akin to or are acts of war. Without going further into that, let me refer to what we did yesterday. Let me read from the war powers act, mr. Speaker. Congressional action, paragraph c, concurrent resolution for removal by president of the nited states armed forces. Notwithstanding substantial b at any time that United States forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories, without a eclaration of war, or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the president if the congress so directs by concurrent resolution. That is what we passed yesterday. Many republicans, mr. Speaker, said, well, this is an act that has no consequence. I would hope that none of us believe that the expression of opinion by the congress of the United States, by majority vote in each houses, has no consequence. If that is the case, we are in a bad time in our democracy. So what we did yesterday was consistent with the section c of section 1544 regarding congressional action is exactly what we did yesterday. It will go to the senate. It will have, as we understand from the parliamentarians in the senate, privileged status. Meaning that the senate will have to consider that. And also meaning that it can be passed or defeated by a majority vote. This is a serious time. Taking the kind of military action we took was a serious step. Many of us were not very pleased with the lack of substantive information that we received at the briefing. Briefing tuesday. Wednesday, excuse me, just yesterday. Obviously many members of the United States senate were not pleased as well. I would say to my friend, sbreek, mr. Speaker, it is portant that this body confronted with one of its most important and serious and consequential decisions, that is the declaration of war and military action against another tion, that it be debated without pejoratives being projected as either side, without investigative vestigative invective similar to the ones i just red. And if you believe the United States requires congress to act before we can take actions of war, that somehow that implies that you are in bed with or tell porizing about or favorable to those who commit terror. That is a mccarthy tactic. It is highly offensive. And if said on this floor would be subject to the words being taken down and the member not being allowed to speak again on his floor during that day. Let me, in closing, on this response, mr. Speaker, simply say to the republican whip, that i agree with his premise that we ought to have a careful adult substantive discussion about policies that may plunge this nation into war. That is our duty. That is what our citizens expect of us. Think we had that yesterday strike that. I think in some instances we had a serious discussion, but in some instances there was too much invective that we were giving aid and comfort to terrorists. That is a slippery slope if we cannot discuss what posture the United States ought to be in. And exercise our constitutional duties to decide whether this nation ought to go to war with a foreign country, with another nation. Is hopefully we can have that in the future. Because one of the most consequential debates that this body ever has. So i will tell him again, mr. Speaker, that we may be taking up additional legislation. Consistent with the war powers act. I believe the senate, hopefully, will, next week or at the latest, i think they have 15 days or 10 days to consider it and put it on the senate floor for a vote. So that we can transmit to the president of the United States the Congress View on how carefully we ought to approach these issues. Very frankly i will say sadly there is much sentiment on this side of the aisle that the commander in chief does not address these issues carefully and thoughtfully and in concert with his advisors and the advisors in the congress of the United States. We had no consultation. We didnt even have a notice, much less consultation of this action. No one, i would close with, laments the loss of a life who s sponsored, funded, and advocated terrorism. But this is not about him. Its about us. Its about our constitution. Its about our responsibility. Its about how these decisions ought to be made. I yield back. Mr. Scalise thank i thank the gentleman for yielding. To start with the comment that the gentleman referenced on the floor yesterday, i will read from statement from the gentleman who made that comment yesterday, quote, let me be clear. I do not believe democrats are in love with terrorists and i apologize for what i said earlier this week. So the gentleman has apologized for that statement. I apreesh just want to point that out. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for pulling that to my attention. Mr. Scalise i ask that not be used for the other conditions and concerns we had on the floor yesterday. Frankly there were statements made on the gentlemans side as well that i think ought to be addressed, apologized for. But lets be clear mr. Hoyer if the gentleman would call my attention to those statements, and the speakers of those, i would be happy to oblige and talk to them. I really do believe, mr. Speaker, this issue should be handled in the most responsible and respectful way possible. Because it is one of the most serious if not the most serious issue with which well deal. And we ought to deal with one other based upon the intellectual arguments. The constitutional premises, and the law. Not on personalities or assertions of malintent. I yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman. First of all to start with the president s not Just Authority but its the president s responsibility under the constitution as our commander in chief to keep this country safe. President trump has made it very clear that hes going to protect this country from terrorists, people who want to do us harm domestically or abroad. In the case of soleimani, there was a red line issued a long time ago. And i know in the past previous administrations have issued red lines and then let those lines be blown through without taking any action, and i would argue that that makes our country less safe. Anyone who seeks freedom, including people in iran who seek freedom today from this oppressive redream, they have one place they can look to and that is the United States of america. Thats what makes us such a great nation. Is that we dont shed our blood to conquer more land. We shed our blood to keep people safe not just here in america but provide freedom around the world to anyone who seeks t the fact that President Trump maintained a red line that was crossed is something we all should applaud. I would say this, you can go back to when president obama was in office and Osama Bin Laden had been the number one target of this country since the september 11 attacks. President obama made the decision, it was his call, to take out bin laden. When they thought, they werent positive they thought they might have a Real Intelligence understanding of where he was. And the president made that call. We had a lot of disagreements with president obama during that time on policy, but we applauded that decision. We united behind that decision because it was the right thing to do to take out a terrorist who had been a major threat to our country by the same token, i understand your side has a lot of differences with the president. I just wish in a time like that, when everyone acknowledges out howe brute a terrorist he was. He was in iraq clothing to kill more americans, we dont have to wonder if hes going to do it because had he decades on history of killing americans. Blood of hundreds of our men and women in uniform were on his hands and no one disputes it. So hes taken out by a call that i think is the right call by our president , to take him out in iraq which the 2002 aumf gives him the authority to do. The constitution gives him the authority to do. Again, if there is some that didnt want the president to have that Legal Authority, that debate should happen here under the guise of changing the law, but the law gives the president that authority. Congress gave that authority to the president in 2002. I wasnt here. I know the gentleman was. It was heavily debated. But ultimately that law was passed and that law is still on the books today. If there is a desire to change the law, that debate should happen not through a resolution in the middle of this conflict where missiles are being fired back and forth, but where we can actually talk about changing the law in a responsible way that focuses on the longer term objective, not just to try to undermine the president in the middle of him acting out his duties as commander in chief. Under the constitution and under all Legal Authority. There are Obama Administration officials, multiple, who just in the last few days very publicly said that President Trump had the full Legal Authority to take the action he did. We i think he should have. Im glad sole man i is no longer on this planet plotting to kill americans which he was doing illegally in iraq. And that is something we can debate, but a lot of us felt it cheap priate political shot. There was a president ial candidate yesterday, major candidate for president who said innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of unnecessary and forat ted military tit that time akuwaiting the brutal iranrist, equating that to shooting down an airplane and another 176 people dead because of irans actions. The two of them are not on the same level. Those comments are unnecessary. Taking out soleimani and others have suggested it, too. We can have that agreement, but the legislation is not only untimely, but it wouldnt even achieve the purpose that many on both side of the aisle would like to see and that is a real discussion about whether the war powers act operates operately. Scholars suggest it may be unconstitutional. There were times when president obama took action, many times using drone strikes where he never notified us. I surely wasnt notified in advance of the Osama Bin Laden killing and im not sure if the gentleman from maryland was notified in advanced. And im ok. The president notified us afterwards. The law requires notification after. I think it would be irresponsible to require the president to notify Congress Prior to the taking out of a terrorist every time they are trying to take out a terrorist. President obama used that authority multiple times to take out terrorists without prior notification of congress but meeting other legal requirements. And if those legal requirements should be changed, lets have that debate. I havent seen that legislation. Maybe the gentleman will bring the legislation to the floor next week that would repeal the aumf. Lets have that debate if the majority wants to go. Yesterday it wasnt a change of law. 1983 Supreme Court says that measures do not have form of law. And if that were to pass the senate which i doubt highly, it doesnt go to the president and doesnt change the law. So typically when we have conflicts like this, Congress Comes together behind our commander in chief to stand up for america against terrorists and a lot of us felt that wasnt the case yesterday. It was disappointing. The gentleman from georgia made his comments, apologizing for the comment he made but in the broader context of what happened yesterday, it was disappointing instead of having a sincere debate about whether the 2002 aumf should stand in place or be changed, which is a longer negotiation, that that resolution that just took a swipe at the president and tried to limit his ability, limiting the president to do certain things is disingenuous. You cant direct the president cant call him on the phone to say, you can pass a law to direct him to do something and thats what happened yesterday. And thats the point and concern. The gentleman knows, there is strong interest on both sides to revisit and maybe keep it in place, but the 2002 aumf has been a topic of conversation for a long time and will continue to be one, but if there is an effort to change it and desire to change it, then it ought to happen through the proper course of legislation and that isnt what happened yesterday. And i would yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for his comments, simply to focus the record and make clear for the record, the 2002 authorization for use of military force to which the gentleman refers, authorizes the use of for, one, to defend against iraq, not iran, and two, to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions egarding iraq. Force se of military authorized the action that was taken i think is incorrect. Thats what they do argue. Hasnt been resolved by a court but i believe and i think many of my side of the aisle and scholars around the country have said that the 2002 authorization did not authorize that particular act. Again, no one laments the loss of soleimani. Everybody agrees that he ponsored, paid for and ordered committed, acts of terrorism. And we will continue to believe that Congress Needs to speak and whether or not a court would hold that the section that i just read with reference to the president would have to take action in the event that the senate and the house adopts the concurrent resolution that we passed yesterday and that is now at the senate and under the war powers act will have to be considered by the senate and will be subject to a majority vote, not a 60 vote threshold for passage. I would hope that if the congress did that, that the president would certainly take that into consideration and consult with the congress on any further action that he might take. Unless, of course, and as the war powers authorizes, the president can and should that the military can and should take to defend to defend itself in the face of imminent threat and or actual threat. I yield. Mr. Scalise talk about where we are on the impeachment resolution that was passed last ear by the house, ultimately its typically an administrative duty to send papers over to the senate if legislation passes. Obviously impeachment managers would need to be named. There is breaking news that the speaker has asked chairman nadler to bring impeachment managers to the floor next week and im not sure if that is ongoing or something already in the works, but does the gentleman expect that legislation to come to the floor next week . And does that mean the papers have been transmitted to the senate or would be transmitted to the senate within the next few days . Mr. Hoyer in answer to the gentlemans question, the expectation is that we will have kint with the letter just sent to all of our members and to instructions to mr. Nadler or suggestions to mr. Nadler, we expect there to be legislation on the floor next week with reference to what we call supplemental legislation for appointment of managers and funding of the effort and we pect papers will be sent sometime soon. Mr. Scalise does the gentleman yield . Mr. Hoyer i yield. Sca mr. Scalise we have seen chorus of democrat senators in the recent days expressing concern that the papers should be sent over. Obviously on my side, we felt that there was no case, there was no crime and it was clear in so many areas of this, but ultimately house passed the legislation, whether the speaker voted for it or against it, its not some power of the speaker exclusively to hold on to that if the speaker doesnt want to send it to the senate ultimately for the ability to function as a legislative body, if the house passes legislation, it goes to the senate so the senate can take it up and do whatever they want to do with it, but one person out of 435 can make a decision that if the house passes legislation and the motion to reconsider is tabled, then it goes to the senate. Hopefully thats resolved by next week and charade ends and we get true justice where its disposed of which i think everybody acknowledges once it goes over to the senate but let us get back to doing the business of the peoples work and get to some of the broader Bipartisan Legislation that has been in the works for a long time to address real issues, like lowering drug prices, like securing our border and so many other things that republicans and democrats in the middle of all this are working together to try and accomplish. Mr. Hoyer as the gentleman knows we have 275 bipartisan bills which have been sent to from the house to the senate dealing with the environment, dealing with wages, dealing with jobs, dealing with making our communities safer, dealing with violence against women, dealing with equal pay for equal work, which was something that john kennedy signed in 1963 but today is not a reality unfortunately. So there are many issues i could name, obviously a lot more because we have sent 400 bills to the senate and sit unattended . Why . Because the senate is confirming judges . And the irony of a party that was so intent, in my political life making sure that judges cted only on the law, what philosophical premise has to be given to judicial appointments and a majority leader who refused a president of the United States who submitted a nominee, mr. Garland, for 11 months, it is inconceivable to me that any founding father thought for 11 months now it has been a few days we passed impeachment and send the papers over, for 11 months, president of the United States pursuant to his Constitutional Authority sent a nominee to the United States senate, 11 months before the election. Nd the majority leader said, tough, we are not going to consider it. We are not going to allow the committee to consider it or reported out to the floor and going to be no voting. Yes, there has been some delay. Because in that context and in the context of the majority leader working hand and glove with the defendant or the respondent, however you want to call it, in this criminal case, hand and glove by his own admission, he was not going to do anything that the president didnt want him to do. Like the prosecutor saying or the juror saying im not going to do anything that the defendant doesnt want me to do. So, yes, we have been concerned and are concerned to this day. An honest trial, that is the responsibility of the United States senate, an honest trial tries to elicit from both sides all of the relevant evidence. We are concerned that it appears that the senate kernl at this juncture has made no decision to receive all the relevant evidence. We think that is inconsistent with their responsibilities under the senate rules and to the American People. And we lament that fact and we have been trying to get from the senate what are the rules. You talked about process excuse me, mr. Speaker, the other side talked a lot about process and how they needed to have this avenue, that avenue and the other, mr. Speaker. And thats all we were asking, because this is the trial, not the time when you have essentially a grand jury deciding whether or not there is probable cause that the president of the United States abused his power, thats our role is an analogy to a criminal case. But there was no expression from processte that a normal to determine the truth of an allegation was going to be pursued in the United States senate. So, the speaker simply wanted to have that assurance. We have not gotten it. The American People have not gotten it. But what has happened since we passed that resolution . A number of people have come forward, mr. Bolton in particular, and said, ill testify. And other people have been identified as having relevant, pertinent firsthand knowledge. Not hearsay, firsthand knowledge of the allegations that are included in articles of impeachment one and two. So, im hopeful that in fact the senate, both republicans and democrats, come to an agreement all of the facts witnesses raise their hands, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. The senators are going to raise their hands under senate rules and say they swear to be impartial in the consideration of the evidence. And yet they will not allow the evidence, apparently, at this oint in time at least, to be illuminated. Im hopeful that that changes. I expect, as i said earlier, mr. Speaker, to the republican whip, that those papers will be transferred in the near term. I dont know specifically when, but in the near term. To the senate. And im hopeful that the American People will get what they deserve. From the United States senate. Serving as essentially jurors. And will be sworn in as such by the chief justice. Not by the Vice President presiding over the senate, but of the chief justice presiding over a quasilegal, quasipolitical process. , a will tell my friend letter has been sent. I do expect legislation to be considered next week, which is necessary to proceed with the process. And i hope the process proceeds, mr. Speaker, in a judicial, fair and way that allows all of fromvidence on both sides, the president s side and from, in this case, the houses side, ich will carry the argument, justifying the articles of peachment and the finding of fact that those articles are in fact worthy of having the president of the United States removed for abuse of power. Thats the issue. It ought to be argued fairly on both sides and the evidence ought to be adeuced on both sides. And i yield back to my friend. Mr. Scalise thank you for yielding. Its interesting that the gentleman talks about fairness. In the trial. Its quite rich of the speaker to call for fairness in the senate, when she denied fairness in the house. You can look at house rules. Rules that require that the minority gets a day of hearings on impeachment and that rule was thrown out the window. The gentleman said, an honest trial tries to elicit all of the evidence. And then of course we had multiple witnesses we wanted to bring forward that were denied. So clearly all of the evidence didnt get out. So i guess by definition, it was not an honest trial in the house. I am confident theyll have an honest and fair trial in the senate. And in fact, there are negotiations to make sure it will be fair. And by the way, mr. Hoyer will the gentleman yield . Mr. Scalise i want to make this point. When president nixon when the impeachment proceedings were moving forward with president nixon, it was a Democratic Congress. That negotiated with the Nixon Administration, with the nixon white house, to determine fair set of rules. And the house adopted those rules. That was a democrat conference. Then you fast forward to the clinton impeachment. Where you had a democrat president and a republican house. And the house negotiated with the white house to come up with fair rules and ultimately they adopted the nixon standard, because everybody agreed that was a fair process. Whether or not you liked the outcome is one thing, but it was a fair process. That never happened here. This house didnt make an effort to try to negotiate a fair set of rules with us in the minority or with the white house. And again, house rules actually require a minority day of hearings and that was broken. Not allowed. We didnt get that minority day of hearings. Weve requested it multiple times. To try to get some fairness, to elicit facts from all sides. But we werent given that opportunity. The senate now has a case that was sent over to them by a lot of estimate them, by a lot of estimates its an inadequate case, its a weak case. The majority must acknowledge, that which is why theyre holding the papers and hoping for more things. Which is what this was all about anyway. Seemed like every week we would hear more rumors that, oh, next week the big witness is going to come out and everythings going to be exposed and then that witness would testify under oath that, no, they didnt see a crime. No. But dont worry, next week theres going to be another one. And this will go on forever and ever and ever. Its like a groundhogs day of impeachment. And at some point i would hope the majority would say enough is enough. Well actually let the people of this country decide, which they will. Its going to be the people of the country that decide the president at the end of this year. In the elections. This president obviously has a very strong case to make. What hes done to get this economy back on track. What hes done to rebuild this military. To protect america. To secure our border. And all of the other things that we will have a case to make to the people and of course the gentlemans going to have a nominee thats going to make their case. However far left that case will be, well see through the primaries. But the people will ultimately make that decision. Our job should be to focus on doing the work of the American People and hopefully that happens. The senates going to have their opportunity. Im confident theyre going to have a fair trial. I wish that would have been the case here in the house. I would yield. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, the constitution does not provide for a trial in the house of representatives. Period. However, mr. Speaker, the minority continues to make the analogy of what is done in the house, impeachment, analogous to indictment, into making a charge to determining that there is probable cause. Secondly, in the Nixon Administration there was a Democratic Congress and there was discussion back and forth and guess what, the president s witnesses were came forward. What happened in this case . The president said, nobody can testify to the congress. I believe that was obstruction of justice. But thats for the senate to decide. Certainly obstruction of the congress. In the clinton administration, the same thing happened. Witnesses came forward, including, i believe, the chief of staff. Staff of the white house. So it was a very different situation. In addition, in both the nixon and clinton administrations, the minority shoves aside the fact that there were special prosecutors. That had depositions of all the witnesses. And were available in the United States senate at the time of the trial. So they had full information. Thirdly, the gentleman does not either remember or assert, mr. Speaker, that the Judiciary Committee to the white House Counsel said, you can participate, theres time for you to come down, theres time for you to call witnesses, theres time for you to make your case. The white House Counsel notified the committee, were not interested. Why were they not interested . In my opinion, because their expectation is they were going to go to the senate and have the case dismissed without any evidence being introduced. Mr. Speaker, i think thats unfortunate. But those are the facts. Hats what happened. If you make a further analogy to the grand jury, the defendant plays no role in the grand jury. None, zero, zip, no counsel, no witnesses, not even in the room. And the jury decides, is there probable cause to believe that x committed an offense worthy of Going Forward . Thats what happens. Theres no participation. Now, there was participation here. The president had opportunities here. And all the republicans participated and could cross examine the witnesses that did in fact come forward in both the Judiciary Committee, the government reform committee, and in the intel committee, Foreign Affairs committee, Financial Services committee, government reform committee. I think thats i mentioned that once before. So, i would hope that would happen in the senate. If you want to know the truth, mr. Speaker, thats what ought to happen. But if it is just presenting information that is not relevant in this trial, i. E. I did a good job on the economy, i. E. I did a good job on Foreign Policy, i. E. I did a good job in protecting our borders, thats the president s argument in a political sense, i understand that. But thats not legally relevant information as to whether or not he abused his power. In particular, in the phone call with the ukrainians in which he with held money appropriated by the congress of the United States withheld money appropriated by the congress of the United States to protect, help protect an ally, ukraine, against incursion by mr. Putin. Im sure mr. Putin was very pleased that that money did not go to mr. Zelensky and the ukrainian forces. We think that was an abuse of power. My friend, the republican whip, thinks it was not. I get that. Its what makes the world go around. Differences of opinion. Its now in the senate. That is where trial is provided for in the congress. That is where witnesses should be provided. That is where both sides ought to be able to make their arguments. Before the jury. The United States senate. And then and only then should the United States senate make a determination whether or not the allegations had merit and warrant the consequences. So i tell my friend, when you make these analogies of what happened here in the house, its done, you may think its bad, mr. Speaker, the whip may think it wasnt done correctly, but the proof of the pudding will be, is he urging the senate to do what everybody in america thinks of as a trial . Because thats what the senate under the constitution is, the trier of facts and law. Presided over by the chief of the Supreme Court of the United States. And i would hope the gentleman would be urging as strenuously in the senate, where trial and proper procedures should be followed, as he did here in the house. And i yield back, mr. Speaker. Mr. Scalise thank you. Clearly, as the gentleman knows, its the senates job to try the houses case. If the house failed to make its case, thats the houses fault. To suggest that the senate needs to mop up the mess that was done here because there was not fairness, because both sides didnt get the opportunity, if one side just wants to say, hey, ive got a case to make, im going to go make my case, but im not going to let them make theirs, im not going to let them call their witnesses. And we had a long list of witnesses we wanted to call that we were denied. Youre in the majority, you get to make the rules. Ok, if thats you what want to call fair, you can. But its not what you want to call fair, you can. But its not. So the senate has, it but it was all done, according to the majority, out of urgency. Thats the word we heard over and over again. If the gentleman wanted to have other people come and testify, the president and every president s exerted executive privilege, so if the standard is the president exerting executive privilege equates to obstruction of congress, then you have to retroactively go back and impeach every president , including George Washington. Exerting executive privilege is not an obstruction of congress. Congress can have a disagreement with the president. We surely have had disagreements with previous president s exerting executive privilege when we were in the majority. Guess what, you fight those out in the courts. The gentlemans well aware of that. And maybe the courts will say yes. Maybe the courts will say no. But that attempt wasnt made. Why . Because according to your own leader, Speaker Pelosi, urgent. Chairman schiff, the timing is driven by the urgency. Chairman nadler, the threat is urgent. And so they rammed through, and other facts, other witnesses that they didnt want, they discarded. Actual rule of the house, clause 2j1 of rule 11 requires, not allows, but requires the minority to have a day of hearings. That was denied. Because there was urgency. They didnt want all the facts to get out. They were concerned about urgency. And then lo and behold, it sses, and all passes, and all of a sudden what happened to the urgency . Speaker says, well, were going to hold the papers. You had senators, i think its time to send the impeachment to the senate. Let Mitch Mcconnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is. Other senators said very similar things. But at some point in time, if it was urgent, and then it happened, and then you dont send it over because now all of a sudden you realize theres weak case and youre hoping Something Else pops up, youre hoping maybe the senate can do the things that werent done here, because it wasnt urgency, it was expediency, appeasing a political base. There was no crime. Every other impeachment started with a crime. Not the hope of a crime. You can listen to a phone call and suggest something, interestingly i never saw any attempt to impeach president obama because he didnt give that aid to ukraine. If the aid was so important that it was impeachable not to give it, obama didnt give it. It was bad Foreign Policy, it wasnt impeach but President Trump did give the aid so help ukraine stand up to putin. President obama didnt help ukraine stand up to putin. Maybe the impeachment would have been in the other direction. But again, that was bad Foreign Policy that president obama didnt give ukraine the tools that they asked for and were denied by the Obama Administration, but wasnt impeachable. You might have a disagreement with President Trumps Foreign Policy and maybe you agreed with it, but the president did send that aid. There was no investigation and he sent the aid. But impeach him for it because you disagree with other things. I think that became very clear. And at some point, if it is focused on personality, i think people are most fed up with. If there were facts, both sides would have been able to present all the evidence and both sides call all of the witnesses. Side was confident, that didnt happen. We were denied what the rules of the house require, we wanted it and asked for it and the rules required it and you blew through it away. Thats not fairness. The senate will conduct a fair trial base odd a weak case. The senates job is to try the case that was made in the house whether it was a strong or weak case and that ought to happen. And i would yield. The oyer mr. Speaker, gentleman, i dont know what analogy he is using to process, but what he just said, if the witnesses werent called and presented in the grand jury, then the defense attorney cant call them, then the prosecutor cant call them. That is absolutely untrue. I could use a harsher word how lacking in substance i think that representation is. The senate is now trying the case. The grand jury has sent the case over there, Strong Enough to have significant majority of the house vote for it, by a way, in a partisan sense. Not a single there was a single republican and three or four talked to me privately and i will not mention their names that they didnt vote as they talked to me. But the fact of the matter is, what the gentlemans proposition is that if you didnt call the witnesses in the house, then you cant call them in the senate. Now the reason for that is because they dont want the witnesses called, which is why the president told them dont testify in the house. They were asked to testify. And what happened when we asked them to testify . Now, you have to have a subpoena. Mr. Mcgahn went to court and when he lost the appeal and going to appeal to the Supreme Court, the fact of the matter is, there was certainly from our perspective overwhelming evidence, not that he withheld money but the reason he withheld money, obviously in the cases cited by the minority whip, congress had not appropriated and directed that money to be sent to ukraine and in fact, the president president obama gave significant aid. He didnt give the missiles but he gave significant aid and assistance to the ukranians. But the fact of the matter is, we didnt direct him to send the money but we dected to this president to send the money. Mr. Mccarthy and i cosponsored legislation which directed the president to impose the sanctions on russia because we werent confident he would do so on his own. But the analogy that he continues to make as a rationalization for why the senate does not appear to have a fair, open triallike as the constitution requires, with swearing to be impartial, meaning they want to get at the facts and make a judgment on the facts, he has not, mr. Speaker, explained why he is not realming the same fairness that he wanted to have here. He said he didnt get fairness, i get that. But i urge the minority whip to urge the majority leader to have a trial as you would expect to have a trial if either of us were under indictment. We would expect to be able to call witnesses and we would understand that the prosecution would sall such witnesses as they believe necessary and are relevant to the case. Thats a very important phrase and i want to emphasize, relevant to the case because so many of the witnesses, like the whistleblower, who is protected by our laws that we have passed, from being exposed to adverse action. And the president says bring us the whistleblower. The republicans say bring us the whistleblower. The whistleblower doesnt have any knowledge to testify on, it was hear say that he heard from somebody that a guy down the street committed a crime. I didnt see it, he told me. I call up the police and say that a crime is being committed down the steet, you better go see. So i emphasize, mr. Speaker, hopefully in closing, that we had passed, republicans all voted no, i get that, the house of representatives believed by a majority vote that we had made a case for probable cause and under those circumstances, the constitution says the senate will then try that case to determine whether or not, in fact, the probable cause was accurate. And all were asking is it be done in a fair, open and complete manner, because there was no special prosecutor and no way to compel some of those witnesses who refuse to testify, who now, john bolton are saying, yes, i will testify. Personally i dont believe that the Senate Majority leader wants john bolton to testify, but he clearly has firsthand not whistleblower not somebody told me, firsthand knowledge. By the way, when he heard about it, he apparently called it a drug deal. I hope, mr. Speaker, that the do will urge the senate to what he wanted done here or perhaps take the position theyre wrong means we can be wrong. Mibe two wrongs will make it right. Not the way we usually think of it. But im hopeful that not only will the minority whip, i hope the minority leader will do that. It would be good for the country. I yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman. If the gentleman wants to talk about how the process works, i made it clear, the gentleman is in the majority and you make the rules however you want. But to say as the gentleman said earlier, an honest trial tries to elicit all of the evidence. Not all of the evidence was presented. Again we called and asked for multiple witnesses and denied the ability to have witnesses we asked for. You are in the majority, you said no and were able to roll over that because you had the votes. Dont say it was fair or honest trial when by your definition and all of the facts mr. Hoyer would the gentleman yield . We did not have a trial. The constitution does not require a trial. We are not the trial forum. The senate is the trial forum. And certainly the gentleman has watched enough television of trials, maybe been in trials for all i know. Im a lawyer and obviously i have been in trials, thats the place that you call witnesses. Thats where the defendant has there is no right in the grand jury to call witnesses. He has no right in the grand jury to be there or have his lawyer be in the grand jury room. We afforded the president that right and he rejected it. His lawyer said thank you, but no thanks. Were not going to play. So you continue, mr. Speaker, in my view, the minority whip continues to conflate the responsibility we had here in the house and the responsibility the senate has. The senate is the trier of facts, not the house. The house is a determine ant of whether there is probable cause and we did that and its over in the senate. And it is their responsibility and duty and as they lift their hands to swear they will be impartial to get all of the relevant evidence, relevant evidence, relevant evidence, not just some fishing expedition on either side, prosecution or defense, and with that, i hope we can end this debate because it will be endless if we do not, simply because we are not going to agree, mr. Speaker. We have obviously very different perceptions as to what the duty of the house has and very different perceptions that if what we thought we did in the house was wrong, ought to repeat it in the senate. I think the papers will be going to the senate. The senate will decide what its going to do. I hope the senators can put themselves as the founders and people would expect. And i yield back. Mr. Scalise i thank the gentleman for yielding. Lets be clear, probable cause is not the standard in the constitution. To remove a sitting president , the constitution is very specific, treason, bribery or high crimes or misdemeanor. Not probable cause. That is not what impeachment is to be used for. There were multiple witnesses and tryouts in secret that chairman schiff after all of this inyou endo and you would hear leaks and leaks and this is going to happen and then would have a secret hearing and none of us could find out what was happening in those secret hearings. All of the leaks and inyou endo turned out to be disproven. Couldnt find that out because the chairman closed those hearings to the public and to most members of congress. Ultimately the senates job is to try the case that was made in the house, weak and strong and clearly it was weak because the urgency would already be going on if it was a strong case. Even if its a weak case, its not the senates job to mop up that mess but the senates job to go and hear the case that was made in the house with one side presenting their witnesses and again, you get to have that opportunity. We wanted to bring witnesses forward and they were sworn in, i dont know if you call them Something Different. They were there to present fact and can you name the crime . No. Was there bribery, no. But let the senate do their job and hopefully they get that next week and i would encourage that the house will get that done. I yield back. R. Hoyer i yield. The speaker pro tempore the chair is prepared to receive a message. The messenger a message from the president of the United States. The secretary the president of the United States be delivered to the house of representatives, a message in writing. The speaker pro tempore the chair will entertain requests for oneminute speeches. For what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition . I request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, i rise to congratulate math teacher named nathan kirsch. This award is given to 40 teachers across the up United States and one in tennessee who won it. Mr. Cohen he was surprised when the entire student body applauded him to receive the National Distinction which is the oscar award for teaching. And accepting the award, he all of my quote, for all students, past, current and future, the white haven School Community is proud of this accomplishment. I am, too. A program known for being an athletic powerhouse is known for excellence in academics. The principal at white haven post the names of the scholars of the ones scholarships on the wall outside his office, not athletic awards but academic awards. He embodies both the tradition that white haven as a coach of teams and great teacher. I congratulate all the white haven tigers on this Exceptional Achievement and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition . Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, my family tree on both sides is full of prominent women who served in elected office. The most notable of these is my wifes greatgrandmother, dr. Martha hughes cannon, a pioneer in both government and heritage. 123 years ago she was sworn into the utah state senate, becoming the first woman in the country to hold that office. My wife is quick to remind me that she won that office by defeating her husband. Utah is home to some of the most capable and influential female leaders in the nation and im fortunate to have these impressive women help advise me on all issues and specifically those that impact utah women. Mr. Curtis because of the initiative of Martha Hughes cannon, thousands of women have followed in her footsteps and served in state legislatures and as local and national leaders. Im excited and proud to introduce a resolution dedicating january 11, 2020, as national Martha Hughes cannon day, and honor the path that she paved for the many women who serve today. Thank you. I yield my time. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentlewoman from New Hampshire eek recognition . Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Cust cust ms. Kuster thank you, mr. Speaker. Today the house took sweeping, bipartisan action to address pfas contamination that has proliferated across communities in america. These forever chemicals have been link linked to negative health effects, including cancer, impaired Child Development and even infertility. Granite staters have already seen the harmful consequences of pfas contamination and i am pleased that the legislation we passed today will safeguard communities, clean up contaminated sites and protect Public Health. Importantly, the bipartisan bill we passed today includes language i authored to turn off the tap for new pfas chemicals being approved by the e. P. A. Enough is enough. There are already too many dangerous pfas chemicals in our environment and the last thing americans need is more of these forever chemicals. The pfas action act also included a bipartisan amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, chris pappas, and myself, which would authorize significant Grant Funding to public Water Treatment facilities to safeguard our Drinking Water. And with that, i urge the senate to take up this important bill and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks as necessary. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to recognize an extraordinary threewar veteran, Lieutenant Colonel daniel doby. Colonel doby is a highly decorated veteran, having served in world war ii, korea and vietnam, amassing over 5,000 flight hours between the navy and the air force. He flew the mustangs, multiple fighter jets and heavy metal. He even served in the space program. His name is enshrined on the wall of honor in the smithsonian air and space museum. Mr. Dunn colonel dobys record of service is emblematic of why we all revere the greatest generation. Now at 5 years old, hes 95 years old, hes still the cheerful warrior, he lives in florida near his son, who has been my friend for over 25 years. I was honored to serve them both thanksgiving dinner at the air force base this year, and it was a time of great camaraderie. Mr. Speaker, please join me in saluting a living hearo from our fathers generation hero from our fathers generation. Colonel doby. The speaker pro tempore are there any further requests for oneminute speeches . The chair lays before the house the following personal requests. The clerk leaves of absence requested for mr. Aderholt of alabama for today and the balance of the week, and mrs. Kirkpatrick of arizona for today. The speaker pro tempore under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. Flores, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. Mr. Flores thank you, mr. Speaker. I request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Flores mr. Speaker, i rise today to honor the 627 brave civilian women who served as doughnut dollies for the red cross Supplemental Recreational Activities Overseas Program during the vietnam conflict between 1965 and 1972. The name doughnut dollies was coined during world war ii to describe the red cross volunteers who passed out hot coffee and doughnuts from the backs of military vehicles. While the women who volunteered in vietnam did so much more than hand out doughnuts and coffee, the name doughnut dollies was applied to them. The young women of doughnut dollies were stationed throughout vietnam, from saigon, up north. They lived in tents and by a dan abandoned vilas, and they flew over enemy territory, just like our military personnel. These brave women quickly became to be known as angels in a combat zone for their bright smiles and powder blue uniforms that loist spirits at every base they that lifted the spirits at every base they toured. They hosted daily recreational events at large bases such as pool tournaments, Fashion Shows and various contests to provide fun and relaxation for offduty military personnel. They helped serve food in chow lines and they brought koolaid. Others were assigned to the club mobile program which toured more remote bases, often requiring helicopter transport to reach them. They would gather the troops, usually beside a bunker or a tank, to play competitive audience participation games. For the hour or so that they were there, the doughnut dollies brought laughter and a sense of lightheartedness that was deeply missed in the war zone. Because death was so close, the laughter was healing. Funny things were funnier and their laughter helped join everyone together. One soldier once said it was the miracle of making the war disappear for a little while. Approximately 1,500 visits of the club mobile program logged over 2. 1 millionaire miles. Their primary goal in these visits and at the events at larger bases was to boost morale and to provide the men with a sense of home before going out in the field. Mr. Speaker, the contributions of the doughnut dollies represented a changing role of women to serve their country in a time that women had previously been limited to noncombat roles. Their patriotism helped bring warmth, light and laughter to the darkness of war time. My wife and i are honored to recognize the women of the doughnut dollies and to thank them for their important and sacrificial contributions that they made for our country during the vietnam conflict. As i close today, i ask urge all member americans to continue praying for our country, for our military men and women who protect us, and for our First Responders who keep us safe at ome. Mr. Speaker, i rise today in recognition of the 33 years of service and ministry of chris pand Peggy Osborne to and Peggy Osborne to Central Baptist Church and the community of Brian College station, texas. It was founded in 1925 as a missionminded ministry dedicated to sharing a passion for gods word. Today Central Baptist Church has become an integral part of the Brian College station community, where a strong sense of discipleship has led to the creation of many outreach programs, Childrens Ministry events, and College Ministry groups. Even as the church has grown, Central Baptist Church remains committed to their original missionminded goals and through the efforts of the congregation, thousands of people have found the joy, peace and contentment to spring from a fulfilling and personal relationship with jesus christ. For the past 33 years, pastor chris and his wife have been a source of light and encouragement and joy for the entire Central Baptist Church community. Under the leadership of pastor chris, central has seen significant change and growth. The relocation of its church to its current 3,500seat Worship Center and the most recent addition to the childrens ring, it provided members of the central baptist family with everincreasing opportunities for worship and community. Chris commitment to outreach and involvement have made him a pillar of the Brian College station community. Serving as chaplain for the police department, hosting cookoffs and baking competitions and participating in charity golf tournaments. Pastor chris dedication to service has not gone unnoticed and hundreds of members of his congregation have experienced life change from his encouraging and supportive approach. On on january 26, 2020, Central Baptist Church will say goodbye to pastor chris and hads i wife, peggy, as they begin the next chapter of their lives in fort worth, texas, where chris will continue to spread the word of god as a professor at southwestern baptist thee logical seminary. As members of Central Baptist Church of the Central Baptist Church congregation, my wife and i have both grown in christ because of the impact of the church under the leadership and friendship of chris and peggy. Mr. Speaker, i would like to recognize and thank both chris and peggy for their down to earth and positive leadership of this congregation and for their impact of spreading the good news of jesus christ. Ive requested that the United States flag be flown over our nations capitol to honor the lives and leg sis of chris and peggy legacies of chris and Peggy Osborne of as i close today, i urge all americans to continue praying for for our country, for our military men and women who protect us and for our First Responders who keep us afe at home. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to recognize the recent 140th anniversary of the association of former students of texas a m university. The agricultural and mechanical college of texas, now known as texas a m university, was founded as a Land Grant College by the state of texas in 1871, pursuant to the morelle act. The college was the first Public Institution of Higher Education in texas and started classes on october 14, 1876. On june 26, 1879, with the Agricultural Mechanical College of texas still in its infancy, 11 former cadets hosted a reception in houston, initiating the first formal organization of a m former students. The persons at that meeting including william sleeper, class of 1879, william traitman, 1878, pinky downs, class of 1879, edward fits hue, class of 1879, edward curbing, class of 18880, george hardy, 187, david alexander, 1879, william small, 1882, robert chatham, 1877, william brown, 1882, and thomas fuller, 1881. It was decided that at that first meeting to endeavor keep a record of all former cadets who attended the a m college of texas. Thus promoting and maintaining fellowship. The excadets fellowship was reorganized to form the Alumni Association in 1888. Developing throughout the years in tandem with the alpha fi fraternal which was founded in the 1890s and included former students who had not grad, a coalition was formed in 1919, the formerly reorganized and adopted the name, the association of former students. This name was written into the charter grant about the state of texas in 1925. In this charter, the association committed to support the benevolent, charitable and educational undertakings by extending financial and other aid to students at texas a m by promoting social, literary and scientific pursuits by perpetuating and strengthening the ties of affection formed in university or college days, by promoting the interest and welfare of texas a m university and education generally in the state of texas. Since its first day of class, over 143 years ago, with six professors and 40 students, the university has grown to become one of the largest tier 1 research and education institutions in the United States. With almost 70,000 students, thousands of faculty and staff, and close to a billion 1 billion billion of annual research annually. Through its existence, the association of former students has continued to grow rapidly. Today it serves more than 508,000 former students of texas a m university and generates an impact of almost 14 million annually for the university support through scholarships, Student Activities and long revered traditions such as the aggie ring program. As the university has grown and developed, the Aggie Network as an organization thats commonly referred to today has evolved but always maintained its core of valleys and commitment values and commitments to the university. Together the association and the university collaborate to maintain six core values of loyalty, integrity, excellence, leadership, Selfless Service and respect. These are the core values that unite all a m students and by which all aggies strive to live. As former chairman of the board, im honored to recognize the accomplishments of the organization over the past 140 years. The agey network is the glue that glue our students to live our core values every day. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the 140th anniversary of the association of former students, i applaud the organizations ongoing commitment to the core values of our beloved institution. I requested United States flag be flown over Nations Capital to honor the 140 years of the worldwide network. As i close today, i urge all americans to continue and pray for our country, military men and women who keep us safe and our First Responders to protect us at home. Mr. Speaker, i yield the balance of my time or yield to mr. Mcclintock. The speaker pro tempore under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from california is recognized for the remapeder of the time. Mr. Mcclintock mr. Speaker, throughout the debate yesterday on the socalled war powers resolution some fundamental misunderstanding surfaced that i think need to be addressed. The first misunderstanding is that the justification for the attack that killed soleimani was that he was an evil terrorist responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans. While there are evil, it doesnt give the President Authority to kill them. What did give the President Authority in this case is the fact that soleimani was acting as an armed combatant in a war zone in which the congress had authorizeded the president to take military for the use of military force in iraq in 2002. I hate to shock my colleagues t killing active enemy combatant is is all about and war that started with congress. That act provides, quote, the president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the National Security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by iraq, end quote. The very nature of this authority includes combatting hostile militia and armed proxies acting within iraq. That is exactly what the president did. The authorization to use military force did not end with the defeat of Saddam Hussein any more than the president s authority in japan germany ended with the defeat of japan and hitler. It didnt terminate until 1952 and 1955 and the president s military authority in iraq remains in effect until president and congress terminate it. The second misunderstanding is that the president s action was an attack on iran. It most certainly was not. It was carried out in the theater of war defined by congress against a combatant who is commanding Hostile Forces against american troops. Not only did the president act within his Legal Authority as commander in chief but within his moral responsibility to protect American Military and personnel and american citizens in iraq. The third misunderstanding is that the war powers act is applicable in this circumstance. The war powers act governance only those circumstances when the president responds without Congressional Authority to an attack upon the United States, its territory or possessions or its armed forces. In this case, the president already had Congressional Authority. The fourth misunderstanding is the attack on soleimani was equivalent to president obamas attack on libya. The two are entirely different matters. The attack on libya had no congressional authorization and the war powers act did not apply because mr. Obamas military attack was not in response to an attack on the United States, its territory, possessions or armed forces. It was an entirely unprovoked attack entirely unauthorized and accordingly, it was entirely illegal. I think as we go forward, we need to get back to some basic fundamental understanding about constitutional war powers. The founders made a distinction between starting a war and waging a war for some very good reasons. They understand that this most solemn and lethal decision should not be entrusted to one individual Whose Authority would be augmented by it. The decision to start a war was given exclusively to congress to assure that every voice in the country was heard and congress once having taken that stand would be obligated to put the resources of the country behind that war and those fighting it. But once the wars begun, the founders wanted a single commander in chief directing it with clear and unambiguous authority. There is no surer path to military disaster than having prima done ng assecond guessing. The president can wage war and not declare it. The congress can declare war but not wage it. The founders debated these principles thoroughly during the constitutional con convention and the president needed resideal power when congress couldnt act and i believe the war powers act defines these circumstances and establishes the framework to contain them. But the war powers act does not give the president the authority to launch military attacks except in response to a direct attack on our country, nor can it limit the president s authority as commander in chief once congress does authorize war. I believe the 2002 authorization for the use of military force in iraq was a colossal mistake. It created a dangerous power vacuum that was never supported with the full resources of the United States and it was without provocation. But there should be no rewriting of history here. Might have been george w. Bush who advocated for the war and but it a and now trump, was congresses adoption of the aumf that started it and once started only the president can wage it. Trum inherited this mess. In this instance, the president had Clear Authority to order the attack and had a moral imperative to do so. What is Crystal Clear from the debate yesterday, if the democrats had their way, soleimani would be alive today and the attack on american troops that he was in the final stages of planning would have unfolded. We would likely today be mourning very Many American casualties. If the president knowing that this attack was coming and in full possession of the opportunity to stop it had taken the democratss on advice and done nothing he would have been deeply culpable for the loss of americans and it is shocking to me and perhaps to the country as well that even in hindsight this is the course the democrats have made clear that they prefer. Which brings me to the nature of the resolution that the house passed yesterday. The separation of war powers between the legislative and executive branches has been badly blurred in recent decades and i do believe that we need to reestablish not only the constitutional principles that separate the declaring of war from the waging of war, but also the american tradition that we only go to war when we been attacked. And when we must go to war, eff the utmost obligation to put the entire might, resources and attention of the nation behind it and to get it over with just as quickly as possible. Now thats a legitimate debate to have. But thats not what the house did yesterday. Yesterday, it deliberately and recklessly undermind the position of the United States government and United States armed forces that we sent to iraq shredding the tradition that politics stops at the waters edge. At a perilous moment, the house refused to stand behind the war ta it authorized in 2002, refused to protect the men and women that it placed in harms way and it gave a hostile foreign power a major propaganda victory. That is yet another stain upon the honor of this house and one which should be deplored and condemned for the ages to come. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the chair lays before the house a message. The clerk to the congress of the United States. Pursuant to the International Emergency economic powers act, i here by report i have issued an executive order with respect to iran that takes additional steps with respect to the National Emergency declared in 12957 of march 15, 1995, the order takes steps to deny iran revenue including revenue derived from the export of products from key sectors of irans economy that will fund its Missile Program and terrorist proxy networks and malign regional influence. The order glocks the property and interests determined by the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of state to operate in the construction, mining or manufacturing and textile sectors of the iranian economy and any other sector of the iranian economy as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, to have materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial material or technological support for goods or services to or in support of any person whose property and interests and property are blocked pursuant to the order or to be owned or controlled by or have acted or purported to have acted or on behalf of directly or indirectly any property interests are blocked purningt to the order. The order also authorizes the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of state to impose correspondent account related sanctions on a Foreign Financial Institution upon determining the Foreign Financial Institution has, on or after the date of the order knowingly conducted or facilitated a significant financial transaction, for or behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of the order. I have delegated to the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of state the authority to take such actions including adopting rules and regulations to employ all powers granted to the president by ieppa as necessary to implement the order. Im ep closing a copy of the order that i have issued. Signed donald j. Trump, the white house. The speaker pro tempore referred to the committee of Foreign Affairs and ordered printed. The chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. King, for 30 minutes. Mr. King its my honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the United States house of representatives. And i come to floor today, mr. Speaker because this is the oneyear anniversary of the date hat dispar acknowledging misquote in the new york tiles, january 10, 2019. This being january 10, 2020. And im hopeful this new year will bring about some clarityity and vision on the part of my colleagues, the American People and i dont know i have as much hope for the press. This day, i was misquoted by the New York Times and times alleged that i used three terms and asked why does that language become offensive. Well, the truth is, it was a 56minute telephone interview, a call on my cell phone. I didnt have a way to tape it, but i have a practice over the years i have done interviews with all kinds of media and if i dont have a means to tape, i make it not to repeat anything i have havent already said to the press. Well, when the phone range that rning on the 5th of january, 2019, if thats a friday morning about 8 35 in the morning. I took the call and i would have preferred to have done it in the office but sometimes you need to get work done and move on to other things. The reporter for the New York Times told me he had been assigned by his chief editor to write an article about how it is that the immigration policy that i have advocated for at least since the first days i came to this congress and years before that, so around 2000 or so that that immigration policy, build a wall, end birthright citizenship, end sanctuary cities and the list of other things what i have championed along the way, he was assigned to write an article and how President Trump adopted my immigration positions and got elected and now the National Debate was surrounding the very top is that i had talked about for so long. He didnt have a tape, i didnt have a tape much i know he didnt have tape for a couple of reasons. One was on be a occasion owe two he asked me to carefully repeat the statement i had made so he could type it down and get it accurate. That told me thats the ones that hes going to quote. It wasnt the one of, however. And of controversy, however. So, the subs subsequently, then the second piece of it was, we asked him on the telephone in the following week, do you have a tape . His answer was, why do you want to know . And in that phone call, would not answer the question as to whether or not he had a tape. We found out later on that he admitted there was no tape. So we asked for his notes. He wouldnt release the notes. We asked him for the question that he had posed to me and he wouldnt even speculate as to what the question was that he had posed to me in this 56minute interview. He did assert that he can type as fast as anyone can talk and hes highly trained on that and so skilled that the words would be perfect and so would be the punctuation be perfect. Now, im here on the floor of this house of representatives. We have some of the best stenographers in the world here. They get more practice in the house than anywhere else and they talk slower in the senate. Ive asked them how fast can you type . A lot of them are about 130 words a minute on a conventional typewriter and when they get to what i call the magic keyboard here, mr. Speaker, then those words may go up to as many as 260 words a minute. I ask them, can you keep up with me when i am on a roll . And they say, no, we are always glad when you pause and let us catch up. These are the best there are anywhere. I cant believe that a reporter for the New York Times, with a conventional, not a magic keyboard, can outpace the people on this floor that keep up with these fast talking people in the house of representatives, the very best there are in the world. Thats not his skill set anyway. So when he asserts that he would type it up accurately with utter precision and the punctuation would be correct, even when i asked the best in the world, what about the punctuation, does that come out to be perfect too . Theyll say, no, i have to go back and listen to the tape and make sure we get that part of it right and we get the words right but the punctuation may be in question. So, i have Great Respect for the skill sets here. I do not respect the response he gave in defense. Because it is not believable. That a reporter can be on a telephone on the other end, typing at a speed that can with the kind of precision necessary to settle the kind of cases that we have here. Nonetheless, when that story came out on the 10th of january, things blew up here in this congress. And i immediately put out a statement that should have shut that all all that criticism down. I put it out with clarity. I clearly rejected more emphatically than anyone in this house of representatives has, including the resolution that passed the following week, more clearly than anyone else has the idea of the odious ideologies of White Nationalism and White Supremacy. Those are ideologies that didnt exist in my environment, anyplace that i was, in all of my growing up and formative years and my adult years and my time here in this congress. When our minority leader, Kevin Mccarthy, asked for a meeting with me on the following monday, that was his assertion that it has always meant the same thing. I dont know how we know if its language thats not been used or utilized, how do we know what it meant to people . You couldnt look up an ideology thats two words, not one, in this dictionary, this huge dictionary over here, you wont be able to look up White Nationalism or White Supremacy there because thats a phrase and its an ideology that ties two words together with a meaning that perhaps could be different. And so i had said in an on october 20 of 2018, he had asked me the question, what is a White Nationalist . I said, i might have meant Something Different, one it might have meant Something Different one or two or three years ago but today it implies racist itch knew that because ive been paying racist. I knew that because ive been paying attention to the weaponization of language. This is what the left has been doing. Theyve been calling people racist for 20, 25 years. And theyve watched as republicans, especially southern conservative republicans, curl up away from that kind of accusation, because and it schutz them down. And i recall shuts them down. And i recall the conversation i related actually to the New York Times reporter in that 56minute interview and in my answer to the question, whatever it was that he asked me, what had happened in february of 2013. And that was an immigration meeting down the hallway, over toward the senate side, where we had a discussion about immigration with four or five senators and five or six house members and some nongovernment representatives that were also there at the table and around the table. And it was the first time he i met senator ted cruz. He had made a statement that we need to be very careful with the language we use, especially on immigration, because if we are not, if we use any language that is offensive, they will use it against us. And i listened to that and i thought, i better respond and i said, well, senator, i agree with what you said. But we also need to keep in mind that whatever language is effective, if we let them, if we let them define that which is offensive, whatever language is effective will be defined as offensive. I waited for his answer, which was essentially a nod, which i took to mean an agreement with me, and i believe it was. Because it was certainly a logical statement and it was objective. So i set this up this way, mr. Speaker. So that when i lay out this case its going to be clearly understood by all who are paying attention and that is, im going it take the term White Nationalist. Thats what Kevin Mccarthy was so concerned about and believing that it confirmed some kind of a hidden ideology in me that no one had been able to discover in personal contact with me, that had been discovered by the New York Times reporter over the telephone. And he argued that the response i gave that it might have meant Something Different one or two or three years ago exposed that i didnt know that it was a negative connotation that had to do with White Nationalism, somehow or another, he assigned another belief system to me which is what generally the left does. So i asked for 24 hours to disprove this. He said, youve got one hour. And walked out of the room. One hour. Well, it takes a lot of digging. I disproved it clearly. But not in an hour. So what i have here that id like to show you, mr. Speaker, what did the term White Nationalism mean in the year 2000 when it was virtually unused . Or in any year prior to that when it was also virtually unused . What did it mean in 2001, 2002, 2003, all the way up, you can see its virtually unused, all the way up until it never even starts to move until 2015. This is a lexus nexus search of the term White Nationalism or White Nationalist derivatives of this term. Lexus nexus, mr. Speaker, goes into blogs and web postings and newspaper print and magazine print, you name it. If its in print out there, lexus nexus is very likely to have it all. This is the only objective way you can quantify the utilization of this term. White nationalism. Virtually unused, all the way up until 2016. And there it jumped, i know the rest of the numbers by memory, i guess theyre there. It jumped in 2016 to 10,000 times a year. Virtually unused and all of a sudden in 2016 there it goes. 10,000 times a year. 2017, 30,000 times. And 2018, its still up there at 20,000 times. Now, how did it happen that a terminology that had been virtually unused all of a sudden became used in multiple times, up to 30,000 times a year, when 100 to 200 times a year is its virtually unused definition down here . And how did it happen that this is the word that gets tagged on me . Is that an accident . I dont think so. And in fact any objective person looking at the data couldnt come to that conclusion either. So this is the annual utilization, visit he virtually unused up until virtually unused up to 2016, then 10,000 times a year, then 30,000 times the next year and still at 20,000 times the following year. This is a weaponized term created by the left to attack conservatives with. Its one of their weaponized terms. They have multiple weaponized terms now because they were out the term racist and they wore out the term race of the and they needed to make up new terms that they could be offended by. In this one it shows how did this happen that 2016 was the year that the term White Nationalist was used 10,000 times in that year . So i asked them, break this thing down, lexus nexus, utilization of White Nationalist. Month by month throughout the year of 2016. Thats the jump year down here. So heres the data. From november and december, its down here, used a little more than perhaps would you say you could still call it virtually unused, but theres a little blip in august and then it jumps up in november and its still up there in december. What happened in 2016 that brought about the use of the term White Nationalist as an almost always projortive term, almost always used to attack conservatives, what happened . Well, there was a circumstance that donald trump was elected president of the United States. November 8, 2016. And when that happened there was already a gathering for the hierarchy of the Democratic Party to gather together at the mandarin objection dental hotel here in washington, and their agenda was to best plan how they were going to utilize what they expected to be would be a Hillary Clinton presidency. They admitted that they had to change their agenda when they got the surprise of donald trump winning the election as opposed to hillary. They did change their agenda. But at the hotel, by the way, led by george soros, his face is on the front cover here of politicos article that tells about this, several other articles, mr. Speaker, but george soros led on this, and so there they planned how they were going to deal with a trump presidency, how they were going to try to handcuff and tie down and refuse and resist. Mr. Speaker, if we remember what happened that came into our never badge also verbage also, resist, resist, resist this movement would also be probably a little more used than White Nationalist. But we might be able to define that as virtually unused. Until the conference at the mandarin oxidental hotel here in washington, d. C. , that started on the sunday, november 13, the sunday after trump was elected president. There they planned how they were going to deal with the trump presidency, how they were going to handcuff him, tie him down, resist, resist, resist. The Resistance Movement was born in that hotel by democratic leadership, led by george soros, a soros, and no doubt funded by jorbling soros, and the expect george soros, and the executive director position that was managing over all this was a soros former soros staff person. So they planned their resistance and out of that also came some words to be weaponized. White nationalist, white supremacist, nazi, fascist. Thats what i was talking about in my interview with trip gabriel, what had happened to weaponized language and how it was being used, assigned to people. We should never forget that we have the left in this country in particular, and i hope its to a lesser degree than i believe it is from the other side, assigns a belief system to people and then attacks them for the belief system they have assigned. And they use the words that theyve been assigned to use to assign to people for the belief system that theyve assigned. And so what we have is virtually unused White Nationalists here throughout all these years, until we come to 2016. D then we have the events of november 13, 14, 15, checking out on the morning of wednesday, the 16th of november, that was taking place at the occidental hotel, clearly somebody said were going to start using White Nationalist against conservatives. Get to it. And they were at it while they were in the hotel and it showed up with some 5,000 times in that little window of time there. So i had them break down the month of november of 2016. And heres the month of november, the first, second, kind of virtually unused, under 100 times in any given day, until you get to they checked in here, the 13th of november, and zing. All the way we go up here to the op and back. This represents that. So they all knew what they were doing. They were in that hotel. They knew what they were doing. Im just not convinced that the people in the leadership on the republican side knew what was being perpetrated against our ideology, mr. Speaker. And because it seemed as though a number of my own leadership decided that they were going to. Ump on the bandwagon too even if you go back through all of christianity, if you go back through judeochristianity, if you go back through western civilization, if you go back through the foundation of American Culture and civilization, you can go back to jesus, you can go back to st. Paul, everybody accused had a right to face their accusers and had also the presumption of innocence until Proven Guilty. I can finds no exceptions in anybodys framework that thats the standard. Thats the civilizational standard. Ive listened as our minority leader has aggressively and defend our president of the United States and said he deserves due process and a fair , i believe i deserve hat due process. Its about six pages, no one has poked a hole in any of that rationale. Heres another no one, mr. Speaker. Even though Brett Kavanaugh had about six or seven or so accusers, and i believe Brett Kavanaugh was unjustly accused in every one of those cases, but at least he had an opportunity to face his accusers and he had at least one of them came forward to testify and could be examined by the panel of the Judiciary Committee that was there, Brett Kavanaugh, i believe, was exonerated from those charges, hes now seated on the United States Supreme Court, and i believe that he will go on to be a stellar justice on our United States Supreme Court. But he had a chance to face his accusers and he had them. In my case, mr. Speaker, not only did i not have a chance to face my accusers, neither do i have the presumption of innocent until Proven Guilty but on top of that, i dont have any accusers. Not one. Of the tens of thousands of people that i have dealt with facetoface, in my years in public life, roughly a quarter century in public life, weve been a Construction Business dealing with people clear back to 1975, theres not one individual thats come forward and said i treated them in any kind of disrespectful, disparaging or racist way of any kind whatsoever. I dont have an accuser to face. Not one. Unless it might be hearsay and even the hearsay doesnt seem to be out there this is the analysis of the weaponization of anguage. And i was denied any due process. So here i am, the fourth member of congress in all of history to be removed from my committee. Nly the fourth, mr. Speaker. And the other three, James Traficant who stood on this floor and said beam me up, scottie, he ran for reelection from prison, lost a couple of epublicans in this congress. One convicted, one confessed. But thats three or four are federal felons. Im treat like a federal felon by my own leadership in this house of representatives because somebody called a hit from up the chain above them. And they decided that they needed to do that under the command of the individual or individuals that called that hit. Only four people removed from all their committees in the history of this congress, three are either convicted or confessed federal felons and theres me, and theres not even a rule i violated let alone a law, let alone a federal violation, a felony. To be treated like a federal felon by my own leadership for a made up story that doesnt held up cannot hold up under the scrutiny of history. It must be rectified. And so on top of that, ive heard our esteemed minority leader say that theres no constitutional charge against donald trump for impeachment. That theyre made up charges on the part of the democrats and that its either treason, bribery, high creams or misdemeanor and the president violated none of those. I agree with him, thats true. None of those reasons for impeachment of the president exist in the activities that have been examined here in this house of representatives even down in the secret bunker of adam schiff. Dont exist. So they made up a couple of charges. One of them was obstruction of congress. The other one was was about utting our nation at risk. Thats a judgment call, i think the president made the right judgment call on soleimani, made a lot of right judgment calls up and town the line. Because you disagree with the president is not a reason to impeach im. Theres no statute no law no rule that the president is guilty of or at least been proven to be guilty of. Theres no subsidy of information that supports that allegation. They impeached the president of the United States on the 18th of december because they dont like donald trump. In part of part of what they cooked up in the Mandarin Hotel on the following week after he was elected president in 2016. Those are some of the reasons, the biggest reason is, they need a shield from prosecution. And the investigations and prosecution taking place now in the department of justice and f. B. I. Looking into the weaponization of our federal government for political purposes for going in and misrepresenting information to the fisa court or perhaps duping a fisa judge or maybe having a fisa judge that should have been a little more alert. How many times did james comey sign a fisa request when he knew the information was false . You can go on and on. If that coming forward and indictments are brought forward on that, thats going to crush the other side. They need this impeachment as a shield. Thats the biggest reason why they decided to move forward. I believe the foundation was laid in that Mandarin Hotel on that weekend starting on sunday, the 13th of november, 2016, and concluding on wednesday when they checked out that morning. I believe thats when much of the strategy was put together. I would go further, mr. Speaker, and that is that we had the Mueller Investigation that tied this couldnt tied this country up for nearly two years. And the strategy on that, i believe, was discussed in that hotel room. Its too close to the pattern of things that flowed out of there that we do know of. And we know from the from james comey that he went in to interview the president , to brief the president on whether or not there was an existence of an information that the president was under and out of that, he tiped up his notes and handed them over to a professor at columbia university, with the directions or understanding that they would be leaked to the New York Times with the objective of the leakage of those notes that were written up by james comey to bring about a special Council Special counsel to investigate donald trump for alleged nefarious activities in russia. And that the special counsel was to be robert mueller. All of that was known before james comey went in to brief donald trump. All that was known before to james comey. As that flowed out and mueller is now named as the special counsel, we went then through two years and we had those we had the investigators that went from 13 up to 18, building bias, most of them, perhaps all of them, and they came up empty. And that was about the seventh of the 7th of may of last year. Then they had to look for another reason to impeach this president. They thought the Mueller Report was going to do it and it didnt. They couldnt make the case, they tried and afterwards some tried again. They tried to resurrect it again and again. Finally, ok, house of cards on the Mueller Investigation collapsed. They had to come up with something new. Then theres the phone call of july 25 of last year which i read through the tran crypt of that multiple times, mr. Speaker, never do i see anything in there that troubles me. I believe that professor Jonathan Turley in his testimony before the house Judiciary Committee when he said to the effect that if you had told George Washington that he could be impeached for a conversation he had, that his powdered wig would catch on fire. Thats what were dealing with. So these very, very thin excuses for impeachment but the calendar was turning pages over and they needed to get this done so they took the thinnest of excuses and turned that into what was a show for the American People that i think will live in infamy throughout history. In my case, in my case, mr. Speaker, clearly proven that these allegations are false. I have theres no rule that i violated, theres nothing thats pointed to, theres nothing in history that says theres a pattern in this congress that the freedom of speech of a member of congress, whether hes accurately quoted or not, can be disciplined by the will or whim of a leader in this house of representatives. Everyone in this country has to have the First Amendment right, freedom of speech, religion and the press, and all the rest of the rights we have in the bill of rights. But to the Chilling Effect of the actions taken by the leader here on the minority in the house of representatives, chills the freedom of speech of everybody in here at least on the republican side and everybody that is either running as a candidate in potentially a primary or aspires to run for office, the most principled people we have in this country will not want to submit to censorship by a leader that may or may not have enjoyed their support to get elected to that leadership position. This is chilling, Chilling Effect and the history of this is not going to go down very well as people examine what happened. Theres much, much more to come out. Mr. Speaker, as i watch the clock tick down, i want to make the point that ive introduced a resolution here and ill have a number early next week but its just gone in in the last few hours, this resolution, ive been waiting to drop it, dropping it, introducing it, on the anniversary of the misquote that got dropped on me one year ago today from the New York Times that allegedly launched this firestorm that brought about these things that i have talked about. This resolution makes the case clearly that the New York Times could not be right and that i could not be wrong and the balance of this was people wanting it to be true and so they wrote it up so, this disproves the New York Times quote and additionally, mr. Speaker, i delivered that quote on the floor of the house of representatives the following tuesday in the fashion that i would have said it if i had actually said it. In other words, i would never tie together White Nationalism, White Supremacy and western civilization. No, mr. Speaker. I would never do that. Because they dont fit at all together. The portive terms were nazi, fascist, White Nationalist, White Supremacy, and i made the point thered be a distinct pause and i would start from there and say but western civilization, how did that language become pejorative . Why did i sit in classrooms while all of that time being taught about the merits of our civilization and this congressional record misquoted me exactly the same way that the New York Times did. This amendment fixes that and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Does the gentleman have a motion . Mr. King without a quid pro quo request, i move the house do now adjourn. The speaker pro tempore the question is on the motion to adjourn. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Accordingly the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning