March 11, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 47 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages H1599-H1613]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 68, DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF 
    UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES AGAINST THE ISLAMIC 
 REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS; PROVIDING 
     FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2486, FOSTERING 
    UNDERGRADUATE TALENT BY UNLOCKING RESOURCES FOR EDUCATION ACT; 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6172, USA FREEDOM REAUTHORIZATION 
                  ACT OF 2020; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 891 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 891

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 68) to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces 
     from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that 
     have not been authorized by Congress. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; 
     and (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2486) 
     to reauthorize mandatory funding programs for historically 
     Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving 
     institutions, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment with each of the two amendments specified in 
     section 4 of this resolution. The Senate amendment and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except as specified in section 3 of this resolution.
       Sec. 3. (a) The question of adoption of the motion shall be 
     divided between the two House amendments specified in section 
     4 of this resolution. The two portions of the divided 
     question shall be considered in the order specified by the 
     Chair.
       (b) Each portion of the divided question shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
       Sec. 4.  The amendments referred to in the second and third 
     sections of this resolution are as follows:

[[Page H1600]]

        (a) An amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
     Print 116-52.
       (b) An amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
     Print 116-53.
       Sec. 5.  If only one portion of the divided question is 
     adopted, that portion shall be engrossed as an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     2486.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6172) to amend 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to prohibit 
     the production of certain business records, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 7.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     March 13, 2020, through March 22, 2020--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 8.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 7 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 9.  Each day during the period addressed by section 7 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XV.
       Sec. 10.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of March 22, 2020, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules as though under 
     clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.
       Sec. 11.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of March 23, 2020.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 891, providing for consideration of 
Senate amendment to H.R. 2486, S.J. Res. 68, and H.R. 6172.
  The rules provide for consideration of two House amendments to the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 2486, which contained the text of the NO BAN 
Act and the Access to Counsel Act.
  It also provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 68 under a closed 
rule, with 1 hour of general debate controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It also provides 
the joint resolution with one motion to commit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6172 under a closed 
rule, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided among and 
controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee 
on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Lastly, this rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman 
Nadler to H.R. 6172 and provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, we are now 3 years into a policy that is the 
antithesis of what this country stands for: the President's shameful 
and un-American Muslim ban. President Trump chose Holocaust Remembrance 
Day, of all days, to sign his first executive order on this. That shut 
the door to thousands of refugees fleeing war--the very people who had 
seen America as a beacon of hope and were trying to build a better 
life.
  Instead, this administration turned its back on innocent women, 
children, and families desperate to escape violence. That is callous, 
that is wrong, and it goes against everything America is founded on.
  President Trump has claimed his Muslim ban is all about national 
security. But let's be honest here, it was never about that.
  It is about a President trying to fulfill offensive campaign promises 
and further his harmful rhetoric about Muslims.
  As a candidate for President, Donald Trump said he would certainly 
look at closing mosques in the United States. He floated the idea of 
creating a database for all Muslim Americans. And he even suggested 
that Muslims in America were cheering as the World Trade Centers fell 
on September 11. What an ugly, ugly thing to say.
  Madam Speaker, I could go on and on and on. This is truly offensive 
stuff--ideas that should be left somewhere in the darkest corners of 
the internet.
  Then, in December of 2015, he called for, ``a total and complete 
shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.''
  This ban is his attempt at turning that campaign rhetoric into actual 
policy, however cruel and unnecessary.
  My colleagues, Representatives Chu, Jayapal, and Rose, put its impact 
best when they wrote in a recent op-ed piece: ``That means more 
grandchildren who will never be able to kiss their grandparents, more 
loved ones unable to say good-bye at a funeral, more graduations where 
the proud student has no beaming parents cheering for them in the 
crowd, and more families forced to make impossible decisions under the 
most trying circumstances.''
  I have met people impacted by the Muslim ban, Madam Speaker. It is 
people like Benham Partopour, a chemical engineering student getting 
his Ph.D. at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in my home district in 
central Massachusetts.
  He is an Iranian national who was in Iran when President Trump's 
executive order went into effect. He had a visa, but no airlines were 
willing to sell plane tickets that would allow him to return to the 
United States. So, like many other people across the globe, he was 
stranded.
  My office worked with school officials and the ACLU Massachusetts 
every day until he was able to return home to the United States a week 
later.
  This is who the President is afraid of, Madam Speaker, a bright young 
man trying to study at a top American university. He is just one of the 
roughly 135 million people impacted by this policy.
  This isn't about crafting sound national security policy; this is 
about something much more sinister. That is shown by the fact that the 
President kept drafting versions of his Muslim ban until a watered-down 
version was able to pass legal muster with conservatives on the Supreme 
Court. But even they required the administration to grant waivers 
proving the ban had a ``legitimate national security interest.''
  Yet, the State Department has approved just 10 percent of all waivers 
so far, just 10 percent.
  Madam Speaker, does this President really believe that 90 percent of 
Muslims from impacted countries are terrorists? There is absolutely no 
evidence of that.
  And it gets worse. According to reports, this administration is now 
considering expanding its travel ban to even more countries. Enough is 
enough.
  Our country already had one of the strongest vetting systems anywhere 
in the world. We don't need any arbitrary and offensive bans. We can 
tell the difference between a real threat and the student traveling 
back to college.
  That is why this underlying measure will reverse the bans the 
President has put in place over the last 3 years, and it will ensure 
people at ports of entry can seek legal advice during the screening 
process.
  The principle that our diversity is our strength, and the idea that 
our country is strengthened by immigration, these are core values of 
this

[[Page H1601]]

Democratic majority. That is why we have made this a clear choice and 
provided a clean up-or-down vote. No stalling tactics. No partisan 
gimmicks. And I think it is an appropriate process because I want to 
prevent cynicism and ugliness from being celebrated here on the House 
floor.
  The administration's rhetoric and, quite frankly, so many people here 
on this floor have often demonized immigrants. It is offensive, and it 
is not worthy of a debate.
  Either you believe we are a nation defined by the Statue of Liberty 
welcoming immigrants or one that uses religious discrimination in 
immigration decisions. I think this is an easy call.
  Also included in this rule, Madam Speaker, is a reauthorization of 
the USA FREEDOM Act, as well as a War Powers Resolution led by Senator 
Kaine that would require a vote in Congress authorizing the use of 
force before the President escalates hostilities in Iran.
  Madam Speaker, this Democratic majority promised to take it up if it 
passed the Senate, and I am proud that it did, with broad bipartisan 
support. This is not a partisan measure. Eight Republicans joined with 
Senator Kaine in supporting this War Powers Resolution.
  Passage here would send the Kaine resolution directly to the 
President's desk.

                              {time}  1230

  Madam Speaker, I don't support the FISA reauthorization bill. I 
appreciate the bipartisan work that went into trying to fashion a 
compromise, but in the final analysis, I, in good conscience, can't 
support it.
  But on the other matters, make no mistake: This is a historic 
opportunity. Congress has a chance to reassert its constitutional 
authority over matters of war and peace; to live up to its Article I 
responsibility; and to truly respect our troops by giving them the 
debate on the future that they deserve, should tensions with Iran 
escalate again.
  I hope all my colleagues seize it, and I urge a strong vote for this 
rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank Representative McGovern for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Madam Speaker, the rule before us today, the Senate amendment to H.R. 
2486, contains the text of two pieces of legislation, H.R. 2214 and 
H.R. 5581, along with the Senate version of the Affordable 
Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2019 as a pay-for.
  Also included are S.J. Res. 68, a resolution to direct the removal of 
United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic 
Republic of Iran, and H.R. 6172, the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act.
  By combining all of these bills together, Democrats have prohibited 
the minority, meaning the Republicans, the ability to offer a motion to 
recommit on the floor. The only thing I can think of is that I guess 
they are afraid we might pass our seventh MTR, as we passed one last 
week.
  H.R. 2214 eviscerates the President's ability, under the law, to 
limit who may legally enter the United States. President Trump has 
utilized existing law to determine which countries fail to meet 
international standards of information sharing or identity management, 
or were at a high risk of terrorism or public safety concern, and the 
executive orders he issued reflected that determination. The majority 
is now seeking to prevent the President from ever using that authority 
again.

  The bill terminates the executive orders currently in place and 
ceases ``all actions taken pursuant to any proclamation or executive 
order terminated'' by the bill, which means that all information 
sharing on terrorists, criminals, and other security threats would 
cease.
  The seven countries specifically targeted with travel restrictions in 
Executive Order 13769 were actually countries that were determined by 
Congress and the Obama administration to be countries of particular 
concern for terrorism activity.
  This bill contains onerous reporting and consultation requirements 
that would effectively prevent the President from acting quickly in the 
event quick action would be needed.
  For example, H.R. 2214 requires consultation between only the 
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. However, 
this does not cover many emergencies the President needs to respond to.
  For example, in the event of a disease outbreak, including the novel 
coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control would need to be consulted 
with respect to suspending entry of certain populations.
  The combined rule also includes H.R. 5581. This legislation would 
require the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that every 
individual who is subject to a secondary inspection would be guaranteed 
access to counsel or anyone of their choosing within an hour.
  This definitely would have serious logistical and practical 
consequences for CBP's ability to quickly and efficiently screen 
travelers and carry out the mission of facilitating unlawful trade and 
travel. CBP conducts over 17 million secondary inspections each year.
  Can you imagine that, for every car, a CBP officer is looking at a 
screen, when there is the X-ray machine of the car, and they radio over 
to the CBP officer at the port of entry and say: ``Hey, look in the 
trunk''? Then, they would have to wait an hour if the person objects 
and says, ``Oh, I want counsel,'' or, ``I want my relative to come 
within an hour.'' I mean, this is just way onerous.
  This combined rule also contains S.J. Res. 68, a resolution to direct 
the removal of the United States Armed Forces from hostilities against 
the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  First, I want to note that Secretary Pompeo testified in front of the 
House Foreign Affairs Committee that ``we are not'' engaged in 
hostilities against Iran. Thus, the joint resolution is unnecessary.
  While Congress has a constitutional duty to authorize the use of 
military force, we should not be issuing blanket prohibitions without 
taking the time to develop an appropriate Authorization for Use of 
Military for the Middle East.
  The net effect of the bill may be to make many U.S. counterterrorism 
operations in the Middle East illegal. Rather than handcuffing our 
Armed Forces, we should be providing them with the tools they need to 
effectively combat terrorism against America and Americans abroad.
  Lastly, this rule contains H.R. 6172, the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization 
Act. This bill reauthorizes expiring provisions necessary to defend the 
United States, while also including significant reforms to the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act to restore accountability.
  In order to ensure that past FISA abuses, like those against Carter 
Page, never happen again, numerous reforms are included to protect the 
American people from both terrorist threats and government overreach.
  For example, the bill requires the Attorney General to transmit rules 
to ensure that FISA applications are accurate and complete. The 
Attorney General would also be required to approve, in writing, a FISA 
investigation of an elected official or a Federal candidate.
  Also, the FISA court will now transcribe hearings, with DOJ giving 
FISA applications and relevant materials to Congress in a timely 
manner, to ensure we can conduct appropriate oversight.
  It also creates a new division within DOJ, a compliance officer, that 
will specifically look at these FISA applications to make sure they are 
accurate.
  Although I am pleased with much of the FISA reform bill, it is 
unfortunate that it is included with a lot of other bills in this rule, 
controversial bills that I don't like. Therefore, I urge opposition to 
the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, for the record, I want my colleagues to know that 
pandemics and instances like the coronavirus are already covered by the 
legislation. Nothing in this bill prohibits the President from using 
authority under section 212(f) to contain the coronavirus.
  This bill allows the President to suspend the entry of a class of 
individuals if it is determined that they would undermine the security 
or public safety of

[[Page H1602]]

the United States or the preservation of human rights, democratic 
processes or institutions, or international stability.
  But out of an abundance of caution, the Judiciary Committee added a 
clarification clause on page 7 of the NO BAN Act, which clearly states 
that the term ``public safety'' includes efforts necessary to contain a 
communicable disease of public health significance, as defined in 
section 34(2)(b) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations.
  So, this has nothing to do with coronavirus. We are taking action on 
this bill basically to end the President's discriminatory travel bans.
  Madam Speaker, I am quoting from a letter from the ACLU that I will 
include in the Record.

                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                                   March 10, 2020.

  Vote ``Yes'' on No Ban Act, Vote ``No'' on Any Amendments or Other 
                                Changes

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union (ACLU), and our more than 8 million members, 
     supporters, and activists, we write to express our support 
     for the NO BAN Act, though we have concerns about language 
     that has been added. As the NO BAN Act is scheduled for a 
     floor vote this week, it is essential that no further changes 
     be made to the bill--so that this authority cannot be used to 
     ban whole communities.
       We urge you to vote ``YES'' on the NO BAN Act in its 
     current form and vote ``NO'' on any amendments or other 
     changes. The ACLU will score this vote.
       The ACLU continues to support the version of the NO BAN Act 
     scheduled for a floor vote this week. However, we have 
     concerns about recent language included in the bill defining 
     public safety to address ``communicable disease'' in response 
     to the current climate and fear around COVID-19 
     (coronavirus). These changes are unnecessary and further 
     stigmatize immigrant communities where many are facing 
     discrimination in the United States given the Trump 
     administration's stereotypes about communities of color and 
     immigrants--including in reference to coronavirus. There is a 
     long history in the United States of inaccurate connections 
     between health risks and immigrants, which has resulted in 
     irrational immigration policies and discrimination; we are 
     not interested in repeating the mistakes of our past. Any 
     restrictions related to coronavirus, such as those regarding 
     China and Iran, must be based in science and public health, 
     not politics or xenophobia.
       The NO BAN Act continues to achieve the ultimate goals of 
     the legislation, which are to rescind the Muslim ban, refugee 
     Muslim ban, and asylum ban, and make critical changes to the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by putting in place a 
     more stringent standard for presidents invoking any similar 
     suspension or restriction. During the House Judiciary 
     Committee markup, the bill was amended to rescind the 
     President's recently expanded Muslim ban which was issued on 
     January 31st, and targets more African countries, and 
     requires visa reporting related to this ban.
       Under current law, the executive branch claims the 
     authority to bar the entry of large groups of people without 
     effective accountability and without regard for the policies 
     codified in other parts of the INA. The NO BAN Act would 
     strengthen limitations on this authority by raising the 
     standard for invoking it. Rather than the current broad and 
     undefined standard, the proposed bill would require the 
     executive branch to meet a more stringent standard--based on 
     ``specific and credible facts'' that any suspension of or 
     restriction from entry must be connected to ``specific acts'' 
     that have actually occurred. Furthermore, the bill requires 
     that any such suspension or restriction meet a compelling 
     government interest and that the government use the least 
     restrictive means in doing so.
       The NO BAN Act would also establish a system of checks and 
     balances whereby Congress would be routinely notified and 
     briefed on the status, implementation and constitutional and 
     legislative authority of the executive branch's actions. 
     Finally, the proposed legislation would expand the non-
     discrimination provision of the INA to prohibit 
     discrimination based on religion. While language connecting 
     these two critical changes to the INA has been removed, the 
     bill now includes a rule of construction indicating that the 
     President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Homeland 
     Security cannot use this authority to act in a manner that is 
     inconsistent with other policy decisions in immigration law.
       This bill is a significant step forward for Muslim 
     communities and other communities that could be targeted 
     discriminatorily or without good reason. By creating 
     substantive standards and accountability, it greatly reduces 
     the possibility of future bias-based bans.
       The ACLU urges you to vote ``YES'' on the NO BAN Act in its 
     current form and vote ``NO'' on any amendments or other 
     changes. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Ronald Newman,
       National Political Director.
     Manar Waheed,
       Senior Legislative and Advocacy Counsel.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, one of the things they point out here, 
which I want to agree with, is that they say: ``There is a long history 
in the United States of inaccurate connections between health risks and 
immigrants, which has resulted in irrational immigration policies and 
discrimination; we are not interested in repeating the mistakes of our 
past. Any restrictions related to coronavirus, such as those regarding 
China and Iran, must be based in science and public health, not 
politics or xenophobia.''
  What a radical idea, to actually base some of these decisions on 
science. Yet, we know that this administration doesn't have any regard 
for science.
  Madam Speaker, I will also include in the Record a May 20 Washington 
Post article titled `` `I think Islam hates us': A timeline of Trump's 
comments about Islam and Muslims.''

                [From the Washington Post, May 20, 2017]

I Think Islam Hates Us: A Timeline of Trump's Comments About Islam and 
                                Muslims

               (By Jenna Johnson and Abigail Hauslohner)

       President Trump is in Saudi Arabia this weekend to meet 
     with Arab leaders, visit the birthplace of Islam and give a 
     speech about religious tolerance with the hope of resetting 
     his reputation with the world's 1.6 billion Muslims. But it's 
     unclear if a two-day visit is enough to overshadow his past 
     statements about Islam and its faithful, with his rhetoric 
     becoming more virulent as he campaigned for president.
       Here's a look back at some of the comments that he has 
     made:
       March 30, 2011: For years, Trump publicly questioned then-
     President Barack Obama's religious beliefs and place of 
     birth. As he debated running for president in the 2012 
     election, Trump said in a radio interview: ``He doesn't have 
     a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that 
     certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me--
     and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps 
     it would be--that where it says `religion,' it might have 
     `Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your 
     religion, by the way.'' (Obama is a Christian, and state 
     records show he was born in Hawaii.)
       Sept. 17, 2015: At a campaign town hall in New Hampshire, a 
     man in the audience shouted out: ``We have a problem in this 
     country; it's called Muslims. We know our current president 
     is one.'' The man mentioned Muslim ``training camps'' and 
     asked: ``When can we get rid of them?'' Trump responded: 
     ``We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. You 
     know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people 
     are saying that bad things are happening out there. We're 
     going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.''
       Sept. 20, 2015: On NBC News, Trump was asked if he would be 
     comfortable with a Muslim as president; he responded: ``I can 
     say that, you know, it's something that at some point could 
     happen. We will see. I mean, you know, it's something that 
     could happen. Would I be comfortable? I don't know if we have 
     to address it right now, but I think it is certainly 
     something that could happen.''
       Sept. 30, 2015: At a New Hampshire rally, Trump pledged to 
     kick all Syrian refugees--most of whom are Muslim--out of the 
     country, as they might be a secret army. ``They could be 
     ISIS, I don't know. This could be one of the great tactical 
     ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe,'' he said. In 
     an interview that aired later, Trump said: ``This could make 
     the Trojan horse look like peanuts.''
       Oct. 21, 2015: On Fox Business, Trump says he would 
     ``certainly look at'' the idea of closing mosques in the 
     United States.
       Nov. 16, 2015: Following a series of terrorist attacks in 
     Paris, Trump said on MSNBC that he would ``strongly 
     consider'' closing mosques. ``I would hate to do it, but it's 
     something that you're going to have to strongly consider 
     because some of the ideas and some of the hatred--the 
     absolute hatred--is coming from these areas,'' he said.
       Nov. 20, 2015: In comments to Yahoo and NBC News, Trump 
     seemed open to the idea of creating a database of all Muslims 
     in the United States. Later, he and his aides would not rule 
     out the idea.
       Nov. 21, 2015: At a rally in Alabama, Trump said that on 
     Sept. 11 he ``watched when the World Trade Center came 
     tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where 
     thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that 
     building was coming down.''
       Nov. 22, 2015: On ABC News, Trump doubled down on his 
     comment and added: ``It was well covered at the time. There 
     were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy 
     Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came 
     down. Not good.'' (While there were some reports of 
     celebrations overseas, extensive examination of news clips 
     turn up no such celebrations in New Jersey.)
       Nov. 30, 2015: On MSNBC, a reporter asked Trump if he 
     thinks Islam is an inherently peaceful religion that's been 
     perverted by a small percentage of followers or if it is an 
     inherently violent religion. Trump responded:

[[Page H1603]]

     ``Well, all I can say . . . there's something going on. You 
     know, there's something definitely going on. I don't know 
     that that question can be answered.'' He also said: ``We are 
     not loved by many Muslims.''
       Dec. 3, 2015: The morning after Syed Rizwan Farook and 
     Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., 
     Trump called into Fox News and said: ``The other thing with 
     the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when 
     you get these terrorists, you have to take out their 
     families.'' (Killing the relatives of suspected terrorists is 
     forbidden by international law.) Later, in a speech to the 
     Republican Jewish Coalition, Trump criticized Obama for not 
     using the phrase ``radical Islamic terrorism'' and commented: 
     ``There's something going on with him that we don't know 
     about.''
       Dec. 6, 2015: On CBS News, Trump said: ``If you have people 
     coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes and 
     on their minds, we're going to have to do something.'' Trump 
     also said he didn't believe the sister of one of the San 
     Bernardino shooters who said she was crestfallen for the 
     victims, saying: ``I would go after a lot of people, and I 
     would find out whether or not they knew. I would be able to 
     find out, because I don't believe the sister.''
       Dec. 7, 2015: Trump's campaign issued a statement saying: 
     ``Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete 
     shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until 
     our country's representatives can figure out what is going 
     on.'' Trump read this statement aloud at a rally in South 
     Carolina.
       Dec. 8, 2015: On CNN, Trump quoted a widely debunked poll 
     by an anti-Islam activist organization that claimed that a 
     quarter of the Muslims living in the United States agreed 
     that violence against Americans is justified as part of the 
     global jihad. ``We have people out there that want to do 
     great destruction to our country, whether it's 25 percent or 
     10 percent or 5 percent, it's too much,'' Trump said.
       Dec. 13, 2015: On Fox News, Trump was asked if his ban 
     would apply to a Canadian businessman who is a Muslim. Trump 
     responded: ``There's a sickness. They're sick people. There's 
     a sickness going on. There's a group of people that is very 
     sick.''
       Jan. 12, 2016: At a rally in Iowa, Trump shared his 
     suspicions about Syrian refugees and then read the lyrics to 
     Al Wilson's 1968 song ``The Snake,'' the story of a ``tender 
     woman'' who nursed a sickly snake back to health but then was 
     attacked by the snake. Trump often read these lyrics at 
     rallies.
       Feb. 3, 2016: Trump criticized Obama for visiting a mosque 
     in Baltimore and said on Fox News: ``Maybe he feels 
     comfortable there . . . There are a lot of places he can go, 
     and he chose a mosque.'' (It was Obama's first visit to a 
     mosque during his presidency, and it was made in an effort to 
     encourage religious tolerance in light of growing antiMuslim 
     sentiment.)
       Feb. 20, 2016: After Obama skipped the funeral of Supreme 
     Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Trump tweeted: ``I wonder if 
     President Obama would have attended the funeral of Justice 
     Scalia if it were held in a Mosque? Very sad that he did not 
     go!'' (Obama did pay his respects when Scalia's body lay in 
     repose in the Supreme Court.) That night at a rally in South 
     Carolina, Trump told an apocryphal tale that he would return 
     to repeatedly about U.S. Gen. John J. Pershing fighting 
     Muslim insurgents in the Philippines in the early 1900s and 
     killing a large group of insurgents with bullets dipped in 
     pigs' blood.
       March 9, 2016: On CNN, Trump said: ``I think Islam hates 
     us. There's something there that--there's a tremendous hatred 
     there. There's a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the 
     bottom of it. There's an unbelievable hatred of us.''
       March 22, 2016: Soon after three suicide bombings in 
     Brussels tied to a group of French and Belgian Muslims, Trump 
     told Fox Business: ``We're having problems with the Muslims, 
     and we're having problems with Muslims coming into the 
     country.'' Trump called for surveillance of mosques in the 
     United States, saying: ``You have to deal with the mosques, 
     whether we like it or not, I mean, you know, these attacks 
     aren't coming out of--they're not done by Swedish people.''
       On NBC News, Trump added: ``This all happened because, 
     frankly, there's no assimilation. They are not assimilating . 
     . . They want to go by sharia law. They want sharia law. They 
     don't want the laws that we have. They want sharia law.''
       March 23, 2016: In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Trump 
     said that Muslims ``have to respect us. They do not respect 
     us at all. And frankly, they don't respect a lot of the 
     things that are happening throughout not only our country, 
     but they don't respect other things.''
       March 29, 2016: During a town hall in Wisconsin, CNN's 
     Anderson Cooper asked Trump: ``Do you trust Muslims in 
     America?'' Trump responded: ``Do I what?'' Cooper again 
     asked: 'Trust Muslims in America?'' Trump responded: ``Many 
     of them I do. Many of them I do, and some, I guess, we don't. 
     Some, I guess, we don't. We have a problem, and we can try 
     and be very politically correct and pretend we don't have a 
     problem, but, Anderson, we have a major, major problem. This 
     is, in a sense, this is a war.''
       May 20, 2016: On Fox News, Trump said this of Muslims: 
     ``They're going to have to turn in the people that are 
     bombing the planes. And they know who the people are. And 
     we're not going to find the people by just continuing to be 
     so nice and so soft.''
       June 13, 2016: The day after the mass shooting at a gay 
     nightclub in Orlando, Trump declared in a speech in New 
     Hampshire that ``radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and 
     anti-American.'' He criticized his Democratic rival, Hillary 
     Clinton, for refusing to use the term ``radical Islam'' and 
     for speaking positively of Islam. ``Hillary Clinton's 
     catastrophic immigration plan will bring vastly more radical 
     Islamic immigration into this country, threatening not only 
     our society but our entire way of life. When it comes to 
     radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss. It's 
     deadly--totally deadly,'' Trump said. Later he added: ``I 
     want every American to succeed, including Muslims--but the 
     Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They 
     know what's going on.''
       June 14, 2016: At a rally in North Carolina, Trump noted 
     that the Orlando shooter's parents are Muslim Americans who 
     immigrated from Afghanistan. ``The children of Muslim 
     American parents, they're responsible for a growing number 
     for whatever reason a growing number of terrorist attacks,'' 
     he said, adding that immigration from Afghanistan has 
     increased five-fold. `` . . . Every year we bring in more 
     than 100,000 lifetime immigrants from the Middle East and 
     many more from Muslim countries outside of the Middle East. A 
     number of these immigrants have hostile attitudes.''
       June 15, 2016: On Fox News, Trump said this of Muslims who 
     immigrate to the United States: ``Assimilation has been very 
     hard. It's almost--I won't say nonexistent, but it gets to be 
     pretty close. And I'm talking about second and third 
     generation. They come--they don't--for some reason, there's 
     no real assimilation.''
       July 21, 2016: In accepting the Republican Party's 
     presidential nomination, Trump focused heavily on ``brutal 
     Islamic terrorism'' and promised: ``I will do everything in 
     my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and 
     oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.''
       July 24, 2016: On NBC News, Trump defended his proposal for 
     a Muslim ban, despite some of his aides insisting he had 
     rolled it back. ``People were so upset when I used the word 
     Muslim. `Oh, you can't use the word Muslim,' '' Trump said. 
     ``. . . But just remember this: Our Constitution is great, 
     but it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit 
     suicide, okay? Now, we have a religious--you know, 
     everybody wants to be protected. And that's great. And 
     that's the wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it 
     differently. Why are we committing suicide? Why are we 
     doing that?''
       Aug. 11, 2016: At a meeting of evangelical leaders in 
     Orlando, Trump said: ``If you were a Christian in Syria, it 
     was virtually impossible to come into the United States. If 
     you were a Muslim from Syria, it was one of the easier 
     countries to be able to find your way into the United States. 
     Think of that. Just think of what that means.''
       Aug. 18, 2016: During a rally in North Carolina, Trump said 
     that ``all applicants for immigration will be vetted for ties 
     to radical ideology, and we will screen out anyone who 
     doesn't share our values and love our people.''
       Sept. 19, 2016: At a rally in Florida, Trump reacted to 
     explosions over the weekend in New York and New Jersey and 
     said: ``There have been Islamic terrorist attacks in 
     Minnesota and New York City and in New Jersey. These attacks 
     and many others were made possible because of our extremely 
     open immigration system, which fails to properly vet and 
     screen the individuals and families coming into our country. 
     Got to be careful.''
       Jan. 27, 2017: Within a week of becoming president, Trump 
     signed an executive order blocking Syrian refugees and 
     banning citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from 
     entering the United States for 90 days. This order goes into 
     effect immediately, prompting mass chaos at airports, 
     protests and legal challenges. Rudolph W. Giuliani, a close 
     adviser to the president, later said on Fox News: ``So when 
     [Trump] first announced it, he said, `Muslim ban.' He called 
     me up. He said, `Put a commission together. Show me the right 
     way to do it legally.' ''
       Feb. 28, 2017: Despite urging from some of his Cabinet 
     members, Trump continues to use the term ``radical Islamic 
     terrorism,'' including in a speech to a joint session of 
     Congress.
       March 6, 2017: Trump issues a new travel ban for citizens 
     from six majority-Muslim countries, which is also challenged 
     in the courts.
       April 29, 2017: At a rally celebrating his 100th day in 
     office, Trump once again dramatically read ``The Snake.''
       May 17, 2017: At a commencement ceremony, Trump previewed 
     his upcoming overseas trip and said: ``I'll speak with Muslim 
     leaders and challenge them to fight hatred and extremism and 
     embrace a peaceful future for their faith. And they're 
     looking very much forward to hearing what we, as your 
     representative, we have to say. We have to stop radical 
     Islamic terrorism.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the President's comments and tweets 
about Muslims are truly, truly offensive, and I could list everything 
he said here today, but it is a long, long list. I think repeating 
those words would be a mistake because they are unworthy of this floor.
  President Trump's Muslim ban continues a sad and unfortunate history 
of

[[Page H1604]]

policies that used immigration law to target people based on their 
backgrounds. We have had policies in our history that targeted 
immigrants from China, Japan, and Asia, and laws that qualified people 
of White descent for naturalization at the expense of everyone else.
  Those policies are wrong. They are shameful. And they went against 
everything this country stands for. President Trump's Muslim ban 
belongs right beside them, in the dustbin of history, as well.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona, my 
good friend, for yielding time. And frankly, I want to associate myself 
with her remarks about the underlying legislation.
  My remarks, Madam Speaker, will focus on the manner in which the 
bills that are before us are being brought to the floor.
  It is, frankly, very disappointing to me, Madam Speaker, that this 
even needs to be said. But given the grave consequences of what the 
majority is proposing to do procedurally, I cannot condemn today's rule 
strongly enough.
  In today's measure, what the majority is proposing amounts to a de 
facto change to the House rules, one that will trample on the rights of 
the minority and deny any opportunity to amend the bill on the floor.
  Rather than bringing up the two immigration items as the standalone 
bills that they actually are, the majority has instead chosen the 
procedural gimmick of using a Senate-amended House bill to package 
these items together. This has the same effect of denying the minority 
the more than 100-year-old right to make a motion to recommit, or MTR, 
as they are commonly known, before moving to final passage.
  This is because, under House rules, the minority is not allowed to 
offer an MTR on any House measures that have been amended by the 
Senate. Of course, for the majority, the denial of the minority's 
traditional rights to an MTR is the whole point of this procedural 
exercise. These underhanded procedural shenanigans are specifically 
intended to deny the minority the right to an MTR on these bills.
  Before my friend, the chairman, responds with the number of times a 
Republican majority used this procedure, let me be perfectly clear. As 
he knows, we never, never did that as a means to deny the minority an 
MTR. In fact, we did it in consultation with the minority and with the 
sole goal of accelerating passage of key bipartisan legislation in the 
Senate.
  So, why does the Democratic majority insist on these procedural 
gymnastics? I can think of only one reason: The majority is embarrassed 
that the minority has now passed an MTR six times in this Congress, 
including one just last week.
  Madam Speaker, this is now the second time in the past 6 weeks that 
the majority is explicitly adopting a procedure to deny the minority 
our rights.

                              {time}  1245

  I think that if the majority is really so frightened of the motion to 
recommit and they really want to do away with MTRs, then they should 
change the standing rules of the House, and that needs to happen on a 
vote on the House floor so that everyone can see what the majority is 
actually doing and how it operates.
  When Republicans were in the majority, the thought of limiting the 
use of the MTR to silence minority voices never once crossed our minds, 
and that is because we recognized the importance of the MTR to this 
institution. It has been around since the very beginning of the 
institution, and it has been in its present form since 1909.
  In fact, in 1919, Representative Abraham Garrett of Tennessee was 
quoted as saying: ``The motion to recommit is regarded as so sacred it 
is one of the few things protected against the Committee on Rules by 
the general rules of the House.''
  Evidently, not anymore.
  The present majority is not content with that state of affairs, which 
is why they are trying, once again, to do an end run around the House 
rules and adopt a procedural gimmick specifically to stop the minority 
from exercising its right to an MTR. It is beyond disappointing, Madam 
Speaker.
  It is shocking that the majority would feel the need to rig the 
entire system to shut us up. My goodness, they have a 35-seat majority. 
But we all know why that is. It is because the majority cannot 
effectively defend its own policies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COLE. So, today, Madam Speaker, I call on all Members to vote 
``no'' on this rule. I ask that my colleagues, regardless of party, 
reject this rigged process, reject this rule, and act to protect the 
rights of every Member of this Chamber. The future of the institution 
depends on it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have high regard for my ranking member, Mr. Cole, 
and I know he and I both share enormous respect for this institution, 
but I am going to say for the record that this process that we are 
using is not unusual. It is a process that was used by Republicans 
numerous times during their majority, including 15 times during the 
past two Republican-led Congresses, to send bills over to the Senate 
for their expedited consideration.
  And I will say, with respect to the gentleman, he mentioned that we 
were consulted about these processes in the past. I was never consulted 
when the Republicans used this process. In fact, I remember a time when 
the Republicans basically hijacked a Democratic bill to attach 
something to it, without even consulting the sponsor of the bill. So I 
am not sure what the gentleman was alluding to, and I don't know what 
my friend's intentions were when they utilized this process.
  Madam Speaker, I can't speak to the motivations of the previous 
majority when they used this process over a dozen times, but what I can 
speak to is the impact. Each time this process was used by the 
Republican majority, the Democratic minority was unable to offer a 
motion to recommit. That is just a fact.
  Republicans used this process 15 times over the past two Congresses, 
and, you know, I get it. My Republican friends want to have an 
opportunity to try to politicize this debate even more around 
immigration. But I just want to remind everybody why we are here.
  The offensive things that this President has said about immigrants 
and about Muslims are unconscionable. These travel bans serve no 
purpose other than to discriminate against Muslims and people from 
predominantly Muslim countries.
  President Trump issued these baseless travel bans under the guise of 
national security. But we all know what they are really about. They 
fulfill Trump's offensive campaign promise calling for a ``total and 
complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.''
  Those are the President's words.
  These discriminatory bans have a real impact on real people's lives 
and have already affected more than 135 million individuals. So that is 
why we are debating whether to terminate the travel bans and to stand 
up against discrimination and hate without any distractions, without 
any political gimmicks.
  I know my friends are not happy with that, but we are going to do the 
right thing. We are going to stand up to hate and bigotry and 
discrimination, and we are going to move this legislation forward, and 
everybody will have an up-or-down vote.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, before I yield time to my friend, I want 
to point out again that Mr. Cole has been here a long time, and when he 
says to the public on the floor that when Republicans used this process 
of combining the bills together in a rule that it was to expedite it 
over to the Senate, I believe him. And so I believe that their 
motivation is different, and that is to prevent the minority from 
having a motion to recommit.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall), my good friend.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for 
yielding.

[[Page H1605]]

  I want to stipulate, Madam Speaker, that I have seen the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, the leader of our committee, do some things on that 
committee that no one else has tried to do.
  I was in this institution for a decade as a chief of staff, now a 
decade as a Member of Congress, and he has done some amazing things 
that I believe will serve this institution and serve the committee, not 
just this Congress, but next Congress and for decades to come. And I 
applaud him and his very capable team for pushing those initiatives 
forward.
  But, today, Madam Speaker, we are talking about the exact opposite 
side of that coin, things that are done in the name of expediency today 
that may well do damage to this institution, not just this Congress and 
next Congress, but for decades to come. Habits happen in this 
institution, Madam Speaker. Habits happen.
  My friend from Massachusetts used to work for a great leader in this 
institution, Mr. Joe Moakley. In fact, his picture hangs on the wall as 
a former chairman of the Rules Committee.
  I used to work for a great Member of this institution as well, Madam 
Speaker, Mr. John Linder, out of the great State of Georgia. He also 
served on the Rules Committee.
  As we come down to the floor today, for my friends of the majority to 
defend for the second time in 6 weeks taking away the minority's right 
to have any input on the process whatsoever, I thought I would go back 
20 years from today, back to the year 2000, when the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' former boss and my former boss sat in these very same 
chairs.
  At that time, Madam Speaker, Republicans were in the majority. I will 
go back to October 3 of 2000 when Mr. Linder took to the floor and 
said:

       And the rule provides a motion to recommit, as is the right 
     of the minority.

  Republicans were in control, complete control, of this institution. 
They could jam anything through that they wanted to jam through. But it 
was the right of the minority to have at least a final voice and a 
final opportunity to amend the bill.
  October 12, a week later, Mr. Linder and Mr. Moakley were on the 
floor again. Mr. Linder says:

       And, finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, 
     as is the right of the minority.

  Again, Madam Speaker, October 19 of that same year, just a week after 
that, Mr. Linder and Mr. Moakley on the floor again:

       The rule provides a motion to recommit, as is the right of 
     the minority.

  We will go a week after that, Madam Speaker. Same two gentlemen on 
the floor again, same Republican majority in charge. Mr. Linder, on the 
floor:

       Resolution . . . as is the right of the minority.

  A week after that, Madam Speaker:

       Motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the 
     right of the minority.

  I will go on and on and on. Because 20 years ago, it was not a 
question of whether or not the minority would have a single voice. 
Remember, Madam Speaker, these bills that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is talking about, these immigration bills, went through 
committee, no Republican amendments were adopted; went to the Rules 
Committee, no Republican amendments were made in order. There has been 
absolutely no minority input of any kind on these bills he is talking 
about. There is so much more in this underlying bill. But 20 years ago, 
the habit was we would recognize that the minority has a right.
  In fact, I don't even need to go back 20 years, Madam Speaker. I 
serve on the Select Committee on Modernization. That is a bipartisan 
committee here in the House that is designed to look at the current 
rules and organization of the House and talk about how it is that we 
can do better.
  I don't have to go back 20 years, Madam Speaker. I can go back to 
last year, March 13, 2019, a press release from the Speaker of the 
House, Nancy Pelosi, on the remarks that she made in front of that 
joint select committee looking at modernizing the institution. And she 
said: Some people have talked about changing the motion to recommit, 
this or that. But she said:

       I am a big respecter of the rights of the minority in the 
     Congress of the United States, and I believe as Speaker of 
     the whole House that initiatives you put forth must come from 
     the whole House.

  We are looking at how to make the motion to recommit better, Madam 
Speaker. I will take us back to a prescription drugs bill just a few 
short weeks ago, where the minority traded away its right to a motion 
to recommit in favor of a complete substitute.
  Let's debate the issues instead of the motion to recommit. The motion 
to recommit that passed last week, Madam Speaker, said let's not allow 
violent convicted criminals to serve as TSA agents.
  This is what the majority is protecting America from: amendments from 
the minority that would protect TSA employees from working side by side 
with violent convicted felons. This isn't an adversarial idea, Madam 
Speaker. This is an idea that we all agreed on, which is why it passed 
with great bipartisan support.
  You never know when the bad habits you get into are going to stick.
  I will take you back to a time when my friend, Mr. McGovern, and my 
ranking member, Mr. Cole, were on the floor just few short years ago, 
and my friend from Massachusetts said this. He said:

       Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but the highest respect for my 
     colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), and I know he wants this 
     House to run better. But the fact of the matter is I feel bad 
     that he has to defend this lousy, restrictive, 
     indefensible process. That is our job on the Rules 
     Committee sometimes.

  And I want to say to my friend from Massachusetts, as he said to our 
friend from Oklahoma: I have nothing but the highest respect for my 
colleague from Massachusetts, and I know that he wants this House to 
run better. But the fact of the matter is I feel bad that he has to 
defend this lousy, restrictive, indefensible process.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say for the record, nobody is changing the 
MTR. We are using a process that my Republican friends used over a 
dozen times in the past, in the last Congress.
  Yes, the Rules Committee has an obligation to try to make sure that 
we bring important legislation to the floor in a fair and reasonable 
process, and we are doing that.
  But we also have an obligation----
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would prefer not to be interrupted. I 
am in the middle of--Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia, because he keeps on interrupting me.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I don't think of it as interrupting. I 
apologize to Chairman McGovern. I think of it as elucidating.
  What my friend has said is absolutely right. This process has been 
used before, just not for this purpose, which is why Politico ran----
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  Do you know what? The result, when my friends used this process, is 
the same. We were not allowed to offer an MTR to any of the bills when 
they utilized this process.

                              {time}  1300

  And so, I just state that that is just a fact. But the Rules 
Committee also has an obligation, and I believe everybody in this House 
has an obligation to stand up against bigotry and hate and racism and 
religious discrimination, and that is what these underlying bills deal 
with.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a February 16, 2020, The 
Guardian article, titled; `` `Trump is deciding who is American': how 
the new travel ban is tearing families apart.''

                   [From the Guardian, Feb. 16, 2020]

 Trump Is Deciding Who Is American: How the New Travel Ban Is Tearing 
                             Families Apart

                            (By Sean Levin)

       It started out as a joyous day for Olumide. On 31 January, 
     the 32-year-old Nigerian American learned in an email that 
     the US was finally processing the visa applications of his 
     wife and daughter in Nigeria.
       Hours later, Donald Trump shattered their celebration, 
     announcing that he was adding six countries to the travel 
     ban, including Nigeria. The decision cuts off pathways to 
     permanent US residency for Nigerians, throwing Olumide's case 
     into limbo at the final stage of the process. It leaves his 
     wife and and 11-year-old girl stuck across an ocean with 
     little hope of making it to the US.
       ``This is inhuman,'' said Olumide, a systems analyst and US 
     military veteran who

[[Page H1606]]

     served in Afghanistan and lives in Washington DC. He asked to 
     use his middle name out of fear he might jeopardize his case. 
     ``As a soldier, I understand the need to protect the country. 
     But to completely shut the doors . . . it's just plain 
     wrong.''


        Millions of Africans now banned: `We are not criminals'

       Trump's January order builds on the 2017 travel ban that 
     has continued to target five Muslim-majority countries, and 
     significantly restricts permanent residency for nationals 
     from Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria and Myanmar. It also blocks 
     people from Tanzania and Sudan from obtaining green cards 
     through the ``diversity visa'' lottery.
       Just like the 2017 restrictions, it blocks permanent 
     immigration from the targeted countries, making limited 
     exceptions if applicants prove that denials would cause 
     ``undue hardship'' and that granting them visas would support 
     ``national interest''.
       The original ban already resulted in denied visas for more 
     than 42,000 people, the majority from Iran. The addition of 
     the new countries has doubled the number of Muslims targeted 
     across the globe to roughly 320 million, advocates estimate. 
     Roughly one-quarter of all Africans are now affected. The 
     restrictions now apply to 13 countries, including Nigeria, 
     home to Africa's largest population and economy. It cuts off 
     countries where some are fleeing violence. Some estimate the 
     new ban, which goes into effect on 21 February, could hinder 
     more than 12,000 immigrants seeking to resettle in the US and 
     reunite with family in the next year.
       The restrictions are a signature component of Trump's 
     aggressive anti-immigrant agenda, which has included curbs on 
     legal migration, a destruction of theAmerican asylum system, 
     an all-time low cap on refugees, expanded detention and mass 
     deportations.
       ``Trump started out by scapegoating Muslims in 2017,'' said 
     Javeria Jamil, attorney with Asian Americans Advancing 
     Justice's Asian Law Caucus, who has been fielding calls from 
     families affected by the new ban. ``Now, it's not just the 
     Muslim ban. It has turned into an African ban.''
       The Trump administration has claimed that the ban, which 
     blindsided some diplomats, is a national security measure, 
     and that the added countries failed to meet US security and 
     information-sharing standards.
       But immigrant rights groups said the policy is a political 
     maneuver amid Trump's reelection campaign--and one that will 
     have profound consequences.
       ``People are in turmoil,'' said Audu Kadiri, a 43-year-old 
     community organizer who left Nigeria in 2014. He had planned 
     to bring his mother to the US, but the ban may make that 
     impossible. The activist, who now lives in the Bronx, hasn't 
     yet told his mother about Trump's order, because he doesn't 
     know how to break the news. ``There is so much collateral 
     damage, it's hard to quantify.''
       In Nigeria, Kadiri was an LGBTQ+ rights advocate who worked 
     on HIV prevention and other human rights issues. He was 
     forced to flee due to his activism and sought asylum in the 
     US. It's now unsafe for him to return to Nigeria, which is 
     why he wants his 68- year-old mother to come to the US.
       He hasn't seen her since 2014 and, if Trump is re-elected, 
     he fears it will be at least another five years before they 
     reunite. She'll probably miss the birth of his third child.
       ``Nigerians have contributed to the development of this 
     country, like every immigrant community,'' he said. ``We are 
     not criminals.''


                   Torn Apart, With Dwindling Options

       Before the January announcement, the Trump administration 
     had already clamped down on travel from Africa, including 
     hikes in visa fees, and new obstacles and increased denials 
     for Nigerians seeking approval for short-term visits. The US 
     further suspended visitor visas from Eritrea in 2017.
       That means families have been fighting for years to use the 
     dwindling avenues available to them to reunite, and for those 
     who have invested significant time and money into the 
     process, the sudden news of an outright ban was particularly 
     brutal.
       ``There's nothing you can do, and it makes you feel so 
     helpless,'' said Olumide, the veteran. Olumide arrived in the 
     US from Nigeria when he was 10 years old. He met his wife in 
     Nigeria in 2012 after he left the military, and the two got 
     married last year.
       US Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the 
     petition for his wife and daughter in January, just before 
     the announcement of the ban. But they don't yet have their 
     visas--and the ban may make it impossible to get them.
       Olumide had hoped they would be starting their lives 
     together in the US by now, and said he was pained by feelings 
     of guilt: ``I made promises to her.'' The couple hasn't fully 
     processed the news, he added: ``We don't want to think about 
     not being together.''
       He noted that his daughter has typhoid and his wife has 
     malaria, and he constantly fears for their health and safety.
       Hana Mohamed, a 20-year-old student in San Diego, who grew 
     up in Sudan, said she was eager for her grandparents to come 
     to the US, especially so her grandmother could get medical 
     care in California: ``It's just so sad and frustrating. They 
     are getting older, and I want to see them before anything 
     happens.''
       Mohamed said it was difficult to accept that the US was 
     banning large groups of Muslims in the name of safety while 
     seeming to do little about the ongoing terror threat of 
     American mass shootings: ``It's just so shocking that we have 
     come to this day where a whole nation of people are getting 
     discriminated against. Isn't the purpose of the United States 
     to stand up for everyone who is getting hurt and treat them 
     right?''
       One Eritrean American who works as an engineer in Silicon 
     Valley, and requested anonymity for fear of hurting his 
     family's case, has petitioned for his mother to come live 
     with him in the US and was hoping she would soon get an 
     interview date at the embassy. Then the new ban was unveiled.
       ``We've waited our turn. We've followed the law. I'm a tax-
     paying citizen contributing to the economy,'' he said, noting 
     that his mother is 69 years old and lives alone in Eritrea. 
     ``This is just pure evil.''
       He said he felt Trump was implementing the ban as a 
     ``soundbite for the campaign'' while disregarding that it 
     would leave Eritreans like his mother with no options: ``This 
     was our only hope to get her here.''
       For Eritreans, the ban comes as as the Trump administration 
     has ramped up deportations of Eritrean asylum seekers, 
     despite the US government's own acknowledgment of the torture 
     and arbitrary detention Eritreans are currently facing.
       Abraham Zere, an Eritrean journalist who was granted asylum 
     in the US and now lives in Ohio, said it seemed some 
     Eritreans were reluctant to speak out about the ban and live 
     in fear of potential repercussions from both governments: 
     ``People are scared to even discuss it.''
       Zere's own family is affected: his mother is still in 
     Eritrea, separated from her children. She can't even video 
     chat with her family because of the poor internet in Eritrea, 
     which means she never gets to see her granddaughter, an 
     eight-year-old she hasn't yet met, he said.
       Some warn the ban may have life-or-death consequences. For 
     queer and transgender migrants in the targeted countries, it 
     could lead them to embark on perilous journeys to escape to 
     the US as they run out of options, said Zack Mohamed, who is 
     Somali American and a member of the Black LGBTQIA+ Migrant 
     Project: ``This is a big `not welcome' sign in front of our 
     faces.''
       In response to questions about the impact on migrants 
     fleeing violence, a US state department spokesperson said the 
     ban was not meant to ``limit the ability of an individual to 
     seek asylum'', adding: ``Our first priority remains national 
     security. We continue to work with our dedicated consular 
     officers in the field to identify and expedite those 
     individuals with urgent travel needs.''
       Asked about charges that the ban is discriminatory, the 
     spokesperson said the restrictions are based on 
     ``nationality'' and ``visa category'' and that ``consular 
     officers do not adjudicate based on religion''. The 
     spokesperson said there were specific criteria to determine 
     which countries are restricted and noted that Chad was on the 
     original list but removed in 2018.


                        Fighting to end the ban

       With the first travel ban upheld by the US supreme court, 
     there are few recourses left to challenge the policy. 
     Advocates are hoping a Democratic president will immediately 
     repeal the ban and have also recently renewed the push for 
     Congress to pass the No Ban Act, which would end the ban and 
     prevent discriminatory immigration policies.
       Until then, Trump will continue to use his executive power 
     to try to redefine what it means to be a citizen, advocates 
     warned.
       ``The president of the United States, the US government is 
     explicitly trying to decide who gets to be an American,'' 
     said Eric Naing, who is Burmese American and works with 
     Muslim Advocates, a group that has challenged the ban. His 
     family would not have been able to come to the US if the ban 
     on Myanmar had been in place. ``He's saying I shouldn't be 
     American. My parents shouldn't be American. It's deeply 
     upsetting.''
       Olumide noted that the ban was punishing countless American 
     citizens like him: ``It's hurting the exact people you're 
     trying to protect.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the President's travel ban isn't just 
bad policy, it is cruel. And it is tearing families apart.
  That includes veterans who have served our Nation, some of whom were 
in the middle of the process of bringing their families to America when 
this policy came down. Now they worry their loved ones may never be 
able to join them here in the United States, all because of a 
completely arbitrary Muslim ban.
  One veteran said in this piece, ``As a soldier, I understand the need 
to protect the country. But to completely shut the doors . . . it's 
just plain wrong.''
  These veterans aren't trying to endanger our country, Madam Speaker, 
they put their lives on the line to protect it. But this is the kind of 
real-life impact we are seeing. The President's ban is not just 
offensive, it is actively separating loved ones, including those who 
have served this country on the battlefield. I mean, it is time to say: 
``Enough.''

[[Page H1607]]

  My friends like to talk about how they support our troops and our 
veterans. Well, this policy is adversely impacting so many of our 
veterans.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a February 2, 2020, New York 
Times article, titled, ``New U.S. Travel Ban Shuts Door on Africa's 
Biggest Economy, Nigeria.''

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 2, 2020]

  New U.S. Travel Ban Shuts Door on Africa's Biggest Economy, Nigeria

                 (By Ruth Maclean and Abdi Latif Dahir)

       The newlyweds had already been apart for half their 
     yearlong marriage. Miriam Nwegbe was in Nigeria. Her husband 
     was in Baltimore, and until she could join him, everything 
     was on hold: finding a home together, trying for their first 
     baby, becoming an American family.
       Then, on Friday, their lives were thrown into disarray by 
     the expansion of President Trump's ban on immigration to 
     include six new countries, including four in Africa. Nigeria, 
     the continent's most populous nation, was one of them.
       ``America has killed me,'' Ms. Nwegbe's husband, Ikenna, an 
     optometrist, texted her when he heard. ``We are finished.''
       A year after the Trump administration announced that a 
     major pillar of its new strategy for Africa was to counter 
     the growing influence of China and Russia by expanding 
     economic ties to the continent, it slammed the door shut on 
     Nigeria, the continent's biggest economy.
       The travel restrictions also apply to three other African 
     countries--Sudan, Tanzania, and Eritrea--as well as to 
     Myanmar, which is accused of genocide against its Muslim 
     population, and Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet state.
       The ban will prevent thousands of people from being able to 
     move to the United States.
       The initial ban, which was put into effect in 2017, 
     restricted travel from some Muslim-majority countries as part 
     of Mr. Trump's plan to keep out ``radical Islamic 
     terrorists.'' It has already affected more than 135 million 
     people--many of them Christians--from seven countries.
       With the new expansion, the ban will affect nearly a 
     quarter of the 1.2 billion people on the African continent, 
     according to W. Gyude Moore, a visiting fellow at the Center 
     for Global Development, a research group, potentially taking 
     a heavy toll on African economies--and on America's image in 
     the region.
       ``Chinese, Turkish, Russian, and British firms, backed by 
     their governments, are staking positions on a continent that 
     will define the global economy's future,'' he said, adding, 
     ``One hopes that the United States would follow suit and 
     fully engage with the continent--but that hope fades.''
       The rationale for the new restrictions varies depending on 
     country, but the White House announcement said that most of 
     the six countries added to the list did not comply with 
     identity-verification and information-sharing rules.
       And Nigeria, it said, posed a risk of harboring terrorists 
     who may seek to enter the United States. The country has been 
     hit brutally by the Islamist group Boko Haram, though the 
     extremists have shown little sign that they have the 
     capability to export their fight overseas.
       Critics, many of whom also denounced the initial ban, saw 
     something far more venal at play.
       ``Trump's travel bans have never been rooted in national 
     security--they're about discriminating against people of 
     color,'' Senator Kamala Harris, the former Democratic 
     presidential candidate, declared on Sunday. ``They are, 
     without a doubt, rooted in anti-immigrant, white supremacist 
     ideologies.''
       Two Democrats still in the race also weighed in. Elizabeth 
     Warren described the measure as a ``racist, xenophobic Muslim 
     ban.'' Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. called it 
     ``a disgrace.''
       And Nancy Pelosi, the house speaker, said Democratic 
     lawmakers would push ahead with a measure to forbid religious 
     discrimination in immigration policy.
       Beyond those people who may now never make it across 
     American borders, the new ban could also affect millions who 
     have no plans to travel to the United States themselves but 
     may have benefited from the billions of dollars in 
     remittances visa holders send home each year.
       The United States may also emerge a loser, studies suggest. 
     Nigerians are among the most successful and highly educated 
     immigrants to America. (Mr. Trump, demanding to know why 
     immigration policies did not favor people from countries like 
     Norway, once disparaged those from Africa and Haiti, and said 
     Nigerians would never go back to their ``huts'' if they were 
     allowed in.)
       Hadiza Aliyu lives in Borno, the Nigerian state at the 
     epicenter of the Boko Haram crisis that has left tens of 
     thousands dead. But she thought she had found a way out.
       Ms. Aliyu was preparing to apply to move to the United 
     States, where she once studied and where her two brothers 
     live.
       She was furious when she heard about the extended ban.
       ``Trump has been looking for a way to get at us Africans 
     for a very long time, and finally got us,'' Ms. Aliyu said. 
     ``To hell with Republicans and their supremacist ideas.''
       Mika Moses moved to Minnesota from Nigeria nine years ago 
     to join his mother and siblings, who were allowed entry after 
     the family was attacked in religious riots in their northern 
     city of Kaduna in 1991. His wife, Juliet, and their 
     daughter were planning to join him, but are stuck in 
     Kaduna, where Ms. Moses sells soda in a small store.
       She said they were heartbroken by the news that the move 
     would now be impossible.
       ``I have been struggling to raise our daughter alone,'' she 
     said. ``Why would Trump do this to us, after we have waited 
     for nine years?''
       Nigerians already living in the United States have been 
     calling lawyers to try to figure out whether they will have 
     to leave. Marilyn Eshikena, a biomedical research ethicist, 
     has lived in the United States for the past seven years, but 
     her visa expires this year. Her employer sponsored her 
     application for a green card.
       ``If it turns out that everything needs to stop, they will 
     feel cheated, because they spent a lot of money on this 
     process,'' Ms. Eshikena said. ``I will also feel cheated, 
     because all the time that I spent working here will 
     ultimately be for nothing. I can't even imagine what packing 
     up and leaving will mean for me.''
       Her departure may also have serious consequences for her 
     brother, who is studying in Canada. Ms. Eshikena has been 
     sending part of her earnings to help pay his rent.
       Some Nigerians praised Mr. Trump for his decision, arguing 
     it might make it more difficult for those responsible for 
     stealing government money back home to find cover in the 
     United States, and force the country's leaders to be more 
     honest and work harder to develop Nigeria.
       In 2018, 7,922 immigrant visas were issued to Nigerians. Of 
     these, 4,525 went to the immediate relatives of American 
     citizens, and another 2,820 to other family members. An 
     estimated 345,000 people born in Nigeria were living in the 
     United States in 2017, according to the census bureau.
       If the visas are coveted in Nigeria, they are just as 
     prized in African countries like Eritrea, where government 
     repression is rampant and those who try to leave face 
     obstacles and danger. With more than 500,000 refugees living 
     outside the country, Eritrea was the ninth-largest source of 
     refugees in the world in 2018, according to the United 
     Nations, but fewer than 900 Eritreans received immigrant 
     visas to the United States that year.
       Abraham Zere, a journalist who moved to the United States 
     from Eritrea in 2012, had dreamed of living in the same 
     country as his mother since leaving home. On Saturday, he 
     said his plans to bring her to the United States had been 
     thrown into disarray. His family has been in constant 
     communication on the messaging platform WhatsApp trying to 
     understand what the ban will mean for them.
       ``This decision complicates everything and creates fear,'' 
     said Mr. Zere, 37, a doctoral candidate at the School of 
     Media Arts and Studies at Ohio University.
       Mr. Zere and other Eritreans say they can't go back. They 
     fear they will be punished for criticizing the government or 
     leaving without approval.
       ``If I can't be reunited with my mother,'' Mr. Zere said, 
     ``it nullifies the whole notion of protection and punishes 
     innocent citizens for reasons they had no slightest part 
     in.''
       With nine siblings scattered across Europe, Africa, and the 
     United States, Mr. Zere said their family has never had a 
     full family portrait taken.
       The economic consequences of the ban could be far-reaching, 
     experts said.
       ``Being cut off from the largest economy in the world 
     systematically is problematic,'' said Nonso Obikili, a 
     Nigerian economist.
       The biggest impact, he said, could be on remittances.
       Nigerians abroad send home billions of dollars each year, 
     $24 billion in 2018 alone, according to the accounting firm 
     PwC. With Nigeria's economy highly dependent on oil and its 
     unemployment rate at 23 percent, this money provides a 
     lifeline for millions of its citizens.
       The new restrictions come at a time when the United States 
     says it wants to jockey for power in Africa, particularly 
     through its ``Prosper Africa'' initiative announced last 
     summer, which aims to double two-way trade and investment.
       ``If on the one hand you're trying to make a push into 
     Africa, and on the other hand you're barring the largest 
     African country by population from moving to your country, 
     then it does send mixed signals,'' Mr. Obikili said.
       In January 2017, Mr. Trump's travel ban targeted several 
     other African nations, including Chad, Libya, and Somalia. 
     Chad was later removed from that list, but the executive 
     order halted the plans of thousands of Somali refugees living 
     in camps in Kenya who were about to travel to the United 
     States and start new lives.
       According to the United States Department of Homeland 
     Security, nearly 30,000 Nigerians overstayed their 
     nonimmigrant visas in 2018. The number of Nigerians visiting 
     the United States dropped sharply after the Trump 
     administration made it harder for visitors to obtain visas 
     last summer.
       The new restrictions affect those who want to move to the 
     United States, not visit it.
       The six countries newly added to the immigration ban are 
     not easily categorized together by religion. Nigeria, for 
     example is thought to be home to more than 200 million 
     people, roughly half of them Muslim and half Christian. Of 
     the four African countries

[[Page H1608]]

     newly singled out, only Sudan has a significant majority of 
     Muslims.
       The United States has left Sudan on a list of state 
     sponsors of terrorism, even as the country works to reverse 
     decades of authoritarian rule under President Omar Hassan al-
     Bashir, who was deposed in April.
       ``This ban contributes to the overall impression that Sudan 
     remains a very fragile state,'' said Cameron Hudson, a senior 
     fellow with the Atlantic Council, a research group.
       Many people from the countries newly targeted by the ban 
     said the uncertainty was the hardest thing to bear. Ms. 
     Nwegbe, the newlywed, who works as the chief operating 
     officer of a tourism company that tries to encourage people 
     to visit Africa, said the ban came as she and her husband 
     were building their future.
       ``We're in limbo and our relationship is suffering,'' she 
     said. ``This is unnecessary hardship.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the President's ban is not about 
national security, it is about targeting immigrants from predominantly 
Muslim countries.
  In 2017, the President issued an executive order that banned foreign 
nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United 
States. Then earlier this year, he went even further, expanding the 
travel ban to six more countries.
  This is affecting over 300 million people on the African Continent 
and refugees from Myanmar, where the Muslim minority is facing a 
genocide--genocide, Madam Speaker.
  This administration is closing the door on the very people who are 
struggling to survive. That is not the America that I know. That is not 
an American value. We need to act to defend our values.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleagues that what is 
in place right now, what this White House has done, I think by any 
objective or reasonable measure, is wrong. It reflects badly on who we 
are as a country. It is not just. It is not fair. It is so wrong.
  And we all--I don't care what our political persuasion may be, I 
don't care whether you support the President in his reelection bid or 
not--I mean, we have to do what is right for our country. This is doing 
great damage to who we are. It represents the kind of closed-
mindedness, and the kind of bigotry that we should all be fighting 
against.
  Madam Speaker, I hope my friends will vote for the rule and vote for 
this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. 
And I apologize if I jumped ahead in any way, shape, or form. I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak.
  Madam Speaker, with all that is going on this week, Democrats have 
still found time for their favorite pastime, voting on partisan 
legislation that would actually make our country weaker.
  Democrats could not have picked a worse week to try to undermine 
American travel restrictions.
  President Trump's quick decision to restrict travel to countries like 
Iran and China; now that was smart. It was a smart response, and it is 
helping to keep America safe. The President's actions, then and now, 
are clearly within his rights.
  But today, I want to talk about the rights of this Congress, of this 
body, and how Democrats want to take those away.
  For the second time this Congress, the House is considering two 
important pieces of legislation by attaching them to completely 
unrelated shell vehicles, thereby preventing the minority from offering 
a motion to recommit.
  Now, the last time this occurred, Representative Ro Khanna actually 
admitted the maneuver was intentionally designed to silence dissenting 
opinions. He didn't just admit it, he bragged about it, that they would 
be able to deny the voice of Congress.
  And now, with last week's passage of the sixth motion to recommit 
this Congress, Democrat leadership is once again choosing to restrict 
debate on an issue of national security. It is not only that this is 
bad for America, it is bad for the tradition of fairness and free 
debate that, you know what, Democrats promised to uphold.
  Don't take my word for it. I listened to my friend, Chairman McGovern 
of the Rules Committee say, in September 2018, and I quote, Madam 
Speaker, he boasted on this very floor: ``If Democrats are trusted with 
the majority, we will have a more accommodating process. This place 
will be run like professionals. Ideas will be allowed to come forward, 
and the House of Representatives will actually debate again.''
  If there is one thing we know about this Democrat majority, it is 
that they overpromise and under-deliver. Today is no exception.
  The right that Democrats want to take away is an important right, 
maybe one of the most important in all of Congress. It is the last 
chance for a minority party to offer amendments on legislation. It is 
called the motion to recommit.
  As you know, the motion to recommit has been a hallmark of the House 
for more than 100 years. It was created to give the minority party the 
right ``to have a vote upon its position upon great public questions.''
  I have got to be very clear. Eliminating this would be a nuclear 
option.
  That is why I sent a letter--actually two letters--to Democrat 
leadership to stop this madness. Unfortunately, my last letter to 
Leader Hoyer on this subject went unanswered, so did my letter this 
week to Leader Hoyer and Chairman McGovern.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record both of the letters at this 
time.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, January 27, 2020.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Majority Leader of the House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Hoyer: I am writing to request that 
     you suspend consideration of this week's Iran-related 
     legislation until basic and essential rights of the minority 
     are observed.
       As we both can agree, the decision to go to war is the most 
     significant choice Congress can make, followed only by 
     impeachment. No matter what one thinks of the 2002 AUMF, 
     there are weighty consequences--both real and symbolic--when 
     the House debates overturning military authorization and 
     possibly cutting funding for American troops serving in a 
     volatile theater. I would hope that such an extraordinary 
     step would be taken with a careful eye towards promoting full 
     and thorough deliberation.
       Unfortunately, the manner in which you intend to bring 
     these measures to the floor is anything but full and 
     thorough. Specifically, by attaching these items to an 
     unrelated Gold Medal bill, you purposefully eliminated the 
     last opportunity afforded to the minority party to amend 
     legislation--the Motion to Recommit--a maneuver 
     Representative Ro Khanna recently admitted was intentionally 
     designed to silence dissenting opinions.
       Simply put, this is wrong--and I believe you know it to be 
     in bad faith. In fact, we are unaware of the House ever 
     debating matters of war and peace in such an unprecedented, 
     irregular, and restrictive way.
       From its inception in 1909, the Motion to Recommit was 
     created with the stated purpose of giving the minority party 
     the right ``to have a vote upon its position upon great 
     public questions.'' Certainly, the issue before us this week 
     meets the standard of a great public question.
       More recently, you, yourself, stated: ``More members, from 
     across the ideological spectrum, need to have input into the 
     work we do.'' I would respectfully ask that we strive towards 
     that standard and immediately remedy this overreach so the 
     minority may be allowed to offer input on the legislation 
     before us, as has been tradition for over one hundred years 
     in the House.
       It had been my hope that in this new year. we would begin 
     to move on from the numerous abuses or power we witnessed on 
     the part of the House majority during the impeachment 
     proceedings. If, however, we can no longer count on 
     fundamental safeguards to minority rights being guaranteed, I 
     fear your decision this week will only serve to further erode 
     trust, fairness, and comity in this institution moving 
     forward.
       I look forward to your response on this critical matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kevin McCarthy,
     House Republican Leader.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2020.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Majority Leader of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim McGovern,
     Chairman, House Committee on Rules,
     Washington, DC.
       Leader Hoyer and Chairman McGovern: I am writing to request 
     that you suspend consideration of this week's Judiciary 
     legislation until basic and essential rights of the minority 
     are fairly observed.
       For now the second time this Congress, it appears the House 
     will consider two pieces of legislation by attaching them to 
     a completely unrelated shell vehicle, thereby precluding the 
     minority from offering a motion to recommit.

[[Page H1609]]

       The last time this occurred, Representative Ro Khanna 
     admitted the maneuver was intentionally designed to silence 
     dissenting opinions. Coming on the heels of the 6th motion to 
     recommit being adopted this Congress, it serves to reason 
     that Democrat Leadership is once again willfully choosing to 
     restrict debate, rather than promote a full and thorough 
     deliberation of these measures.
       My last letter to Leader Hoyer on this subject regrettably 
     went unanswered. Given the gravity of this new precedent you 
     are setting for our institution, I believe all members 
     deserve a public response to the following questions:
       Will you commit to ending this practice, which has been 
     pursued without any consultation or sign-off from our side of 
     the aisle?
       If not, are you contemplating using any Republican-
     sponsored vehicles in this ploy, which presumably would be 
     done without their approval?
       What is the status of the request by freshmen Democrats to 
     consider ending the use of the motion to recommit entirely?
       As you both know, the motion to recommit has been a 
     hallmark of the House for over one hundred years. It was 
     created with the stated purpose of giving the minority party 
     the right ``to have a vote upon its position upon great 
     public questions.''
       In my view, eliminating the motion to recommit would be 
     akin to the ``nuclear option'' in the House. I sincerely 
     believe neither of you seeks to have that ignominious 
     distinction on your resumes. However, your actions thus far 
     in the 116th Congress sadly do not inspire confidence.
       Though we may not serve in the majority at present, our 
     members still represent millions of Americans across the 
     country who lend us their voice and count on us to fight for 
     their priorities in Washington. In that spirit, I would 
     respectfully ask that we not proceed on these measures until 
     the minority is allowed to offer meaningful input on the 
     matters before us through a motion to recommit, as has been 
     tradition in the House since 1909.
       We look forward to your response on this critical matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kevin McCarthy,
                                          House Republican Leader.

  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I believe the Members of this House 
deserve a public response about this situation. Will Democrats commit 
to ending this abusive practice, or do they plan to follow the lead of 
their freshmen and end the use of the motion to recommit entirely, to 
end a 100-year history of the body of this House?
  MTRs not only promote full and thorough deliberation, but they also 
improve legislation. Think for a moment, just within this Congress, 6 
out of 60 MTRs have been adopted by this Congress. Think about that.
  That means a bipartisan majority of this House felt the need to 
improve 10 percent of the bills put forward on which MTRs were offered. 
That should show you how vital the last amendment is and always should 
be.
  Madam Speaker, though we may not serve in the majority right now, our 
Members still represent millions of Americans who lend us their voice 
and count on us to fight for their priorities in Washington.
  Madam Speaker, the last 8 years this House had a different majority. 
I happened to have the privilege of serving as majority leader. Not 
once did we ever consider taking away the MTR, because we believed in 
the minority's rights and the traditions of the institution in which we 
are privileged to serve.
  We believed that the power of the idea should win. We believed in the 
promises that we made and that is why we kept them. We would not make 
promises while in the minority, and when we captured the majority, in 
less than a year, break them time and again. We would not go 
unanswered, a question from the minority as well.
  There is something bigger than politics. It is the voice of the 
American public--to use the sheer power of politics to silence millions 
of Americans is just wrong; to change a tradition that has been around 
more than 100 years; to make sure a bill cannot become better simply 
because you want the partisan side; or to be so afraid of the debate to 
deny it to happen, we are so much better than that--the rights and the 
traditions of this institution in which we have always been privileged 
to serve. I wish I could say the same for this new Democrat majority.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the distinguished minority 
leader that in the last Congress my Republican friends used this exact 
same process 15 times, and it ended up denying us a motion to recommit.
  But I also want to say, I don't need any lectures about how this 
House should be run from the distinguished gentleman from California. I 
remind my friends on both sides of the aisle that in the last Congress 
when the Republicans were in charge, it was the most closed Congress in 
the history of the United States of America.
  No other Congress in our history had more closed rules where Members 
were denied the ability to offer anything on the House floor. And my 
friends somehow take that as a great sign of--I don't want to go back 
to those days.
  Madam Speaker, I will just say one other thing. The distinguished 
minority leader made the statement that somehow this bill that we are 
trying to bring forward somehow would make this country less safe.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in 
the New York Times, titled ``Trump's Travel Ban, Aimed at Terrorists, 
has Blocked Doctors.''

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 6, 2017]

      Trump's Travel Ban, Aimed at Terrorists, Has Blocked Doctors

                       (By Donald G. McNeil Jr.)

       The Trump administration has mounted a vigorous defense of 
     its ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim nations, saying 
     it is necessary to prevent terrorists from entering the 
     United States. But the ban, now blocked by a federal judge, 
     also ensnared travelers important to the well-being of many 
     Americans: doctors.
       Foreign-born physicians have become crucial to the delivery 
     of medical care in the United States. They work in small 
     towns where there are no other doctors, in poor urban 
     neighborhoods and in Veterans Affairs hospitals.
       Foreign-born physicians ``are the doctors in small towns in 
     Maine and Iowa,'' said Dr. Patricia F. Walker, the associate 
     director of the University of Minnesota's Global Health 
     Pathway, which helps refugee doctors practice in the United 
     States.
       ``They go to the places where graduates of Harvard Medical 
     School don't want to go,'' she said.
       Across the United States, more than 15,000 doctors are from 
     the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by the travel 
     ban, according to The Medicus Firm, a firm that recruits 
     doctors for hard-to-fill jobs. That includes almost 9,000 
     from Iran, almost 3,500 from Syria and more than 1,500 from 
     Iraq.
       Dr. Hooman Parsi, an oncologist so talented that he has an 
     O-1 visa granted to individuals with ``extraordinary ability 
     or achievement,'' was to start seeing patients on Wednesday 
     in San Bernardino, Calif.
       A federal judge in Seattle lifted the administration's 
     travel ban on Friday, and a federal appeals court has 
     declined to restore it. Yet Dr. Parsi is still stuck in Iran, 
     waiting for a delayed visa amid the confusion while his 
     American employer fumes.
       ``We need him desperately,'' said Dr. Richy Agajanian, the 
     managing partner of the Oncology Institute of Hope and 
     Innovation, which had just hired him. ``We had an office 
     completely constructed--we spent three months on it, and it 
     was supposed to open Feb. 1. Now we can't open it. This is 
     really sad and frustrating.''
       The 30-doctor practice does a lot of work in the Inland 
     Empire, in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, Dr. 
     Agajanian noted. ``It's very sparse in doctors out there--
     many miles between oncologists,'' he said. ``The patients he 
     would be seeing have to travel another 25 miles now. Our 
     doctors are already overworked, and now they'll have to be on 
     call more often.''
       The United States has a persistent doctor shortage, even 
     though 31 new medical schools have opened since 2002 and many 
     existing ones have increased class sizes, according to 
     Merritt Hawkins, a Dallas-based medical recruiting firm.
       It also noted that there are 22 percent more residencies 
     available each year than there are American graduates to take 
     them. Graduates of foreign medical schools now fill that gap; 
     the largest number come from India, followed by Pakistan, 
     China, the Philippines, Iran and Israel.
       (Iran is on Mr. Trump's exclusion list; Pakistan, a Muslim-
     majority country with a history of internal and external 
     terror attacks, is not.)
       Many foreign graduates have J-1 visas, which give them 
     about three years to complete their residencies. ``They must 
     pass licensing exams and they must do a residency to practice 
     here, even if they're superstars where they come from,'' said 
     Phillip Miller, a Merritt Hawkins spokesman.
       Foreign-born graduates have often worked at world-class 
     institutions and have published academic papers, so they have 
     higher average scores than American graduates on the medical 
     knowledge portions of the licensing examinations, according 
     to Merritt Hawkins research--though most initially score 
     lower on the clinical skills portions, which include English 
     and communication skills.
       ``I had to work my butt off to get here,'' said Dr. 
     Abdelghani el Rafei, a first-year resident at the University 
     of Minnesota. ``They only take the top graduates from schools 
     in countries like mine.''

[[Page H1610]]

       Such foreign-born graduates must return home when their 
     visas expire, but they can get extensions if they agree to 
     work in an area that the Department of Health and Human 
     Services considers ``medically underserved,'' which is 
     roughly defined as having less than one primary care doctor 
     for every 3,000 people.
       Those who practice in an underserved area for several years 
     can apply for green cards. ``After that, they can practice 
     anywhere, but at least you've had three or four years of a 
     physician in your town, and that's pretty significant,'' Mr. 
     Miller said.
       Citing figures from the Iowa Board of Medicine, The Des 
     Moines Register reported last week that 172 doctors 
     practicing in Iowa were from the seven countries subject to 
     Mr. Trump's travel ban, and that 23 percent of the state's 
     13,000 practicing doctors were born outside the United 
     States.
       Andrea Clement, a spokeswoman for Medicus, said that 76 
     percent of the foreign doctors it placed last year had gone 
     to areas with fewer than 25,000 people or to small to medium-
     size cities of 25,000 to 500,000.
       It placed more foreign doctors in Wisconsin than in any 
     other state, she said, followed by California, Texas, 
     Maryland, Oregon, Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio and Arizona.
       Some urban areas are medically underserved, too. While 
     Manhattan's Upper East Side has five times the number of 
     doctors it needs to be adequately served under federal 
     guidelines, parts of the Bronx and Brooklyn have acute doctor 
     shortages.
       More than 150,000 residents of Brooklyn's Bedford-
     Stuyvesant section, for example, are rated as medically 
     underserved under federal guidelines. One of the doctors 
     stranded overseas last week, according to Pro Publica, was 
     Dr. Kamal Fadlalla, an internal medicine specialist from 
     Sudan who is a second-year resident at Interfaith Medical 
     Center, which serves Bedford-Stuyvesant and Crown Heights.
       Many foreign-born doctors, experts said, go into family 
     medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine, general surgery and 
     other front-line specialties where they see thousands of 
     patients a year, including many on Medicare and Medicaid, 
     rather than pursuing lucrative urban specialties like plastic 
     surgery.
       As an oncologist, Dr. Parsi was an exception. He moved to 
     the United States in 2007 for postdoctoral work in molecular 
     biology. Then, after passing his medical exam, he completed 
     his residency at the University of Cincinnati and a 
     fellowship in hematology and oncology at the University of 
     Pittsburgh Medical Center.
       Because he had to leave the country to get his new visa 
     stamped into his passport, he had flown to Dubai, in the 
     United Arab Emirates. He cleared a security vetting there, he 
     said, but had to wait a few days for the visa, so he flew to 
     Tehran to see his father.
       But the new court ruling affects only those who had current 
     visa stamps in their passport, so even though he is being 
     issued a new visa, he still cannot return to the United 
     States, he said on Saturday.
       ``Everyone, including me, would like to keep the bad people 
     out,'' said Dr. Naeem Moulki, a Syrian citizen who is 
     finishing his medical residency in Minneapolis and plans to 
     begin a cardiology fellowship in Chicago in the fall. ``But 
     this is not the best way to do it. If I have to leave, it 
     affects my patients.''
       Dr. El Rafei said that the ban, which means he cannot go 
     home to see his family, had depressed him.
       ``I felt like I was back in Syria again,'' he said. ``You 
     feel hunted there, as if you did something wrong, even if you 
     didn't. Now I feel the same way here.''
       He sees patients one day a week at the V.A. Hospital in 
     Minneapolis, where he is sometimes asked where he is from.
       ``One of my patients, he was a veteran in his 60s, said to 
     me, `Why do you people hate us?' '' he said. ``I told him 
     about Syria. I said: `We don't hate you. The bad people you 
     see on TV are the same people who make us suffer, too.' ''
       ``I love this country,'' he added. ``There's a time in our 
     residency when we can work in Africa or someplace. I want to 
     work in a small American town, to show people that we're not 
     all bad. The U.S. gives us a lot, so we want to give back 
     what we can.''
       Correction: Feb. 6, 2017
       An earlier version of this article misattributed a 
     quotation about the preparation necessary for a foreign 
     doctor to get work in the United States. It was said by Dr. 
     Abdelghani el Rafei, a first-year resident at the University 
     of Minnesota, not Dr. Naeem Moulki, a Syrian citizen who is 
     finishing his medical residency in Minneapolis.
       Correction: Feb. 25, 2017
       An article on Feb. 6 about the effect of the Trump 
     administration's ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim 
     nations on foreign-born doctors in the United States 
     described incorrectly the physicians seeing patients in rural 
     settings. Forty-two percent of doctor visits in these areas 
     are handled by family physicians, not by foreign-born 
     physicians. (The figure for foreign-born physicians is not 
     known.)

  Mr. McGOVERN. It says: ``Foreign-born physicians have become crucial 
to the delivery of medical care in the United States. They work in 
small towns where there are no other doctors, in poor urban 
neighborhoods and in Veterans' Affairs hospitals.''
  It also says: ``Across the United States, more than 15,000 doctors 
are from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by the travel ban, 
according to The Medicus Firm, a firm that recruits doctors for hard-
to-fill jobs. That includes almost 9,000 from Iran, almost 3,500 from 
Syria, and more than 1,500 from Iraq.''
  I didn't hear a single word about that. I didn't hear a single word 
about how denying doctors the ability to come here is somehow in our 
national interest. Not a single word objecting to the hate-filled 
rhetoric coming out of this White House denigrating Muslims.
  We have a President who bragged about trying to put in place a Muslim 
ban. I mean, we have a lot of talk on this floor about the need for 
religious freedom and to speak out against discrimination against 
individuals based on their religion, and yet, not a word about that.
  So, what we are doing by bringing these bills to the floor, we are 
standing up for American values, we are rejecting bigotry, we are 
rejecting hate, we are rejecting intolerance.
  Madam Speaker, I hope all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will support our effort.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, my dear friend raised an issue that is 
very interesting, because he knows this. At any time that it was used 
it was in consultation with the minority. Even when it was taken away, 
you know what we did, we added back an amendment so you could have the 
debate on the floor. It was only during appropriations consultation 
with you to be able to move something in a timely manner. He 
understands that.
  Madam Speaker, my only question to my friend on the other side is: 
Will the gentleman answer the letter? When the minority leader of the 
House sent the Rules Committee chairman a letter--the simple question 
is--with three simple questions: Will the gentleman take this 
opportunity to answer the letter? That is all I ask.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished minority 
leader's question. I would just say to him that the letter that he 
referred to, I read about it in the press. I didn't receive it until 
last night.
  I will also say to him, again, this consultation that he talks about 
is something that none of us have any recollection of.
  In fact, I remember when the Republicans hijacked the Democratic bill 
to basically deny us a motion to recommit. We were never consulted 
about that.
  I would simply say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that 
this is about whether or not we are going to stand and tolerate a 
policy that I think by any measure is bigoted and, quite frankly, 
undermines our values.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have obviously had a heated debate today, and it has been 
interesting. Of course, we disagree on a number of things.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the 
rule to immediately bring to the floor Leader McCarthy's bill, H.R. 
6177, which would require Members of Congress to disclose delinquent 
tax liabilities and wage garnishments.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) to further explain the amendment and the 
leader's bill.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding.
  As my friend said, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer 
H.R. 6177. Leader McCarthy's bill, H.R. 6177, is simple. It requires 
Members of Congress to disclose unpaid tax liabilities

[[Page H1611]]

and garnishments in their annual financial disclosure reports.
  As we approach tax season, where, under a penalty of fine or prison, 
we expect every American to file their taxes, those same hardworking 
Americans deserve to know whether their Representatives are doing the 
same.
  And, like the American public, if a Member of this body fails to meet 
their tax obligations, my bill requires their pay be placed into escrow 
until their tax obligation is met. This is responsible governing that 
informs the public and holds all of us accountable.
  The House should advance this legislation today.
  This bill falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House 
Administration, and, as ranking member, I am prepared to work with the 
Chief Administrative Officer to execute this legislation. Also, as 
ranking member of the committee, I have seen legislation run through 
this committee that tried to use the tax dollars of hardworking 
Americans to fund their own congressional campaigns. Every member of 
the majority in this room, in this Chamber, cosponsored that bill when 
it was introduced.
  This 6-to-1 small dollar match of campaign dollars would have created 
a mandatory donation from the American taxpayer to each congressional 
candidate, meaning, for every $200 donated to a campaign, the Federal 
Government--the taxpayers--would give $1,200 to that Member of 
Congress' campaign.
  Imagine if every Member of Congress--not counting all the candidates 
in each congressional race, just the current 435 Members--received just 
$1 million in matched funds from the Federal Government, from the 
taxpayers. That is close to half a billion dollars going just to the 
campaigns, the political coffers of Members of Congress.
  If it is the position of the majority party to force Americans to 
support politicians with their tax dollars and raise the taxes of 
hardworking families, we should at least let those same Americans know 
which of us in this body are even paying their own taxes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. In addition to the NO BAN bill, there is also a War Powers 
Resolution bill that will be made in order if this rule passes.
  I include in the Record a February 14 New York Times article, titled: 
``White House Memo Justifying Suleimani Strike Cites No Imminent 
Threat.''

                [From The New York Times, Feb. 14, 2020]

 White House Memo Justifying Suleimani Strike Cites No Imminent Threat

                          (By Catie Edmondson)

       Washington.--The White House told Congress on Friday that 
     President Trump authorized the strike last month that killed 
     Iran's most important general to respond to attacks that had 
     already taken place and deter future ones, contradicting the 
     president's claim that he acted in response to an imminent 
     threat.
       In a legally mandated, two-page unclassified memo to 
     lawmakers, the White House asserted that the strike that 
     killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was ``in response to an 
     escalating series of attacks in preceding months'' by Iran 
     and Iran-backed militias.
       ``The purposes of this action were to protect United States 
     personnel, to deter Iran from conducting or supporting 
     further attacks against United States forces and interests, 
     to degrade Iran's and Quds Force-backed militias's ability to 
     conduct attacks, and to end Iran's strategic escalation of 
     attacks,'' said the report, which was transmitted on Friday 
     to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
       The document confirmed what lawmakers had privately 
     suspected as the Trump administration has offered a shifting 
     set of justifications for the strike against General 
     Suleimani in Baghdad--taken with no congressional 
     consultation--which brought the United States and Iran to the 
     brink of war.
       ``This official report directly contradicts the president's 
     false assertion that he attacked Iran to prevent an imminent 
     attack against United States personnel and embassies,'' 
     Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the chairman of 
     the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement. ``The 
     administration's explanation in this report makes no mention 
     of any imminent threat and shows that the justification the 
     president offered to the American people was false, plain and 
     simple.''
       In the days after the strike that killed General Suleimani, 
     administration officials gave a variety of rationales for the 
     action as they confronted questions about why the president 
     undertook such a provocative move that could incite an 
     escalation with a dangerous rival. Mr. Trump and other top 
     officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, said the 
     strike was conducted in response to imminent threats to 
     American lives, but they declined to provide any evidence, 
     leaving lawmakers in both parties irate.
       Pressed over several days, Mr. Pompeo conceded that the 
     United States did not have specific intelligence on where or 
     when an attack would take place. Mr. Trump claimed that four 
     American embassies had been targeted for attacks, but under 
     questioning during a television interview, Mark T. Esper, the 
     secretary of defense, said he had seen no evidence of that.
       Mr. Trump later insisted on Twitter that General Suleimani 
     had, in fact, been planning an imminent attack on United 
     States forces, but added, ``it doesn't really matter because 
     of his horrible past!''
       Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican 
     on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement that 
     ``U.S. intelligence indicated Soleimani was plotting more 
     attacks on Americans and he was an authorized target in Iraq 
     because of the ongoing threat he posed to Americans there.''
       ``The administration would have been `culpably negligent' 
     if they hadn't acted,'' Mr. McCaul said, quoting Gen. Mark A. 
     Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ``It is 
     unfortunate that Democrats continue to criticize the 
     president for a successful U.S. military strike of this 
     brutal terrorist with American blood on his hands.''
       The report on Friday came a day after the Senate passed a 
     resolution aimed at restraining Mr. Trump's war-making powers 
     with Iran. The rare bipartisan vote illustrated the depth of 
     the skepticism in both parties about the president's 
     strategy, and lawmakers' frustration with the 
     administration's refusal to consult Congress on military 
     matters. The House is expected to pass the measure soon, 
     sending it to the president's desk. Mr. Trump's advisers have 
     said he will veto it.
       The White House infuriated lawmakers in early January when 
     it sent Congress a formal notification of the drone strikes 
     required under the War Powers Act. Lawmakers had expected it 
     to lay out a legal justification for the strike, but the 
     entire document was classified, and officials who read it 
     said it contained no information on future threats or an 
     imminent attack.
       Lawmakers were further angered by a series of briefings 
     delivered by top administration officials that they described 
     as insulting and demeaning, complaining that they were 
     dismissed for questioning the administration's strategy.
       Friday's report also only discussed previous acts of 
     aggression by Iran. It cited as a legal framework the 
     president's constitutional powers as commander in chief and 
     the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq that 
     Congress passed in 2002, using two justifications the 
     administration has previously mentioned.
       ``Iran's past and recent activities, coupled with 
     intelligence at the time of the airstrike, indicated that 
     Iran's Quds force posed a threat to the United States in 
     Iraq,'' the report said.
       Congressional Democrats have coalesced behind a new push to 
     repeal the 2002 law, which was passed to authorize a military 
     response to Saddam Hussein and his government. They said Mr. 
     Trump's broad reading of it illustrated how the statute has 
     been stretched and distorted to accommodate missions that 
     Congress never envisioned when it was debated.
       ``To suggest that 18 years later this authorization could 
     justify killing an Iranian official stretches the law far 
     beyond anything Congress ever intended,'' Mr. Engel said.
       The House last month voted to repeal the 2002 law, with 
     lawmakers in both parties arguing that the authorization had 
     become outdated and been abused by presidents as a blank 
     check to circumvent Congress in taking military action. 
     During negotiations on the annual defense policy bill, the 
     White House, focused on creating the Space Force as the sixth 
     branch of military and maintaining the ability to divert 
     military construction funds to pay for the border wall, was 
     initially open to repealing the 2002 law, but the Pentagon 
     intervened.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, Congress has been clear, we did not 
authorize the President's, in my opinion, reckless actions, nor have we 
provided any authorization for the use of force against Iran.
  What we are hearing from the administration, on the other hand, has 
been about as clear as mud. Initially, President Trump and other 
administration officials claimed the January strike was in response to 
an imminent threat.
  Now we have confirmed through a legally mandated report to Congress 
from the administration that that was not the case.
  This report made no mention of imminent threat, confirming the fact 
that President Trump was legally required to come to Congress for 
approval before carrying out the strike.
  The President may not like it, but the Constitution is clear: The 
President must seek specific authorization from Congress for any use of 
force against Iran, period.
  And I would just simply say that this shouldn't be controversial 
because, whether you support the President extending military 
operations against

[[Page H1612]]

Iran or not, we should all agree that Congress has a constitutional 
responsibility here.
  I want to commend my friends in the Senate for passing the Kaine 
resolution, and I thank the eight Republicans who stood up for the 
institution and for Congress' constitutional authorities. I point that 
out, as well, and I hope that my colleagues will support the rule and 
support the Kaine resolution when it comes up for a vote.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I urge my Democratic colleagues to bring to the floor 
border security measures that will help us help those who are truly in 
danger and in need of asylum. We can all agree these are issues that 
need to be fixed. Now let's work together for all our constituents to 
get things fixed.
  Madam Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the 
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle want us to 
get lost on the process, but we can't lose sight of the policy. This is 
about whether Congress should repeal President Trump's Muslim ban, and 
we don't agree--I would say, respectfully, to my colleague--on the 
Rules Committee.
  This is about whether we should prevent this administration from 
putting in place more discriminatory travel bans in the future, whether 
individuals deserve access to legal advice during the screening process 
at ports of entry, and whether Congress should vote before any 
escalation in hostilities with Iran.
  That is what is before us in the rule today. These are incredibly 
important issues. They go to the heart of what America is supposed to 
be about.
  Now, some on the other side are upset that they can't use certain 
parliamentary procedures to debate all kinds of divisive issues. 
Instead, they want to make this debate about anything other than the 
President's reckless foreign policy. I get that, but we are not going 
to get distracted here.
  This President is already looking at expanding his cruel travel ban. 
His approach abroad is totally unpredictable, and either you are going 
to stand up for America and stand up for our values, or you are going 
to stand by the President. That is the choice before us.
  For us, the choice is clear. I have constituents who have been 
adversely impacted, whose lives have been ripped apart by this 
President's immigration policies. It is heartbreaking. It is not who we 
are. And, for whatever reason, the President continues down this road 
of dividing this country along racial lines, along religious lines, I 
mean, you name it--constant division.
  Enough. Enough. We are better than that. We are better than that.
  I hope that there is a strong bipartisan vote in support of the No 
Muslim Ban Act. This is not who we are. We can't let this be who we 
are.
  I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its 
report (H. Rept. 116-415) to accompany House Resolution 891, the 
Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the H.R. 6172 included a waiver of Clause 9 of rule 
XXI, which requires a list of all earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
limited tariff benefits contained in the measure, or a certification 
that the measure does not contain any of those items. However, per 
Chairman Schiff's statement submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record on March 11, 2020, the provisions that warranted a referral to 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in H.R. 6172 do not 
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
tariff benefits as defined in Clause 9 of rule XXI.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 891

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 12. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     6177) to require Members of Congress to disclose delinquent 
     tax liabilities and wage garnishments, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     House Administration. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the 
     House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 13. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6177.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 760.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 186, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 95]

                               YEAS--226

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

[[Page H1613]]


  


                               NAYS--186

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Beyer
     Brownley (CA)
     Collins (GA)
     Fortenberry
     Gaetz
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Lewis
     Meadows
     Miller
     Mullin
     Palazzo
     Perlmutter
     Ratcliffe
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rooney (FL)
     Speier

                              {time}  1348

  Mr. KINZINGER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. MOORE changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 188, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 96]

                               YEAS--223

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--188

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Beyer
     Biggs
     Brownley (CA)
     Collins (GA)
     Fortenberry
     Gaetz
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Lewis
     Meadows
     Miller
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Palazzo
     Ratcliffe
     Rooney (FL)
     Ruppersberger
     Speier

                              {time}  1358

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________