on blue exercises, i.e. seeing what's working out there, seeing where all the connectivity exist, or doesn't exist. are you doing that or getting any access to organizations that are doing that? senator reed: we do table top exercises. these are led by the treasury department. this has been major focus for treasury. and appropriately so. we take part in them. there is always the feeling with sishe that you are just not doing enough. senator reed: that feeling is justified. unfortunately. >> we're going to leave this hearing here. our kverage will continue online at c-span.org. can you see it from the beginning if you go to our website, search monetary policy, at c-span.org. u.s. house about to gavel in to begin legislative work. the bill getting the most attention today will be the resolution seeking to terminate president trump's emergency declaration for the construction of a southern border wall. the first votes on it expected

about :15 eastern. senate expected to take up the legislation as well. it's licte president will veto it if it gets to his desk. live to the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, pastor a.d. shaw, plant city, florida. the chaplain: let us pray. god of infinity and sovereignty, redeemer of humanity, grace us with your mercy as this 116th united states congress forges the future of america. cover the distressed and despond dent, too often forgotten and manipulated with unceasing care. shelter the children of this nation from their the sins of their predecessors. grant unto them courage and

fortitude to be affirming and inclusive of all. reclaim us to your peace and unity that we may truly be one nation under god, a nation known as the melting pot of the world. therefore redeem the soul of this nation and bequeath unto us wisdom, mercy, and love, and we may all encounter heaven on earth, with the spirit of the negros who arrived in this nation 400 years ago, may we serve this present age. in the name of our lord, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg.

mr. walberg: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from florida, is recognized for one minute. emr. spano: i rise today in honor of mr. shaw who most gracefully offered this morning's opening brare. meese my brother and friend. his dedication to family, friends, and community serves as an example to many. his over 15 years of hard work in the ministry without expecting anything in return embodies the definition of unity. i thought of the many distinguished men and women who stood in this chamber at that podium preaching the importance of unity in our great nation.

one was abraham lincoln who said a house divided against itself cannot stand. in our fast moving society it is easy to focus on those things that divide us over those things that bring us together. it is why, mr. speaker, stain here today calling for great unity among all who serve in this chamber among the american people, and thousands of communities across our great land only together can we withstand adversity not just as vits but nation. this does not mean that we will always agree. it does mean we should seek unity in those disagreements. we do not need to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand. we must stand united through our differences. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek wreck? -- seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. higgins: i rise in support of action in the fight against gun violence. congress is finally acting. over the last decade we have witnessed gun violence take the lives of innocent children in our schools, terrorize our neighborhoods, and harm our fellow colleagues in congress. each event invoked a moment of silence. we can no longer remain silent. this week we have the opportunity to vote on two pieces of legislation that close loopholes in the gun purchase background check process. these aren't radical or partisan policies. background checks are supported by 97% of americans, including 97% of gun owners. on behalf of the families who we have lost to gun violence and those who we long to keep safe from fuhr gun violence, i stand proudly in support of congressional action to protect our communities from gun violence and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: last week i was grateful to join senator lindsey graham on a delegation for the munich conference. our highlight was vice president pence reaffirming the united states' commitment to the treans atlantic alliance. i joined house speaker nancy pelosi reassured our allyis of bipartisan support for nato's continued success. congressman mike turner ably presided as vice president of the assembly. another highlight in brussels was to meet with u.s. ambassador and his wife whose enthusiasm for service is extraordinary. the ambassador is promoting the restoration of the memorial honoring american service members in the battle of the bulk. in con-- bulge. in conclusion god bless our

troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, every parent deserves to have confidence that the air they and their children breathe is safe. mr. schneider: that's why we have environmental standards and why we have an environmental protection agency. to modern, update, and enforce the rules. so when communities face a known public risk, new or recently reclassified, rerightly expect the e.p.a. to act quickly, competitively, and transparently. in the chicago area this has not been the case. we just learned facilities around chicago could be emitting an elevated levels of a carcinogen. the e.p.a. has been slow to respond and failed to keep

communities informed. this month i partnered with senators durbin and duckworth and other colleagues in my delegation to introduce legislation that would require the e.p.a. to immediately revise and update its e.t.o. standards and keep the public fully informed. we're also commanding that e.p.a. evaluate ambient levels of e.t.l. in these communities immediately. something it should be doing already. our communities deserve more from the e.p.a. this is about our families and their public health. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize county sheriff jack welsh as he retires after 43 1/2 years of service to the county. sheriff welsh has served in many roles during his law enforcement career, beginning as a volunteer reserve deputy and eventually working his way up to captain.

after his initial retirement from the sheriff's department in 2007, he went on to become an emergency management regional planner. then in 2008 he he accepted the call to run for sheriff where he has served ever since. law enforcement officers like sheriff welsh are the fabric of our community. day in and day out they answer the call to serve and protect. over the years sheriff welsh has been one of the very best. mr. walberg: he's a man of integrity, dedicated public servant, and trusted friend to many. he has been instrumental in making the county a better and safer place to call home. i thank sheriff welsh for his decades of distinguished service and i wish him nothing but the best as he begins his retirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i rise today to urge all my colleagues to support the never forget the heroes act, permanent authorization of the september 11 victims compensation fund because it is the right thing to do. i'd like to thank my fellow new yorkers, carolyn maloney, pete king, jer gerry nadler and lee kelledin to build party support among the freshman class. it wasn't just an attack on new york city, washington d.c., and field in western pennsylvania, it was an attack on our entire country. this was an attack on the united states of america and everything that we stand for. but with thousands of these 9/11 heroes and families face is being forgotten because the victims compensation fund which supports these families and these heroes in all 50 states is running outs of money and cutting benefits from 50% to 70%. that's wrong f we fail to make this right, shame on us. shame on anyone who says never

forget and then turns their backs and pretends this doesn't affect their state or their district or their suddenly fiscal-i -- fiscally responsible. shame on them while we spend trillions of dollars on bombs in afghanistan . when it comes to doing what's right it's about keeping our promises and honoring those who put their lives on the line and didn't ask for anything in rufrpblt now is the time -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is no longer recognized. mr. rose: never forget. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask you unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak for cannon coser, a constituent and friend of mine who is with his fremfeam in the cal grale this afternoon. 3-year-old cannon is one of 4% children in the united states who is born with a congenital anone mi.

most health plans provide coverage for congenital anonelies and provide coverage of any health services related to congenital anomalies. tea spite this health plan systematically and routinely deny claims and appeals for any oral or dental related procedures under the pretense that such service is merely cosmetic. that is why representative peterson and i have joined together to introduce the ensuring lasting smiles act, a bipartisan bill that would directly address this issue and assure we don't have to tell children like cannon that their health condition isn't valued by insurance companies. as the original sponsor on the republican side, i'm proud to put my name on this bill and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. elsa would ensure all health plans cover medically necessary services, including reconstructive services as a result of birth defects. if enacted this would allow the

family to save for his college rather than money on reconstructive surgery. commonsense reforms like this will help children like cannon grow up healthier and have a better quality of life. we'll see you later, buddy. i yield my tife -- time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from referencing occupants on the gallery. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to ask consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: the serious border emergency that america is confronted with today is an emergency that donald trump has created by ignoring borders. ignoring the borders set forth in our constitution. borders that were set forth to prevent an all powerful executive, a would be king, or the type of tyrant that trump so admires abroad. after congress repeatedly rejected his phony border

crisis and wasteful wall, trump decided build it anyway. today's emergency wouldn't have happened without two years of republicans who continued to yield the right of way to his creeping wrongdoing. more and more of it. republicans who can just never summon the ability to say no to trump. today we must reject this unconstitutional power grab that diverts resource from real threats to an imaginary politically constrived one. today we defend our constitution and democracy by pushing back on the lies, deceit, the anti-immigrant hysteria, the fear mongering mismanagement of this administration. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last year i attend add rally where the father of a gunshot victim spoke. he talked about all the things that he and other people around this country are doing to end senseless gun violence. then he turned to the crowd and asked, but what is congress doing? and tens of thousands of americans as if they rehearsed it 100 times all said in unison, nothing. but what is congress doing? nothing. mr. moulton: standing in that crowd was not a proud moment for me because he's right. 37 americans have died from gun violence in my district alone in the past five years. gun violence is now the second leading killer of young people nationwide, trailing only car accidents. for too long, congress has done

exactly what the crowd said. nothing. this week we're putting forth legislation to enhance background checks, but this alone isn't enough. thoughts and prayers won't cut it. only action saves lives. nd this is just a start. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to lcome the mayors' council on river watershed flood control to washington. they represent districts around -- represent towns and cities around the seventh district. for years homeowners near the river lived under the constant threat of flooding that devastates businesses and homes

whenever there are heavy rains. the last major flood was in 2011 when hurricane irene ravaged the east coast. the town of cranford was the worst hit with 1,600 homes sustaining damage. our mayors presented a proposed solution to the army corps of engineers and are asking for a feasibility study to be completed. this will get us one step closer to authorizing construction on the river basin. mr. speaker, this is a solveable problem, we need to start now. i will do everything i can to support our mayors' call to action and expedite this process so we don't have to be pulling people out of second floor win dose in suburban new jersey so people up and down the river can feel safe in their homes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and revise and extend my rashes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to mark a monumental occasion for this chamber. for the first time in decades this body will take up major legislation to address the epidemic of gun violence in this country. i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 8, bipartisan legislation to require a background check on every gun sale or transfer. i know the vast majority of my constituents support this step. including renee gregg, a woman from carlsbad, who was trying to enjoy cauntry concert when she was forced to dodge bullets at a las vegas shooting. i know that lana leghart, a constituent from vista, support this is commonsense legislation. her sister kimberly tragically lost her life as a result of gun

violence in my district. it is on their behalf and on behalf of all americans who were impacted by daily gun violence in this country that i will support h.r. 8 and i hope all of my colleagues will stand with us. there is so much more that we need to do to fully address the ep democrat exof gun violence but today is a huge step for renee, lana, and families across this country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the president has set a dangerous precedent by calling -- by crying wolf in a national emergency. my community knows the border. we know the further away from the border you live, the more

fictional the border narrative. border crossings are down to one fifth of what they were in 2000 and apprehensions are at their lowest level in more than four decades. those are facts. instead of protecting our national security, the president's declaration makes america less safe. the president is stealing billions from high priority military construction projects that ensure our troops have the essential training and resources they ned to coop the american people safe. we will not sit by when the president abuses his power. i'm confident that my republican colleagues will regret supporting this false national emergency when there is a democrat in the white house. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom colorado seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today because on february 24, colorado and our nation lost a fierce and fearless advocate, carrie ann lucas of windsor, colorado. a mother, an activist, and attorney, carrie practiced family law to prevent discrimination against parents with disabilities. she adopted four children and her her work centered on them. all her children had disabilities. arrie wanted so much to ensure our wisdom wasn't kept with just her but was shared throughout the nation. she spoke out strongly and protested each day for the rights of people with disabilities to comprehensive health care with dignity. it's a permanent scar on our nation that carrie was lost to the refusal of a insurance

company to cover one particular medication which led to escalating health issues and eventually her death. her activism knew only the bounds of freedom an justice. she was ceaseless and selfless. my thoughts are with her family and i pray this body will gain some of the bravery that never faltered in her to ensure that no american goes without health care ever. i ask for unanimous consent to submit for the record the obituary after carrie ann lucas and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the spooker, house of representatives, madam. this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that the committee on energy and commerce has been served with a subpoena for documents issued by the united states district court for the central district of california. after consultation with the

office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed, sincerely, frank pallone jr., chairman. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 144 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 9, house resolution 144. the clerk: resolved that at any point after adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider house joint resolution 46 related to the declaration of a national emergency on february 25, 2019. all points of order are waive. 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 one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure and two, one motion to recommit. section 2, the provisions of section 202 of the national emergencies act, 50 united states code 16 2, shall not apply during the remained ore they have 116th congress to a joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared by the president on february 15, 019. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from georgia, 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. i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. torres: mr. speaker, on monday the rules committee met and reported a rule, house resolution 144, providing for consideration of h.j.res. 46. relating to a national emergency declared by the president on february 15, 2019. the rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed rule. the rule provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. additionally, the rule provides that the provisions of section 202 of the national emergencies act shall not apply during the remainder of the 116th congress to a joint resolution

terminating the national emergency declared by the resident on february 15. this is action on redundant resolutions. mr. speaker, today we must stand up for democracy. we must stand up for the rule of law and we must stand up for the united states constitution the constitution we took an oath to tevend when we were sworn into office. granted congress the pow ore they have purse. that means congress decides how we spend the american people's hard-earned money. in congress then we passed and president trump signed a spending bill that granted him

$1.4 billion for fencing along the border. and now president trump is acting like a dictator by ignoring congress and declaring a national emergency. as a result, billions of taxpayer dollars would be taken from high priority military that ction projects ensure troops have the readiness and quality of life necessary to keep the american people safe. mr. speaker, as a former member of the foreign affairs committee i visited countries where the rule of law takes a back seat to the whims of their president. just look at venezuela where nicholas ma duro has removed removed maduro has every single obstacle to his power. when he objected to rule offings judges he ended their terms

early and replaced them with his political allies. when the democratically elected congress didn't agree with him, he created a new congress filled with his supporters. last year, he even banned prominent opposition leaders from running in the presidential election. he has demonized the press and espanol off the air. ast night he detained one of one of america's journalists, orge ramos of univision. replacing judges, attacking the press, does any of this sound familiar? now you have a situation where food is so scarce that the average venezuelan has lost 24 pounds in the last year. and more than three million have fled the country.

-- nowuro presidency now that is a true national emergency for the people of venezuela. the collapse of democratic institutions is also happening in nicaragua and guatemala. the president of guatemala and his allies in congress are attacking the country down the same -- are taking the country down the same path, removing every check on their power. they have expeled the international prosecutors, who dared to investigate them. and just as guatemala's government has tried to the ine and delegitimize police and prosecutors who are investigating. president trump has called robert mueller's investigation a witch hunt.

and denigrated the brave men and women of the f.b.i. mr. speaker, we cannot allow this president or any president, republican or democrat, take us down the same path as venezuela, guatemala, and nicaragua. all to build a wasteful and ineffective wall along our southern border. these women and children coming from central america do not represent a national emergency. that's why 58 former national security officials both republicans an democrats issued statement saying there's no factual basis for the president's emergency. our call to doubt today is to protect, to defend our

constitution, we will vote and we will see how many in this body have that same respect for the rule of law. i urge our republican colleagues to join us in this effort. it is not too late for my colleagues across the aisle to tell the president that this is wrong, that the constitution that we swore an oath to uphold really matters. so so we stand here today to stop this power grab of our own democracy. and, yes, a yes vote will affirm our democracy. a no vote further erodes the trust in our democracy. and again expands executive power. i ask my colleagues which side do they stand on? with that i reserve the balance f my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: it flatters both me and the gentlelady from california that you have made it your habit to be down here during rules committee time. it's good to know that you respect what we do upstairs as much as the members of the committee do. i always enjoy coming down for the rules committee debate because it's the only debate on all of capitol hill where the reading clerk reads every single word of the bill that we're about to consider. ordinarily we wave that. but the rules don't let you wave. you have to read the rules so folks understand what's happening today. i happened to time the reading clerk today. i didn't put him up to anything special. he read as he always does. took him 1:06 to read the resolution that's before us. $1: 06 seconds. i -- 1:06 seconds. i heard my friends talk about the important constitutional questions before us today. i heard my friend from california equate our president

to discredited despots around the globe and how we must stand up to prevent that behavior here in america. i heard my colleagues who took the to the floor this morning for one minutes be sanged by the chair and advised -- sanctioned by the chair and advised to cease in engaging in arguments of personality and attacks against our president. 1:06 seconds it took to read the resolution before us today, mr. speaker. that's a 1:06 longer than this resolution has been considered in total in every committee throughout this capitol. i want to say that again. you heard my colleague talk about how critically important this bill is, this resolution is as it -- resolution of disapproval is as it relates to our constitutional powers. you heard it described as a power grab equivalent to those of discredited despots. and we haven't talked about it

at all in this chamber, in these committees. not one witness has testified. 1:0 is how much we invested in these nationally important matters. i listen, mr. speaker, as you cautioned member after member to cease engaging in personal attacks on the president during their one minutes this morning. mr. speaker, i am kearned that's what we're doing here today. -- i'm concerned that's what we're doing here today f you want to have a debate on article 1 and article 2 powers and how it slipped down to pennsylvania avenue on administration after administration and after administration. aim not just your willing partner i'm your enthusiastic partner and advocate. that's not the bill we have before us today. it's not the debate we're going to have today. this is another in a long string of measures that have been brought to the floor of this house that could have been

brought in a bipartisan way. i don't mean one republican, don't mean two republicans, i mean the majority of democrats and the majority of republicans standing together to speak with one voice on behalf of the american people. but time and time again, we're missing that opportunity. this isn't a constitutional issue today, mr. speaker. though you would not know that because we have not had any witnesses testify. this is a legislative issue before us today. there is, in fact, a national emergencies act that allows the president to do extraordinary things in he or she decides there is a national emergency. that's not unconstitutional. congress passed the national emergencies act. the president signed the national emergencies act. perhaps the supreme court one day will decide that was an unconstitutional delegation of power by the congress. but congress delegated that power in the national emergencies act. the way we talk about this issue, mr. speaker, you'd think

this is the first time you and i have seen this in the few years we have been in congress. of course you and i know that's nonsense. there are 31 other national emergency declarations in effect today. 31 other national emergency declarations. national emergency declarations from the obama administration. still active today. if we're so concerned about article 1 and article power grabs, perhaps these emergency declarations that have been on the books since the last administration, congress should deal with affirmatively here on the floor. there are national emergency declarations still in effect from the bush administration. there are national emergencies still in effect from the clinton administration. mr. speaker, there are national emergencies still in effect from the carter administration. that this house has made not a single effort to draw back that power. from 1600 pennsylvania avenue.

those legitimate questions, those are important questions. those are things that bring us together as the people's representatives in this house not bills designed just to poke a stick at a president who has real passion and real conviction about issues of real importance. do you know what is in this resolution today, mr. speaker, what's in this disapproval resolution today that's going to make a difference on the border in terms of ending human trafficking? not one thing. do you know what's in this resolution today that if we come together and pass it will make a difference in terms of drug trafficking on the border? not one thing. what about if we come together and pass this resolution today for the very serious issue of weapons trafficking across our border. do you know what we'll do today to fix that? not one thing. victims of sexual assault as they are being trafficked into this country. you know what we're going to do

to fix that? not one thing. do you know how many dream letters have their hopes realized today with a pathway to permanency in america? not one. man we're going at bringing issues designed to poke each other in the eye. so good at bringing issues to try to embarrass one and boost another. but i got to till, mr. speaker, we're not so great at actually solving real problems. first time in my congressional career just last congress, mr. speaker, we brought a bill to the floor that would have provided permanency for our dreamers. that would have provided solutions on our border for human trafficking, weapons trafficking, for drug trafficking. you know how many democratic votes we got on that bill, mr. speaker? not one. now to be fair it wasn't one bill, it was two bills. hey, if this is isn't the right one, bring another one. you know how many votes we got on the second bill from the other side of the aisle? not one.

the only bills that have come to the floor to provide a pathway for dreamers in my eight years in congress, and we got not one vote from the other side of the aisle s that because the other side of the aisle doesn't believe in those solutions? no, that's not why. it's because the other side of the aisle in its wisdom deemed that to be a resolution not designed to support the dreamers but designed to divide. i disagree with that conclusion, but that's the conclusion that was made and thus the only opportunity in a decade we have had to support dreamers, not one democrat stood up and said, yes. i call that a failed opportunity. and i'm not interested in figuring out who is to blame for that failed opportunity. this is a failed opportunity today, too, mr. speaker. and sadly it's another in a series of failed opportunities here in 2019. i believe my colleagues will see through the divisiveness of this resolution. through the charade of constitutionalism right down to

the he very core of partisanism that underlies this resolution. just remember, 1:06, mr. speaker. before i took to the microphone today, 1:06 from the reading clerk is all the time this new congress has dedicated to an issue that you are going to hear from my colleagues again and again is one of critical national importance, international importance, constitutional importance. how can those things be true? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: thank you, mr. speaker. i can think of many other things that we could be talking about that truly, truly, truly call out and scream out for a national emergency. homelessness in our communities. thousands, thousands of people in our community sleep on the

street under a bridge, children sleeping in vehicles every single night. i can think about the opioid epidemic and how many of our immune to e simply the issues around drug abuse and how addiction overcomes them. around about last year, christmastime, when 800,000 of our federal workers were going without a paycheck and went without a paycheck for 35 days, 35 days. yet my colleagues on the other

side of the aisle could not find 1:06 seconds to give them a paycheck. to open up the federal government. to do their duty. instead, in the rules committee he we took up an emergency kurds. labeling cheese they found that to be more important over the lives and the families of 800,000 federal workers. mr. speaker, i will now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: let me thank -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to speak for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady from california for her astuteness and

certainly the manager of this legislation and our friends on the other side of the aisle. i simply want to come and try to craft the importance of h.j.res. 46 that we will ultimately be debating today and as an original co-sponsor i was quick to try to bring order and to recognize the importance of the constitution. clearly the statute might be interpreted to be used in a reckless manner. but it is precise that it deals with the necessity of building military construction and other matters in the course of war that are an emergency. it might even cover the rising gun violence, the fact that we have more guns in the united states than we have citizens. it might be that if there was a pending war on the southern

border, one might determine that that is the case. the ht be that in 2001 first sense of terrorism came when an individual crossed the northern border to attack the united states. if that had continued with throngs of terrorists coming across the northern border, one might have declared, the president then then might have declared a national emergency. we do not have that, mr. speaker. what we have is a person's desire. we understood that the apprehensions at the southern border have gone down. the combined 521,000 apprehensions for border and customs agents in 2018 was 32,288 apprehensions fewer. those coming across the border in the last six to eight months are coming across as fleaing -- fleeing mothers and children. fleeing the catastrophe in honduras, guatemala, and el

salvador. they are coming through legal ports of entry. how do i know that? i have stood and watched them come. i have spoken to a mother whose baby was 45 days old. she had birth on her road here. not because she just want add vacation but because they had committed to decapitating her if she did not leave town immediately. meaning leave one of the countries. it was my plea that got her to be able to go to a hospital. i held little roger in my hands who was nine months old who had been separated from the border. these are the issues being addressed at the border. there is catastrophe. let me be clear as my friends always cite illegal immigration. i want to make sure any criminal no matter who they are that does any injury to anyone in the united states, count me as standing on the side of bringing that person to justice, but that is not what is happening at the border, and therefore i would ask the administration to attend themselves to the constitution, to recognize the difficulty or

the wrongness of distorting the purposes of the united states congress, the house that has the pursestrings by calling it a national emergency. my god, if we were to have one, would this nation even understand how to implement because they are hearing that it being declared in a foolish way. i conclude by simply saying that 58 people in national security, mr. speaker, 58 of this is indicated wrong-headed. and a i ask my colleagues to vote for the resolution i co-sponsored, h.j.res. 46. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall:s is my great pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from northern alabama, mr. brooks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. brooks: mr. speaker, in iscal year 2018, more than

2,000 illegal aliens were apprehended by federal agents for homicide committed on american soil. worse yet, roughly 31,000 americans die each year from heroin and cocaine overdoses, 90% of which floods across america's po rouse southern border. hence we can expect at least 33,000 dead americans each year until america secures our po rouse southern border. for perspective, the 9/11 terrorist attacks killed roughly 3,000 people. in response, america invaded iraq and afghanistan at a cost of trillions of dollars and roughly 7,000 lost military personnel lives. saving americans should be a bipartisan issue. yet, here we are.

republicans seek to prevent another 33,000 dead americans this year while partisan democrats seek to embarrass and stop president trump from securing america's po rouse southern border and saving american lives. for emphasis, no, no national emergency in history has been prompted by more dead americans than president trump's national emergency declaration. as such, i support president trump's national emergency declaration and will vote accordingly. mr. speaker, how many dead americans does it take for open border advocates to support border security? how much american blood must be on guilty hands before congress recognizes the national emergency we face at america's southern border. america's military protects the borders of and lives in south

korea, iraq, syria, afghanistan, europe, and many other countries. i think president trump as commander in chief for understanding that america and americans deserve no less protection. mr. speaker, let me conclude by noting that dead americans, americans killed by illegal aliens and as a consequence of po rouse borders, had dreams too. and we as a congress should remember and honor those dreams and act accordfully and protect this national emergency to protect american lives by securing our po rouse southern border. madam speaker, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. the gentlewoman from california is now recognized. mrs. torres: mr. speaker, we can talk about the scary people from

our southern border, i'm not that scary looking, am i? i think not. the fact is, is that the number one trading partner for alifornia and texas is mexico. friendly country. central america. we are standing up to our responsibility to uphold democracy in the northern triangle. to address the root cause of migration. that is where our focus should be. do we need an immigration reform package that brings 11 million people out of the shadows? absolutely. these are the 11 million people our re -- that

agricultural partners depend on. to deliver fresh food to our table. but we're not doing that here. what we're doing here, what the president has chosen to do, is political theater. political theater for 2020. in essence, a vote against this esolution means a vote against the families of the military people who are depending on us to provide infrastructure, schools for their children to learn, quality housing. do democrats think and believe that fortifying our borders is

important? absolutely. we've committed billions of dollars to ensure that we stop the narco-trafficing that happens on our ports of entry. that is where it's happening. we need to work together on these issues. not relinquish our responsibility, our legislative responsibility, and the power of the purse that we hold. i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to a member of the rule committees, the gentleman from texas, mr. dur jess. -- the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: i came to the floor to urge members to vote against this ill-advised resolution to

disallow the president's declaration for an emergency funding on the border. look, in 2006 i was in congress, congress voted for the secure fence act. secure fence act under president bush, 400 miles of border fence was built. under president obama, an additional, a little over 100 miles was built. now president trump had asked for a little over 200 miles to be built to provide security for america. now, sit a national emergency? i will tell you, i had as my guest to the state of the union someone who is referred to as an angel dad. this is an individual who went and put then uniform, fought for his country in iraq, while he was there, unfortunately, his wife got ill and died, he came home and now he's a single dad. he's taking care of his only child, a daughter. and that daughter unfortunately was hit on the street by a car

driven by someone who did not have legal status to be in this country. so several months later, chris comes to me and he said congressman, i did my job. i put on the uniform. i went and defended my country. mr. congressman, i did my job. and if you had been doing your, my daughter would be here today. president trump has taken that mantle very seriously. t is his goal, it is his requirement, to defend our country at the southern border. and the president will do just that. if you read the history of emergency declarations in the past you will find a number of them, some perhaps you might agree with, some perhaps you might disagree with. but since the founding of our country, it has been recognized, it has been the purview under article ii powers for the president of the united states to be able to exercise that

emergency declaration. it was codified in the 1970's in a law that is now the one that bring this is forward today, brings forward this resolution of disapproval. if you don't like the law that allows the president to declare an emergency, change the law. you're the majority. you control the rule committees. change the law. and what's interesting about this is last night in the rule committees when we considered mr. castro's resolution, we didn't consider it. we didn't have a single witness. mr. castro was -- i felt like sending capitol police up to find him. there was no one to testify in favor of his resolution. and the rules committee seemed perfectly agreeable to accepting this without any debate whatsoever. so i urge members to vote against this ill-advised motion to disallow the president's

declaration of an emergency, allow the president to do the job he was elected to do and secure the southern border. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his timeful the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: mr. speaker, political theater. political postures for 2020. that's what we're hearing. this is the law. this is the rules committee moving forward a piece of legislation that will prevent e president from calling a bogus national emergency. from stealing money from our oops, from taking from those don't have, who are giving everything that they have to

protect our nation. political posturing for 2020. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the quelt from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the text of h.r. 962, the born alive abortion survivors protection act. i'd like to 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: without objection. mr. woodall: if we pass the resolution as my friends on the other side of the aisle have presented it, we will save not one single life. if we defeat the previous question, and move on to h.r. 962, we will in fact save lives. to speak to that issue, i'd like

to yield four minutes to my friend from missouri, a great leader in our conference, ms. wagner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. mrs. wagner: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. if we indeed defeat the previous question, we will allow consideration of h r. 962. the born alive abortion survivors protection act. i introduced this legislation because the constitution clearly states that all persons born in this country are entitled to life, liberty, and equal protection urn the law. the constitution does not put age limits on those who are entitled to life. i am horrified, mr. speaker, that many in the united states senate, many democrats nay grantly viled the u.s. constitution last night and voted down the born alive act,

embracing in fact infanticide. pro-abortion politicians used to say life begins at birth. now it's more unclear than ever when they believe that life actually begins. or whether they believe living, breathing human beings should be protected under the law. i would like to commend three democrats in fact, senators bob casey, joe manchin, and doug jones who defended the basic rights of newborn children and voted for my legislation last evening in the united states senate. i introduced this legislation because it is just common sense. i am shocked that there are prominent american legislators who believe in denying babies life-saving medical care when they are born. as a mother, a grandmother, a

legislator and advocate who came to congress to serve as a voice for the voiceless i believe that life begins at conception and that it's wrong to kill a child no matter how many weeks old he or she may be. but i am grieved to find that i now must defend something that i never thought we would have to fight for. life-saving care for babies born alive. in response to radical legislature -- legislators who are promoting not just late-term abortion bus infanticide it's essential we come together to protect children. so today i am here to ask, no, mr. speaker, i am here to implore my colleagues to right the wrongs that the senate has committed and defeat the previous question and at least allow the debate to support h.r.

962, the born alive act here in the people's house. mr. speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. congress must never stop fighting to ensure that every single newborn baby in the united states of america receives life-saving care, no matter their sex or their race or ethnicity or whether or not they are wanted. and cuddled. and wrapped into that first warm hug that they deserve. the born alive act is the simplest vote any of us can take. do you support babies receiving life-saving care after they are born or would you deny these innocent children that care and allow them to be left to die and discarded. this is

this is bipartisan legislation, mr. speaker. last year six of my democratic colleagues joined me in voting for the born alive act. and i hope we will bring this bill to the floor for debate so many more of my colleagues will go on the record and vote to stand with america's mothers and children. i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from missouri yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank the gentlelady for yielding and also for her tremendous leadership on the house rules committee. i rise today in strong support of the rule and congressman castro's resolution to stop

president trump's fake so-called national emergency at the border. let me be clear, this emergency declaration is a blatant attempt to subvert the constitution and get around congress' sole power of the purse. let me remind you, also, that this is a democracy, not a dictatorship. we have three branches of government, not one, and congress has the power of the purse strings. also, let's make one thing clear, there is no emergency at the border. the only crisis at the border is a humanitarian crisis that the president created himself through his hateful family separation policies. and instead of protecting our national security, this president is doing just the opposite. he's stealing money from military construction projects to try to build an unauthorized wall. as a member of the appropriations committee, i can tell you that we will not allow

this president to circumvent our authority at any cost. i am proud to co-sponsor this resolution to put a strong check on this president and terminate his ability to declare this fake national emergency. i call on my republican colleagues and the senate to vote yes on this rule and yes on this resolution. it's past time to stand up for the constitution and to stand up for our immigrant communities and to stand up for our three branches of government. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields the balance of her time. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president and to remain from wearing communicative badges while under recognition. the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr.

speaker. at this time it's my great pleasure to yield four minutes to the ranking member of the rules committee and an appropriator, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for four minutes. mr. cole: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend for yielding. i rise today in support of the born alive abortion survivors protection act. if we defeat the previous question, we will bring up the text of this important piece of legislation to defend life. frankly, mr. speaker, i am mystified as to why the majority is loathe to actually make this vote. indeed, they have been doing back flips to avoid allowing the house to actually go on record on this important issue. this bill is a commonsense approach to protect our nation's most vulnerable. it amends the federal criminal code simply to require that any doctor present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion must provide the child with the

same degree of care as he or she would provide any other child. the bill also requires that any such child is immediately admitted to a hospital. mr. speaker, as we've seen in recent weeks, many people in elected positions do not appear to appreciate the need to provide for protections for our most vulnerable americans -- newly born -- but it's clear that the current law fails to provide adequate protection for newborns who survive an abortion attempt. this bill draws solely -- a sorely needed bright line of protection around abortion survivors and requires that they be given the same level of care as any other premature infant. as stewards of the law of this country, mr. speaker, protecting the most vulnerable, including the unborn, should be one of congress' basic responsibilities. since entering congress, i've made the protection of life one of my highest priorities. i believe that all members should have that same priority

and today we can take a step toward making this a reality by defeating the previous question and bringing up the born alive abortion survivors protection act for a vote. mr. speaker, i urge opposition to the previous question and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and rise in strong support of the rule and the resolution to rescind the president's unnecessary and unconstitutional national emergency declaration. having visited the southern border multiple times in the past year, including just last month when i met with customs and border patrol officials, i can say without any question there is no emergency at the border. we as a nation face serious

challenges in reforming our immigration system and stemming the flow of illegal drugs into our country. however, a border wall will do nothing to address these challenges. research consistently shows that the vast majority of illegal drugs that come into this country through the border are smuggled through legal ports of entry, and most illegal immigration is the result of people overstaying their visas. all this will do is divert $6.7 billion away from critical military construction projects and drug interdiction operations. hampering our nation's readiness and making it difficult to address real challenges. these are funds that will be better used on projects to build and improve new family military housing or improve national guard and reserve facilities throughout our country. mr. speaker, we should not be spending a single day wasting time on this ridiculous misguided executive order from the president. there is no emergency at the border. illegal border crossings are at a 40-year low.

the president's own intelligence community, when they do their worldwide threat assessment, testify and didn't even -- didn't mention the southern border and certainly did not identify it as an emergency. instead of wasting time on this, we should be getting back to work of driving down prescription drug prices, focusing on rebuilding the infrastructure of our country, passing h.r. 1 to get government working again for the people of this country and not the special interests, so i urge my colleagues to approve the rule, vote for the resolution and end the president's unconstitutional excessive use of power, attempting to circumvent the will of the american people. the american people decide through their elected members of congress how their tax money will be spent. the president is throwing the constitution away, circumventing that process and we can't allow that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island yields the balance. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to a member of the class of 2010,

the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. reed: i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding, and i rise today, mr. speaker, in support of the underlying rule, but also in opposition to the action that is being proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. but i will join them in one sentiment. i do believe there is an emergency crisis at the border. i do believe that the president, given the years and decades of delegation of authority from congress to the president's office, has the authority to take the action that he's taking in regard to this proposed issue at the border. but where i agree with my colleagues on the other side is that the presidential authority is something that we need to take into consideration and reform going forward. it should not be because it's president trump. it should not be because it was president obama, but each and every time the executive branch uses its authority and reaches

into areas that go beyond the constitutional limits of that office, we should stand together as members of congress to assert our authority. that's why, mr. speaker, mr. is a bipartisan group of us working over -- there is a bipartisan group of us working over the last week and we tend to drop a resolution sometime soon that will amend the national emergencies act, to make it clear that when there's a national emergency declared in this country, that we speak as one nation, one body here in congress with the president, and we have to affirmatively take a vote here in congress, go on record and not hide any longer as members of congress. we should be held accountable, by putting our voting cards in that box, to stand before the american people, when a national emergency is declared by the president, vote to see if that's something we agree with the president on. that is a fundamental reform that will re-establish article

1 of the constitution. for my colleagues that are up today, where were you when president obama overreached in his executive office? so i ask you to remember those days and stand with us that are looking to take on the root cause of this problem and re-establish the congressional authority that rightfully is contained under the constitution, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule and the underlying resolution. we should be absolutely clear. there is no crisis at our border. n fact, apprehensions of

illegal border crossings are at a 40-year low. this is a fake emergency being used as a pretext for donald trump to build a monument to hate on our southern border. but this is more than that. this administration's actions ill do violence to our constitution, undermine our separation of powers, and set a terrible precedent for the future. every single member of congress, regardless of party, needs to stand up and make their voice heard. to all my republican olleagues, who extol the constitution's virtues, i say to you, make your voice heard today. now is the chance to show your

true colors, to defend article 1 and to stand up for congress 's constitutionally vested powers of the purse. vote yes on the rule. vote yes on the resolution. stand up for the constitution, and reject this illegal power grab by this president. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york yields back the balance of her time, and the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd tell my friend from california i do not have any further speakers remaining, and i'm prepared to close when she is. mrs. torres: i am also prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, you just heard an impassioned plea from my friends on the other side of the aisle about the important constitutional questions that are before us today, about how the

president's emergency declaration violated those sacred constitutional principles. candidly, i don't know if my colleagues are right or not, because we've not had one legal expert come to talk about the national emergencies act. most of us were not in congress when it passed several decades ago, but it is a delegation of authority from congress to the executive. you just heard my friend from new york come to the well and said, look, we've been working in a bipartisan way to offer a bill to rein in those authorities. i think that's important work. i think that's work that we ought to all be able to agree on. we should be doing that work first. i told you earlier, mr. speaker, the sum total of all the time this institution has spent working on these important constitutional questions is the one minute and six seconds our reading clerk, joseph, spent reading us the resolution today.

we'll vote on this rule today. we'll vote on the underlying disapproval today, having never had the committees of jurisdiction hold even a single hearing. now, lest you think there is no time in the calendar, this is referred to the transportation committee on which i sit. in fact, i had to leave a transportation committee hearing in order to come up here to do the rule today. we're working on the new green deal in transportation today. we're working on electric vehicles and how to reduce carbon emissions across the country. now, i'm saying that's not important work, but i have not heard one of my colleagues talk about the daerth of electric vehicles and how that's threatening to the future of our land. i heard my colleagues talk about this important constitutional question that this disapproval brings before us and yet not one hearing on it. . now lest you think that if we deal with this today, we won't deal with it again, no, no.

we are going to have hearings on this resolution. when? later in the week, after it passes. now i don't know if that's a pattern we're going to get into. i hope that the not. having had no hearings and no witnesses testify on this issue, we're going to have an appropriations subcommittee hearing later this week to talk about exactly these issues where the -- issues, where the money's coming from, what the impact of that is and whether or not it's wise. we are going to have a hearing later this week in the judiciary committee talking about the national emergencies act, and whether or not it permits this kind of activity and what kind of changes ought to be made. this resolution will have already been considered, this vote will already have been taken, but we will eventually get around to having thoughtful conversation about this. mr. speaker, i close where i began. there's more that unites us as americans than that divides us. and even in politics, there's more that unites this institution than divides us.

and making sure that 1,-- 600 pennsylvania avenue -- that 1600 pennsylvania avenue is only exercising those authorities delegated to it by either the constitution or this congress is a shared value. but if you listen to the debate here on the floor, from the speaker's chair you had to caution our colleagues against engaging in attacks of personality against the president. we heard debate not of thoughtful constitutional principles, but of hateful administration policies. i will tell my friends, i don't those those words, actions, those efforts are going to bring us one bit closer to the shared values that we have in this institution. i urge my colleagues to reject the rule today. vote against the previous question. so that we can bring up a bill that will save lives.

this bill will save not one life, will prevent not one drug taskers from coming into the country, will not -- trafficker from coming into the country, will not help one migrant family. it will do nothing to solve real problems that face this country. but if we defeat the previous question, we can at least take a step, a commonsense step, toward doing exactly that. vote no on this rule. vote no on the previous question. and let's commit ourselves to finding a way to come together. if you believe there's more that divides us than that unites us, these first 45 days of this session have been just perfect for you. but if you believe as i do that we can do better, let today be the end of the partisan attacks. let today be the end of bringing bills to the floor designed to make a point instead of make a difference. and let's make tomorrow better. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california

is recognized. >> mr. speaker, fact checking the president is not an attack against the president. he facts matter. as a matter of fact, the president himself at his press conference said, and i quote, i didn't need to do this. mrs. torres: but i'd rather do it much faster. what does he mean by that? i mean, last year republicans gave him $25 billion. if they read the bill, i actually brought it to their attention on the floor, the bill actually read $75 billion that they were allocating for a border wall. facts didn't matter then. for one side of the aisle.

the president himself said it. i didn't need to do this. but i'd rather do it much faster. that's not an emergency. i was in 911 emergency for 17 1/2 years. i can cite many examples of what an emergency is. building a wall much faster is not an emergency. that's political theater. that's political posturing for 2020. and where is the president stealing this money from? certainly he's not getting it from mexico. s he promised. mexico said no.

no. the president is stealing money, $2.5 billion, that congress approved to combat illegal drug .ctivities around the world i know, i know that my colleagues believe in fighting international drug organizations is important. i know this because i travel with republicans and democrats to the jungles in south america. of lked about eradication narco trafficking. what about the $3.6 billion that the president is stealing from military construction? a study earlier this year found that 16% of military families

had a positive view of their base housing. 16%. hat means 55% had a negative one. many families reported unsafe conditions, including lead-based int, rampant mold, exposed asbestos, faulty electrical wiring, vermin infestations, gas leaks. is that not an emergency? is that not worthy of the to rtisan vote that we took give them -- to allocate that money so they can make those fixes? i know my republican colleagues support military families. i know that. because i've traveled with them to afghanistan, i've traveled

. th them to other countries i know that this is wrong. this so-called national emergency is wrong. and i know my colleagues know hat this is wrong too. this is undemocratic. a s puts us at the cusp of constitutional crisis. i urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the rule. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the question is on the ordering

of the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. woodall: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: just to be clear, mr. speaker, i'd like to ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 145 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 10. house resolution 145. resolved that at any time after adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 8, to require a background check or every firearm sale. 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 the judiciary. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to

consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 116-5. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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. section 2, at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 1112, to amend chapter 44 of title 18, united states code, to strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee. the first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 116-6 shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the p-- the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the

committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one hour. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from arizona, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, on monday the rules committee met and reported a rule, h.r. 145, providing for consideration of h.r. 8, the bipartisan background checks act of 2019, and h.r. 1112, the enhanced background checks act of 2019. the rule provides for consideration of each bill under a structured rule. the rule also provides one hour of general debate on each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. the bipartisan background checks act of 2019 and the enhanced background checks act of 2019 arrive at a time of

emergency for america, a real emergency. every year 120,000 americans are shot in our country, and 35,000 of them are shot dead. 17,000 of the people wounded are killed each year are children or teenagers. their families devastated, their lives forever changed. in 2017 gun deaths in america hit the highest level in 40 years with 40,000 americans killed. we've lost more americans to gun violence in our own communities than to the vietnam war, the revolutionary war, the civil war, world war i, world war ii, the korean war, the iraq war, afghan war combined. and this war at home never stops. each day, yesterday, today, tomorrow, another 100 people in america are shot and killed by gun violence. mr. speaker, this is not a global problem. it's an american problem. while 35,000 americans are

killed by gunfire here each year, it's 146 people in the united kingdom, 142 in portugal, 30 in japan. we lose more people to gun violence in a single weekend than england loses all year. we lost more people in the las vegas massacre alone in one bloody night than the nation of japan lost to gun violence in eight years. no other developed high-income country's lethal gun violence even comes close to the american carnage allowed by our loophole ridden gun laws. the gun related murder rate is 25 times higher than the average of other high-end countries and 100 times than some of them. the good news is we know what to do to begin to end this crisis. we must close the loopholes. in 1994, the brady handgun violence prevention act went

into effect and required licensed firearm dealers to contact the f.b.i. to run a background check through the national instant criminal background check system. the brady act made it illegal to sell a firearm to felons, to fugitives, to people who have been committed to mental institutions, to drugged a icts, to domestic abusers, to undocumented immigrants and to other disqualified categories. the brady act worked as far as it went. it has stopped more than three million illegal purchases of firearms by convicted felons, violently abusive partners, fugitives, the mentally ill and so on. but there are gaping loopholes in the law, because unlicensed gun sellers, the people who sell guns online today or at gun shows or in other private transactions can sell firearms without having to run any background check whatsoever. more than 1/5 of u.s. gun owners acquired their most recent gun purchase without any

background check at all. which means millions of people obtain firearms without going through the brady system. and people who commit gun crimes overwhelmingly obtain their firearms by unlicensed sources. a study found that 80% of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes were obtained from sources that were not required to go through the background check. criminals are not stupid. they go to the internet. they go to the gun shows. they go to the convenient store parking lots to get their weapons of mass destruction without any background check at all. our legislation will close these dangerous loopholes by guaranteeing that there's a thorough, nics background check on every gun sale or transfer with a few exceptions with intrafamily gifts and other cases. there are three primary things you need to know about this legislation. one, it is backed by more than 90% of the american people.

90% of american citizens, including 97% of gun owners, 97% of republicans, 99% of democrats, it is the very essence of common sense. the sense we all have in common to make the background check system comprehensive and universal, leaked-proof, foolproof, not ridden by the loopholes. a background check doesn't work if criminals know there is massive and lawful ways to cheat against it. so we stand up to close the loopholes. that's why this is a day of great triumph for the gun safety movement that's swept america in response to parkland and las vegas and newtown and the other massacres that our people have endured. second, this legislation is perfectly constitutional. as justice scalia found for the supreme court in the d.c. vs. heller decision, the second amendment permits reasonable regulation to exclude from gun

ownership violent felons, the mentally unstable, and so on. despite all of the solemn invocations of the second amendment that we continue to hear bouncing off of the walls of congress, the opponents of this legislation could not muster a single witness to actually argue that this legislation is unconstitutional. and that includes the george mason university, antonin scalia school of law, who was brought in and just expressed her policy misgivings about the bill without articulating any constitutional analysis at all and rejected the opportunity to say that this legislation is unconstitutional. the reason 97% of americans favor this legislation is because it is perfectly consistent with the letter and spirit of the second amendment and it sweeping advances public safety at the same time. this bill finally will dramatically lower gun violence in america. more than 90% of brady background checks take less

than 90 seconds to complete. but these checks have literally stopped more than three million illegal gun purchases by felons and fugitives and domestic offenders, the violently mentally ill, undocumented aliens and so on. every day background checks stopped 170 felons and 50 domestic abusers from purchasing a gun. imagine how much more effective the system will be when we close these gaping loopholes. and yet even in the face of the shocking death toll, which distinguishes our society from the other wealthy societies on earth, dispute the overwhelming public support of this legislation, and despite the clear constitutionality, our friends across the aisle oppose closing the internet, the gun show and private sale loopholes. instead of getting on our side, what do they do, give us more

loopholes. they try to suggest more loopholes to the current law. that's obviously not the direction that america needs to go in, and you'll hear some more about that today. they have given us a loophole factory, but now is the time to close loopholes, not reproduce them. let's focus on the public safety, which is the cardinal purpose of law and the social contract in a democratic society. let's pass this excellent bill and let's pass h.r. 1112, the enhanced background checks act of 2019, which closes the charleston loophole, the loophole that made it possible for a guy to go out and get a gun, because the dealer decided to give him a gun after three days because they were still doing a background check and this loophole says if it's taking three days or more, then you have a right to go ahead and get your gun. we are going to close that one, this so-called default proceed

provision. we're going to close that one, too, so we don't see any repeat massacres like the one that took place in june of 2015, at the emanuel african episcopal church in south carolina. i will at this point reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank mr. raskin for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. speaker. all of us, all of us, republicans and democrats, want to reduce gun violence. i think there's just a difference of opinion in how we get there. unfortunately, h.r. 8 and h.r.

1112, although well-intentioned, will not reduce gun violence, as mr. raskin said. and instead, it will turn everyday law-abiding individuals into criminals. and could actually do more harm than good. you know, i grew up in a family that didn't have guns after my dad returned from world war ii. he stopped hunting. and so because i didn't -- i wasn't around them, i have to admit i had an irrational fear of guns for a while. and it wasn't until i was an adult that i got educated. i remember i first went to a debate where the person that was talking for gun rights said, you know, who follows the laws? law-abiding people follow the laws. who doesn't follow the laws? criminals do not follow the laws. so although well-intentioned,

often laws are unenforceable and criminals just do not follow them. h.r. 8, again, i believe is well intended. but it will not solve the problem. h.r. 8 would not, not have prevented any, any of the mass shootings in the last 20 years. not one of them. i studied them because i am in the judiciary committee, along with mr. raskin. and we heard this bill in that committee. in most cases, guns were obtained legally. recent attackers have passed background checks to acquire their firearms, including the attackers at the thousand oaks, california, shooting, the tree of life synagogue, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, shooting, the attacker in the marjorie stoneman, parkland, florida,

shooting, and the shooting at the pulse nightclub in orlando, florida. and the las vegas, nevada, shooting. none, none of these attacks would have been prevented if were law. .r. 1112 then, the attacks in the -- the attackers in the columbine high school, colorado, shooting used straw purchases for their weapons, an act that is already illegal and has been illegal since at least the 1960's. adam lanza, the attacker in the sandy hook elementary school, newtown, connecticut, shooting used his mother's firearms, which were legally purchased by his mother. so as you can see -- and i have each one of them listed how the attackers got their guns -- h.r. 8 and h.r. 1112 would not

have prevented any of these shootings. not only would none of the mass shootings be prevented by h.r. 8 and h.r. 1112, but the department of justice, under president obama, said that in order for universal background checks to actually work and be enforceable, a federal gun registry is needed. yet, this legislation in h.r. 8 specifically prohibits a registry. thus, again, it is unenforceable. the fact is criminals don't get their guns legally and will not go through a background check to get their guns. even if this bill was signed into law. a recent department of justice report of prison inmates that used guns in their crimes showed that 56% obtained their

uns illegally, and another 25% received them from family members, which, by the way, family members are still allowed to get the guns under this law. it is obvious, then, that they did not get their guns from a gun show or private sales, as mr. raskin is concerned about. r. 8 will also turn everyday law-abiding citizens into criminals if it becomes law. . let's look at the amendments that were rejected by the democrats in rules committee and in judiciary that offered to protect law-abiding citizens from becoming criminals. first, there was an amendment, i thought common sense, that someone thinking of committing suicide would be exempted from

temporarily turning over their gun to a friend and it's not allowed under this bill. they would become a criminal. so somebody that wants to commit suicide could not transfer their gun to someone else. if a law-abiding citizen wanted to let someone temporarily use their gun on their own property, they would become a criminal under this bill. if a farmer or rancher wanted to temporarily lend a gun to a ranch hand for the purposes of ranch activities, the farmer would become a criminal under this law. if a domestic violence victim was in fear of her life and wanted to temporarily borrow a gun from a friend to protect herself, she would become a criminal under this law. let's also look at some commonsense amendments rejected by the democrats that would have

prevented undue burdens and duplication on law-abiding citizens that have already passed a background check, but now have to go through another background check under this law. people who have security clearances, this is the application to get a government security clearance. page upon page, background check, extensive background check. yet someone who has this and has gone through this still has to get another background check. people who have a concealed carry weapon issued by a state, they have to go through another background check. people who have already gotten a gun permit from states that require them, they have to go through another background check. people who have global entry, who have gone through a background check, they've got to do it again under this bill. even law enforcement officers,

law enforcement officers have to go through another background check under this bill. this is placing undue burden on law-abiding citizens. now, i want to share testimony from a young woman in the judiciary committee. this woman was a victim of rape on her college campus. and the reason i'm bringing it up is because well-meaning gun control laws actually prevented her from carrying a gun to school because the state she traveled through did not allow her to carry a gun in order to defend herself. this is a clear example of how law-abiding citizens, not criminals, law-abiding citizens who follow the law, and how this young woman and others like her was actually harmed by

well-intentioned gun control aws. as a survivor of domestic violence, i know all too well how hard it is to protect one self or find a life line out. my abuser often controlled all my finances. i wouldn't have been able to pay for a background check or a gun. sometimes getting a gun from a friend could actually be your only option. yet, unfortunately, under this bill, i tried to offer an amendment, but it was rejected. now, let's turn to h.r. 1112, which changes the length of time that a background check has to be completed. from the current three days to 10 business days, and then another 10 business days for an appeal.

so it could be 20-plus days. and the reason i'm bringing this up is i want to tell you a story , a real story, about car ole bone. she was a new -- corol bone. she was a new jersey woman who was -- carol bone. she was a new jersey woman who was stabbed to death while waiting to be approved for a new firearm. she already had an order of protection through the courts but that wasn't enough. she needed more than just that piece of paper. h.r. 1112 will make the realities of carol's story happen across the country, putting millions of women and law-abiding citizens in danger. women who seek avenues of protection will be forced to wait almost a month, 20 days to a month, like carol. how many women will potentially suffer like carol? h.r. 8 also has other problems.

unfortunately the debate in judiciary committee was cut short. many commonsense amendments were not even heard. only 10 amendments out of 100 were heard before the chairman cut off debate. because of the rush to get this bill through, there's another problem. there's vague language that is not defined and thus is open to interpretation. and so i know in some of the amendments, the majority party has tried to give an alternative to my good, commonsense domestic violence amendments, but it doesn't do any good. and this is the reason. it's because the language is so vague. it says, under h.r. 8, a person is allowed to temporarily transfer a firearm if it is necessary to prevent eminent death or great bodily harm. the question is, there's no definition of this.

so how long is temporary transfer? who determines that? does the victim determine it? who determines if there is eminent death? does it qualify if a victim of domestic violence thinks they will be killed? or does the person transferring the gun have to be in the same room and there be some kind of shootout and they throw a gun to them? what is eminent danger and eminent death mean? with something as important as the second amendment, i think we owe it to the american people to do our work and take as long as we have to in order to have a fair and open debate on major pieces of legislation. with that, i urge opposition to the rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. rassrass thank you, mr. speaker. the -- mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. the first thing i'd like to do

is submit for the record a statement by the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence, which is in favor of this legislation and against any weakening amendments and just to quote a small part of it. firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic violence and this is true no matter who owns the firearm. research shows a male abuser's access to a firearm increases the risk of intimate partner five-fold and does not support the contention that firearm protection is a protective factor for the victim. there's more in here of interest. but i'd like to -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. raskin: thank you very much. i'd like to thank my distinguished colleague from arizona for her thoughts on the question of sexual and domestic violence. we indeed have a provision within the legislation which allows for an exemption from the background check requirement in cases of an imminent threat of great bodily harm. the question has been raised, does that include sexual

assault, dating partner violence, stalking and so on. we thought it was self-evident that it did. but in any event, representatives horn from oklahoma and murphy from florida, are introducing a clarifying amendment to be very specific that it's included. so at that point, perhaps we could welcome the support of the distinguished gentlewoman from arizona, because we're being clear at that point that our exception for imminent bodily harm and violence includes sexual assault and so on. i'm certain that you're intentions are -- your intentions are good, just as are the intentions of the authors of the amendment in the bill. but let me address in case you haven't decided to come over to our side now, address some of the general points that were made against the legislation. the gentlelady articulated an argument we've been hearing a lot of from our counterparts, which is that criminals don't follow the law. and therefore there's no reason

to get rid of the loopholes and strengthen laws because criminals won't follow the law. now, the fallacy of that argument is plain to see. it's an argument against all law. it's an argument against the law against murder, because murderers obviously don't follow the law against murderer -- murder. it's an argument against the law opposed to theft, because thieves don't follow the law against theft. but i think anyone who takes time to really study what law is understands that the purpose of the law is to deter people from negative socially harmful akts. the way that the brady act has -- action. the way that the brady act has deterred more than three million people, flons and funaltifics and the mentally -- felons and fugetifics and the mentally unstable from accessing -- fugitives and the mentally unstable from accessing a weapon. it's an argument against having the brady act that we have now. and perhaps that's the intention. simply to take down the law that we've got now. another purpose of law, of

course, is to punish people who violate it. and then again to send a moral message about what the social norms are. and we've got social norms about driving, for example. when we say, we're not going to have driver's licenses in america because people who drive without a driver's license ignore the law requiring you to have a driver's license. it's a completely nonsensical argument. let's come back to reality and talk about what the brady act actually requires the gun dealers to ask people. here are the basic questions that are being asked. are you under indictment for or have you ever been convicted of a felony? are you a fugetific from justice? -- fugitive from justice? are you an unlawful user of a controlled substance? do you suffer from mental illness? have you been dis-able are discharged from the armed forces? are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking or threatening your child or an intimate partner? you have ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? you have renounced your united

states citizenship? are you unlawfully present in the united states? those questions have created a dragnet that has allowed us to stop more than three million people from getting weapons who shouldn't have them. but there's these big gaping loopholes out there that they can go out on the internet and get one or they can go to the parking lot of a convenience store in a private sale and get one or they can go to a gun show and negotiate a private sale and get one without having to answer those questions. well, the american people have spoken on this. that's really why this is the first legislation advocating gun safety to hit the floor of the house of representatives in a quarter of a century. this is a great day for the gun safety movement that has overtaken america. rejecting the unconscionable toll of 100 people dead every single day in communities across the land. with that, i'm going yield to mr. thompson, the sponsor of the

underlying bill, h.r. 8, who has done such a magnificent job advocating this cause through thick and thin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is -- mr. raskin: for two minutes. i yield for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of this rule and for the underlying legislation. a bipartisan measure that will make all of our communities safer and will save lives. i'd like to thank chairman mcgovern for his fair consideration of h.r. 8, and the proposed amendments that came before the rules committee. this is an important time in our nation's history. over 80% of americans have come together to support universal background checks. this is a new day and this is a time to act now. since the tragedy in newtown, about 6 1/2 years ago, this house has held 54 moments of

silence, but we have not held one moment of action. with speaker pelosi's leadership, we now have a chance to vote for two, two bipartisan bills which will help save lives. as a gun owner and a strong supporter of the second amendment, i was proud to introduce h.r. 8 with my bipartisan colleagues. i look forward to its consideration tomorrow and i urge my colleagues to support this rule today and the bill tomorrow. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield five minutes to my good friend, the representative from north carolina, mr. hudson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. oliver hudson mr. speaker, i rise -- mr. hudson: mr. speaker, i rise

today to voice my strong opposition to h.r. 8 and h.r. 1112. we all share the same goal, to end gun violence. but in the course of this debate, house democrats say they want to do something to end gun violence, and anyone who disagrees with their policies doesn't care. i believe in my heart that the gentleman from maryland and the folks on the other side of this debate care about the victims of gun violence and the children in this country, and i know in my heart that my colleagues on this side of the aisle and i care too. it's a shame that in the rush to do something, anything, democrats have made this a partisan show. they won't allow my bill to be debated on the house floor today. what about the mother of a victim assault. does she not have the right to defend herself? instead of working on commonsense solutions that can help prevent tragedies, like supporting local law enforcement, ensuring laws and

protocols are followed, implementing reciprocity, they're targeting law-abiding citizens. and they're disregarding federal law. there is no gun show loophole. federal law already requires a background check on every commercial gun purchase in america, no matter where it takes place. federal law already prohibits so-called straw purchases. let's make one thing clear, h.r. 8 would not have stopped newtown. h.r. 8 would not have stopped parkland. it would not have stopped las vegas or san bernardino or the tragic attack on our former colleague, congresswoman gabrielle giffords, but the proponents of gun control doesn't want them to judge them based on -- want to judge them based on outcomes. anyone that sees the obvious flaws do so because they don't care. if their rush to do something,

house democrats ignore the house republicans have done many things like strengthening the background check system which would have prevented sutherland springs, improving mental health care which would have prevented many of these shootings and newtown and charleston and parkland. and giving schools the tools they need to protect students. all these bills receive bipartisan support in the last congress. but we don't get credit for real action because they say our intentions weren't good enough. we owe it to the american people to look past the intention and the emotion and focus like a laser on outcomes. what can we do to actually end gun violence once and for all? so what does this bill actually going to do? it's going to turn a law-abiding american into a criminal when you lone your shotgun to your buddy to go dove hunting. it's going to make the cost of background checks so expensive that the average american can't afford to buy a gun. meanwhile, criminals are going

to continue to get their firearms. whether it's through theft or the black market or on the street. i applaud donald trump for standing with us -- and i encouraged my colleagues to vote no. the american people want us to work together to solve this problem and stop gun violence. can't we come together in a bipartisan way and not just do something but do something that will actually make a difference? i'm calling on my colleagues to put partisanship aside. work together on ideas that will actually make a difference. i stand ready to continue this work. i work with anyone to end gun violence while also protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens and i reject the false dilemma we can't do both. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from arizona reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland is now recognized. mr. raskin: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i suppose that we are in a rush

to do anything, something, anything that works in order to curb the terrible toll of gun violence in our society. in the last congress, it's true, there was other legislation that was brought to us. one was a proposal to legalize silencers in america which sounds to me more like an agenda of organized crime than it is of the u.s. congress trying to seek public safety. but there was this bipartisan conceal carry reciprocity act which would have destroyed every state's conceal carry law in the country to level it to the lowest common denominator. if you can get a license to carry a concealed loaded weapon in one state, and some states there are more than a million people that have been able to get them through completely permissive and lacks laws, you can go anywhere in the country. that's the proposal. that's coming out of the loophole factory. i'd like to assure my friends

that we have a provision in our legislation, if you read it carefully which says you can temporarily transfer a gun at a shooting range, at a shooting gallery or for purposes of hunting. so you don't have to worry about this. our friends are either not reading carefully enough or they're overlooking very clear passages in our legislation, which deal with commonsense concerns. this is bipartisan legislation. it is backed by more than 90% of the american people, and it's going to advance common safety. so rather than searching for mysterious reasons to oppose it, why shouldn't everybody get together to say this is something that will promote the public safety? with that i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. castor: i thank mr. raskin of the rules committee for yielding the time. i rise in strong support of this rule and h.r. 8, the bipartisan background checks act. proud to be a co-sponsor and i thank congressman thompson for his leadership.

our bill is intended to ensure that individuals who are prohibited from owning a firearm are not able to possess one. rep raskin is right, america is in the midst of a gun violence emergency. each year 120,000 americans are injured by firearms. 35,000 americans die, and of those 17,000 who are injured and killed are children. no other country in the world suffers the ravages of gun violence, and i'm afraid we've become numb to it. but we don't have to accept it and we're not, because we're going to finally pass legislation here today. mass shootings are on the rise. military style assault weapons are deadlier than ever. people are brg gunned down in churches, schools, movie theaters, nightclubs, synagogues. for so many years, the republican-led congress blocked action on commonsense gun safety laws.

but finally, to the american people, we heard you. to the students who marched for their lives, we're finally going to act. it's time now. i urge adoption of this bipartisan rule, the bill. it's the vote for the safe of our communities and our families. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: yes, thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to address a couple things that were said previously. i had sponsored an amendment as a survivor of domestic violence to allow victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse who have orders of protection to be able to get transferred a gun if, you know, they might be in fear of their life. i've said, often victims of domestic violence don't have

the financial means or they're so restricted by their perpetrator that it's difficult for them to go out and purchase a gun, let alone get a background check. so they might have a friend that they can borrow it from. now, in response, i think mr. raskin, if i'm not mistaken, said that the democrats did help domestic violence victims. you know, i just don't think that their amendment cuts it. i'm going to read the amendment, if this is the one you're talking about, mr. raskin. it says temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts as only as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm and then here's the amendment. including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault,

stalking, and domestic abuse. and i would say just because you add the words domestic violence, domestic victims -- victims of domestic abuse doesn't mean this is going to help, and the reason is simply because what i said before is that these terms in here are really unclear. i really would like somebody to explain. they're not defined anywhere, who determines, prevent imnent death or great bodily harm. and so let's say i am a victim of domestic violence, and i think, you know, my perpetrator is going to kill me. does imminent death and in this word say last only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death? so does that mean the person that my friend who can lend me a gun, you know, has to be right there in the same room and see that there's imnent

death coming? there is -- imnent death coming? there -- imminent death coming? there is no definition here. also, what is the definition of temporary transfer? how long is that? how long is temporary transfer? does that mean, you know, just enough time, you can throw somebody a gun while they're imminently in death? what does this mean? there's no definition. if we're going to proceed with this, i think we should at least define what these terms mean and, therefore, i really wish that my amendment that said that victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse that have an order of protection through the court, through the court would be allowed to at least borrow a gun to defend themselves from maybe a friend and so with that i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, thank you. i want to thank my colleague for advancing her discussion here because now we're really starting to get somewhere. the gentlewoman suggested an amendment which allows for the transfer of a firearm to a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault who has an order of protection issued by a court. that's an extremely narrow exception. most women who are enduring domestic violence don't have a civil protection order. part of that is because of the incompetence of the laws in a lot of states. part of it is because they haven't had the wherewithal to get one. our legislation and amendment sweeps much more broadly. any woman who is a victim of domestic violence, to be loaned a gun bay family member or a friend until the threat is resolved. and my friend suggests there's something ambiguous about the

words. i just don't see the ambiguity. we shouldn't have criminal laws essentially because criminals won't follow them. this seems an attack on law itself. law language is clear here. if there is a threat and you're suffering from the threat of domestic violence, sexual assault and so on, then you can get the gun. who interprets it? well, you've got the right to go out and get it. if someone were to prosecute you from doing it the prosecution would clearly lose. so i'm afraid our friends are looking for problems in this bipartisan legislation, which simply don't exist. with that i'm going to yield a minute to the gentlewoman from texas, my friend, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. as a senior e: member on the judiciary committee committee and crime committee, i, too, am glad of

the underlying discussion about the protecting of women. but i rise today to support h.r. 8, the bipartisan background checks act of 2019, to close the gun show loopholes supported by 80% of the american people. so unlicensed dealers cannot undercover out of the back of their trunk sell to people who would create and perpetrate either mass murders or individual abuse and gun violence. i also support h.r. 1112, the enhanced background checks act of 2019. that would in fact have stopped the deaths at the mother emanuel church in charleston, south carolina, where worshipers were shot down, nine of them. to listen to the debate in the judiciary committee, 10 hours of rebuffing these simple legislative initiatives, i beg of my colleagues to stand with us. it is clear we have an amendment that causes great bodily harm includes domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, domestic abuse. we want women to be protected

and others involved in domestic abuse circumstances. my amendment, that will be brought up as well, will provide the information as to how many times the f.b.i. have had to deal with petitiones that have been denied. let us not -- petitions that have been denied. let us not have another 20 years that have bills that deal with gun safety legislation. let's do it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to refute some of the things or talk about some of the things by my friends on the other side. one of the things that i do want to talk about is that mr. raskin said that my amendment is such a narrow exception for domestic violence victims, but yet i had a broader one in

judiciary committee, if you remember, and the chairman nadler told me it was too broad. that i had to -- you know, it was too vague. that's why i made it very specific. if you'd like i can make it broad again. and also, in the rules committee, there was another amendment as well, and we're both on rules, too, of course, and there was a broader one that said, from mr. scalise, who is a victim of gun violence, he had an amendment that was ruled out of order. and that basically said that any victim of domestic violence, which was broad, but then he had another subsection that said victim of domestic violence or sexual abuse that has order of protection, so we covered both. yet, it was ruled out of order. so we really tried. now, the other thing that you brought up that is very clear what imminent danger means and that covers somebody and

surely, you know, a domestic violence victim would not become a criminal under this law, well, i don't think it's very sure. and so i ask mr. raskin, my colleague, if he would be open to removing the word imminent and just say danger, instead of imminent, danger, because to me imminent danger is, do you have to be in the same room and throw somebody a gun or something. to me the word imminent needs to be removed from the language. . the other thing i'd like to talk about is the number of times now the other -- my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has said, oh, so many people support this universal background check. i kiss agree. i disahe he -- disagree. i disagree because there is proof right in maine. they had a bol lot measure. it was rejected. by the majority of the people. i just don't think -- i suppose

it depends on how you ask the question, but i just don't think when you get into the details of how it takes away our fundamental second amendment rights and actually burdens law-abiding citizens and actually may harm people, some of these laws, like was the case with the young woman who testified in judiciary who said good intention gun laws actually prevented her from defending herself and she got raped. there are some -- my disagreements with some of your statements. i also want to point out that there are many things that we can do in a bipartisan basis. and this obviously is not bipartisan. i am the co-chairwoman of the

woman's caucus in congress and i have talked to my counterpart o is a very nice woman in -- and congresswoman and we do want to work on bipartisan solutions to gun violence. i would say one of those is let's really concentrate on mental health issues. we have done some things in the nics act id a fix which we did last year on a bipartisan basis which is an attempt to fix the national background system so that local jurisdictions actually report, report when there is problems which i think is very valuable. we also did legislation in a bipartisan manner that would protect our schools more. here's another thing we could do in a bipartisan manner. as you have noted there was 3.5 million people have been stopped by nics since 1994 from

getting guns, and there was 112,000 with were stopped just last year. but you know what? only 12, 12 of those 112,000 were actually prosecuted. why? i mean, we have laws on the books now we're not even enforcing them. i think that's another thing we can can do on a bipartisan basis. again, this bill, i believe, does more harm than good. i do think my colleagues are well-intentioned. i do believe that all of us, whether we're republican or democrat, want to reduce gun violence. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman arizona reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you very much. first to clarify one thing. this is bipartisan legislation. we have at least five republicans who are co-sponsoring and supporting this legislation.

i assume my friend doesn't mean to read those five republican members of the house of representatives out of her caucus. i'm not quite sure what happened in maine, i know there are around a dozen states and the district of columbia which have already gotten rid of the loopholes we're going to get rid of today in this federal legislation. my friend also invokes second amendment rights. i thought we had put that red herring to rest in 2008 in herl vs. the district of columbia. justice scalia said that reasonable regulation to screen out felons and fugitives and the mentally unstable is perfectly consistent with the second amendment. everybody on both sides of the aisle favors the second amendment along with the rest of the bill of rights. if you are going to oppose this legislation, you have to pace base it on some public safety rationale and not pretend anybody has made a constitutional argument because nobody has. finally, on the question of the domestic violence amendment, i would invite my friend to come on over and we would gladly

have unanimous consent to have her added to the amendment, which is the broader amendment she's talking about. of course her amendment was the narrow one which required you to have a civil protection order before there would be an exception from the provisions of the legislation. she said she was misdirected by the chairman of the judiciary committee. all i can can say is the legislative process is a treacherous place and rocky road, especially for people in the minority. i have been dealing with that for several years. we would love to have you join the amendment now. mr. speaker, i make that offer. in the meantime i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from mass marks the great and distinguished chairman of the committee on rules. mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman from maryland mr. raskin for yielding me time and thank him for his leadership on this important issue. let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are opposing this legislation that people are watching this debate. i know many are scratching their heads wondering what's going on because what we're trying to do here is close

loopholes that allow violent criminals to get access to guns. not create more loopholes. mr. speaker, last thursday i spoke at a town hall sponsored by students at bancroft high school in worcester, massachusetts. those young people commanded -- demanded action on gun violence, not unlike other young people across my district and this country. they are terrified and tired of seeing one massacre after another after another after another and they are sickened by the unacceptable high rate of gun violence in this country. we have an obligation to be on their side. not on the side of the gun lobby. most gun owners agree with what we're doing here today. 97% of gun owning households support universal background checks. 97%. you just don't see that support -- you don't see support like that on very many things. on this issue the public is

speaking loud and clear. the question is whether congress is going to listen. my office has been flooded with calls on this year after year after year. i have heard from loved ones of victims killed and from those injured. i know many of my colleagues can can say the same thing. it's heartbreaking. each of us is in a unique position. we can do more than just listen. we can act. we can actually vote to help save lives. now, sadly, past majorities have turned a deaf ear. it has been nearly a decade since the judiciary committee held a hearing on a major bill to combat gun violence. when they were in charge my republican friends on the other side held a hearing on a bill that would have actually brought more guns from out of state into local communities. their indifference on this issue of gun violence, their silence, has been stunning. this swrorte is not satisfied with inaction. we will not be cowed by the gun

lobby. we're moving legislation in the case of h.r. 8 that has been in the works for more than 20 years. the time for inaction is over. listen to the young people in your districts. they are not content with the future where gun violence is the norm. they want and they deserve better. last night in the rules committee my republican friends tried to pass exception after exception after exception. may i ask for another 30 seconds. mr. raskin: the gentleman granted 30 seconds more. mr. mcgovern: they tried to pass exception after exception to this universal background check bill. essentially trying to gut the bill. well, this is a modest reform in the right direction. we're trying to save lives. we're tired of massacres. we're tiret of come -- tiret of comforting parents whose loved ones were killed in gun violence. we're tired of inaction. we're tired of the gun lobby dictating what congress does and doesn't pass. this majority is going to be run by the people of this

country. and the majority of the people in this country overwhelmingly support these bills. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this rule and vote for the underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from arizona virginia tech. miss lesko: thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from arizona reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. thank you, congressman raskin, for yielding for your tireless leadership. i rise today in strong support of the rule and h.r. 8, congressman thompson's bipartisan bill which makes gun sale background checks universal. this bill is an important step to ensure that individuals who should not be allowed to purchase a gun are no longer able to purchase a gun. so 2014, nearly 400 of my constituents have died by gun

violence. our community feels their loss every single day. here are just a few of their names and tragic stories. davon, a star football player and excellent student at oakland tech high school. shot and killed while walking home from school. my nephew was walking with him when he he was gunned down. trayvon was killed in 2016 while sitting in a car with his friends in front of his home. every time i think about trayvon my heart breaks. trayvon came to a town meeting that i held on gun violence in january of 2016. sadly these heartbreaking stories are all too familiar in communities across the country. more than 30,000 americans lose their lives to gun violence each year. shootings now kill as many americans as car accidents. that's why this bill is so important. may i have 30 additional seconds? mr. rass conditions: yes. ms. lee -- mr. raskin: yes, indeed.

ms. lee: this will ensure our background checks are strengthened and we close these loopholes. mr. speaker, we must end this epidemic of gun violence in our country. this is a national emergency. this bill will save lives. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the bill. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time of the the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. lech could he: i reserve the balance of my time. -- mrs. lesko: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i will be prepared to close, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from arizona virginia tech. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to make my amendment in order. which would allow domestic violence and sexual assault

victims with orders of protection to be exempt from the gun transfer prohibitions. this amendment is crucial to saving lives. as a survivor of domestic violence, i know what it's like to be in fear for our lives. this commonsense amendment is clear-cut. if you are a victim with an order of protection, you can borrow a firearm or transfer a firearm to you. it's important because victims don't often have the means to purchase or go pay for a background check. the democrats have presented a letter from the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence as a reason for not needing my amendment. however, with all due respect, the national task force does not speak for every victim and they certainly do not speak for me. in fact, they never even contacted me. and i have been an outspoken person saying i am a survivor of domestic violence since i ran for congress.

i am also the person that sponsored the amendment to extend the violence against women act. yet they have never talked to me or reached out to my office. the majority offered a political amendment on domestic violence which i have already talked about which really does not do any good because the definitions of eminent danger are not defined. and does not -- will not be arried out and be effective. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. lesko: mr. speaker, in closing we all want to solve gun violence in the united states. but h.r. 8 and h.r. 1112 will not solve the problem. as co-chairwoman of the bipartisan woman's caucus, i am committed to working across the

aisle on solutions we can all agree on. however, this is not one of them. we can talk about mental health. we can talk about strengthening the nics -- background check system even more. we can talk about enforcing the laws that are already on the books. h.r. 8 will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by making everyday gun transfers a crime and putting those that seek to protect themselves in jail for wanting to do so. this will place undue burden on citizens who already have a background check. for example, security clearance, state issued permit, etc. these pieces of legislation put law-abiding citizens in danger by disarming them and emboldening criminals. the bad guys never follow the laws. and in fact, i believe that

this legislation violates the second amendment of the constitution because it does ot prohibit undue fees for these background checks and thus someone could not afford them must not be able to get a gun to defend themselves. mr. speaker, i urge no on the previous question, no on the underlying measure, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. raskin: mr. speaker, thank you very much. far from trying to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, our legislation will save law-abiding citizens from criminals. simply by expanding the successful brady law which has been in effect for decades now. the gentlewoman introduces a constitutional argument saying

our bill is unconstitutional because there are undue fees. they are the fees currently imposed by the brady law. the current law has saved us from more than three million felons, fugitives, mentally unstable people, drug abusers and undocumented aliens from acquiring firearms in the country. mr. speaker, our country is a social contract. we have young people here. we are a social contract. if you go back and read any of the social contract theorists, thomas jefferson, we leave a state of nature which is a state of war -- which is a state of war and state of violence in order to live in a civilized way. but how civilized is it when tens of thousands of americans every year are being killed in firearm violence? every day 100 americans --

another 100 americans are killed with guns. in 2017, the highest level in 40 years we saw nearly 40,000 americans died from gun violence. that's not a civilized state. that's a state of war. that's a state of violence. so we know what the lool holes are and we are going to -- loopholes are and we are going to close the loopholes with our legislation, bipartisan legislation, which has support from republicans, it has support from democrats. the public opinion polls show more than 95% of the american people support what we're trying to do here. close the gun show loophole. close the private sale loophole. close the internet loophole. make sure that everybody who purchases a gun in america is purchasing it only with the universal comprehensive mental and criminal background check. and we have amendments for the discreet exceptions that are necessary including in cases of imminent violence, including rape and sexual assault by domestic violence.

we think this legislation is excellent legislation that every member of congress should feel proud in voting for. and with that we submit to you both h.r. 8, the bipartisan background check act, as well as the bill to close the charleston loophole so that criminals are not given guns after three days. we're able to delay that process in the event more investigation is needed. with that i would yield back the remainder of my time, mr. speaker, and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. all time has expired. the previous question has been moved. the question is on the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mrs. lesko: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays to be

counted. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute vote on adoption of the , and tion 145, if ordered in addition, ordering the previous question on resolution 144, and adoption of house resolution 144, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229. the nays are 191. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. lesko: i call for the yeas and nays.

the speaker pro tempore: those favors a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227. the nays are 194. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous

question on house resolution 144 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. caller: house calendar number 9, house resolution 144, resolution providing for consideration of the joint resolution, house joint resolution 46, relating to a national emergency declared by the president on february 15, 2019. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] ]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 228, the nays

are 193. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229. the nays are 193. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communication.

the r: -- the clerk: honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, due to a clerical error outside of our office i have been mistakenly added to the house veterans' roster. i am submitting this statement to remedy this error. i hereby resign from the house veterans' affairs committee. signed sincerely, andy levin. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? i jeffries: mr. speaker, offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate resolution. the clerk: house resolution 148. resolved, that the following named members be -- mr. jeffries: sir, i ask unanimous consent that -- mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution is

considered as read and be printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, under clause 2-g of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, i herewith designate ms. gloria lett, deputy clerk, mr. robert reeves, deputy clerk, legal counsel to sign any and all papers and do all other acts for me under the name of the clerk of the house which they would be authorized to do by virtue of this designation except such as are provided by statue in the case of my temporary absence or disability. this designation shall remain in effect for the 116th congress or until modified by me. igned sincerely, cheryl l. johnson, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: mr. chairman, pursuant to house resolution 144, i call up h.j.res. 46 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 46, joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the president on february 15, 2019. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 144, the joint resolution is credit. -- is considered as read. the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, will each control 30 minutes of time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. he house will come to order. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr.

speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and insert heir remarks and extraneous material on h.j.res. 46. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you. president trump's decision to declare a national emergency at e southern border to sifen funds for his -- stipend funds for his border wall is an unconstitutional grotesque abuse of power. this is not to employ when all negotiation attempts have failed. the house of representatives has rejected the president's border wall. the senate has rejected the border wall, and the american poo have re-- people have rejected this useless wall. the president does not get to

overrun congress over his inability to broker a deal. the national emergencies act was enacted in 1976 to expedite the allocation of resources for real emergencies to save american lives and mitigate damage caused by natural disasters and acts of terror. it was not fashioned to allow a president to deny the will of congress and the american people. both democrats and republicans alike should be very concerned about the ramifications of this unprecedented executive action. it is a direct threat to the balance of power that our country was built upon and a violation of our nation's constitution. there is also no factual basis for the emergency declaration. immigration from the southern border has significantly decreased in the last 10 years. any attempts to characterize

the border as a crisis zone are flagrant abuses of statistics, which have shown that border crossings are at the lowest they've been in 40 years. president trump has long proved he is not married to the truth or facts, and he has no proof to substantiate his wild claims about the status of the united states and the mexican border. we cannot abandon our commitment to responsible governing and the truth because president trump is outraged that his inability to fulfill a campaign promise. there is wide bipartisan support for this measure, and our democracy demands that we condemn this subversion of our constitution and this misuse of presidential power. and with that, i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. members are reminded to refrain

from engaging in personalities concerning the president. the gentleman from georgia. missouri, sorry. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the president clearly laid out the case for a declaration for a national emergency in his state of the union address right here. national security is obviously the president's highest priority and i support his efforts to build a wall. there is a crisis. there is a crisis at the border that could have been addressed much sooner and prevented. open border policies of the last administration compounded this growing problem. we got schools, hospitals, and other services that have become overcrowded. american workers have been hurt by reduced job opportunities and lower wages. at the same time, human and drug trafficking has thrived. in many communities, the notorious ms-13 gang has grown. we've seen tragic cases of

crimes committed by illegal aliens who have been deported not once, not even twice, but multiple times. i want to cite just one example in my home state of missouri. a man named pablo serrano was deported to mexico after a felony conviction in 2003. he later returned to this country illegally and was arrested again in 2014 and in 2015 after several more violent incidents and he remained in the u.s. then, in 2016, this individual, who had no right to be in this country, was charged for murdering five people in kansas city, kansas, and montgomery, missouri. stories like this aren't unique to missouri, mr. speaker. these horrifying events are happening across this country. this is a vy kris. the men and women -- this is a crisis. the men and women who put their lives on the line every day, they need the tools to do their job, and now this president is taking decisive action to

finally address the crisis using the authority provided to him by the congress. the national emergencies act is very clear. the provisions the president will use under title 10 explicitly provide the president with the clear authority. i support the president's efforts. i believe he's well within the law in making this declaration, and i'd urge my colleagues oppose joint resolution 46, and with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. castro, 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. castro: thank you, chairman. thank you, speaker. about six weeks ago when the rumors began that the president might declare a national emergency to build his border wall, my staff and i began working with legislative counsel to make sure that congress would have a say in what amounts to constitutional cannibalism by the president. this sat most consequential

vote we will take -- this is a most conis he queanings vote we will take on the balance of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government. whether we will respect the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution, stand up for congress and for this country and for the constitution, or whether we will stand down in favor of the president. the precedent that may be set today and this week or next week when the senate votes, if congress allows this president's emergency declaration to stand, will not have ramifications only on this matter or the building of a border wall, but if the president is successful, he will likely come back for more. he will likely circumvent congress again in the same unconstitutional way. not only will this president do it, future presidents will do it. and i ask you this -- how were we to tell a future president if this president is successful

that gun deaths, which number in the tens of thousands, are not a national emergency? that opioid deaths are not a national emergency? that climate change is not a national emergency? this will allow a president to sideline congress for much of domestic policy. bear in mind, congress over the years has already on its own, i believe, given up a lot of its authority with respect to foreign policy. it's also clear that there is no emergency at the border. border crossings are at a four decades low. the folks who are coming today are presenting themselves to border patrol agents seeking asylum, not trying to get around the border. there are more law enforcement officers at our border, federal, state, and local officers than at any time in our nation's history. since its founding, this country has become the most

powerful and prosperous on the face of the earth without a border wall. that's why most americans disagree with the president usurping the power of congress to build his border wall. in fact, not only do they disagree with that, they disagree with using military construction money on this border project. cities like mine in san antonio stand to lose millions of dollars in military construction. i urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let's be clear. congress explicitly authorized the president to undertake certain military construction projects that are not otherwise authorized by law when it passed the national security act. the president is working within the legal boundaries that congress gave him. with that i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman from missouri is exactly right.

it is the statutes that allow this president to do this. the statutes don't provide for national emergencies on climate change. they don't allow for national emergencies on gun violence. but they do allow it in terms of this particular issue and the president is exactly right. there is a crisis at the border, mr. speaker. but not only this president recognizes it. the previous president obama in 2014 did as well when he requested $3.7 billion in emergency spending to secure the border. where was the outrage then? where was the outrage from my colleagues across the aisle? president obama even went on further to say that we needed to make sure we needed to secure our border to deter both adults and children from the dangerous journey that they embarked on. where was the outrage across the aisle then, mr. speaker? it was not there. keeping criminals out, human trafficking and drug smugglers

away from our communities is paramount. yes, indeed we do have an opioid problem. we've actually appropriated billions of dollars to address that, and yet somehow the drugs flowing across our southern border are not a crisis? you know, again, president obama seemed to agree with this and declared a national emergency for transnational criminal organizations, specifically calling out zetas gangs and a national emergency. where was the outrage across the aisle then? but we don't even have to look just at the previous administration. president clinton also declared a national emergency to go after narcotics traffickers. . mr. speaker, i find it unbelievable that here today we have got these newfound

constitutionalists across the aisle, wanting to rein in the president's authority. this is about defeating president trump. i encourage a no vote on this resolution and thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. he gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: the american people should know that there's not any statutes that would allow the president to declare an emergency to build a border wall. not one piece of legislation would allow that. previous presidents have declared emergencies but they have never ventured into the legislative prerogative to allocate funding and that's the difference that we have here. mr. speaker, i want to yield to the gentleman from new york and also the chair of the judiciary committee, jerrold nadler, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for two minutes. mr. nadler: president trump's declaration of a national emergency as an excuse to build

a wall that congress explicitly rejected can in the be tolerate wesmed must reject this unlawful power grab. the constitution could not be clearer. no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. that command reflects a fundamental principle that is older that our democracy itself. the chief executive cannot unilaterally spend taxpayer money. earlier this year, congress reached a bipartisan compromise to fund the government signed by the president. congress allocated funding for fencing in certain areas but rejecked the president's request to build a medieval barrier across the southern border. almost immediately the president changed the budget, he did an end run and made an emergency. he and his aides have barely tried to pretend that the so-called emergency is a real

one. the women an children coming here are not an invading army. they refuse fuse to let the facts and law stand in the way of their political agenda. even worse, the emergency law that president trump envoked allows the military to redirect funds only if it requires use of the armed forces. that can be used for construction projects necessary to support use of the armed forces. a wall cannot be possibly to support the military operation on the border. our laws prohibit the military from engaging in activities. military cannot enforce immigration law. there's no real emergency and even if there were the president could not redirect funds for the purpose expressly prohibited to the military. fortunately, the constitution does not get suspended based on president trump's preferences about what is convenient or faster. our nation's founders left it up

to all of us including those of us in congress to act as guardians against exactly this type of assault on our constitutional order. in that spirit, i proudly support this joint resolution and i call back -- i call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and do the samism yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. mr. graves: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. collins: on february 15, the president exercised his clear authority under a clear federal statute duly enacted by congress to use funds already appropriated by congress for the purpose of securing our southern border. i am glad about one thing today coming here. i am glad that for many years -- many of the years i have been here, i came through the rules committee and others and talked about article 1 authority. i'm glad we have others who

believe article 1 needs to be enforced. what's interesting is selective enforcement against a president they don't like because securing the boarder is not the top ageneral ta for them. i get it if you don't like it, but the statute itself and the president's action in accordance within it rest on the powers. if you're citing the supreme court case of youngstown against the president's actions then i suggest you haven't read the case. that reasoning of youngstown case only applies when the president is acting unilaterally and not pursuant to a duly elected rule of congress. maybe the selective memory is hat the previous president did that with the previous daca program. then we discuss is there an actual emergency on the border. a president once noted we have seen a rise in apprehensions and

processing of children and individuals in central america crossing into the united states rio grande valley air dwhreefs southwest border. the individuals who embark on this journey are subject to violent crime, abuse, extortion as they rely on dangerous human smuggling networks to transport them from central america to mexico -- and mexico. most may think that was if the current president. it was not. it was from president obama when he was requesting more money for the emergency. on the border. the problem is the factual basis is there we sat in a hearing today in the judiciary committee and i had to look at the faces of our border patrol agents and i.c.e. agents and others dealing with this on a day-to-day basis when all they get from this body is hate and derision when they're doing the job we sent them to do. my problem comes back here, if we can argue about different things, this was under the law and done by republicans an democrats for the last almost 40 years. if you want to fix this, then you've done what you should do

under law, you brought your resolution of disapproval. if you wanted to take article 1 authority look at the law itself. actually want to change it. that's what this body ought to be doing. if you don't like the fact that the president can do something, especially my friends across the aisle who don't want this president to d anything, then fix the law. go into this emergency declaration and say we'll define what a national emergency. is we'll do that they don't want to do that because they don't want to bind the hands because they know the law was written for a purpose that's been upheld for over 40 years. this is simply a show. it's a farce. let's get to the political aspect of this and say, mr. speaker, we don't like the president, we dent like what he's doing, oops, we forgot about this law and the president said i will act under the authority given to me by congress. you can have all the arguments you want but at the end they have day, mr. speaker, when you cast this vote, don't hide behind article 1. don't hide behind separation of

powers. go to the law and look at what the law says. and vote no. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri reserves. >> can i inquire how much time s remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri has 22 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 22 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. we've heard a lot of cries from the administration about their being -- about there being a problem on the southern border with caravans of -- loaded with people being human trafficked. nd there's just simply unsubstan shated -- this is unsubstan shated and unfounded. there's no reports that this is happening. this is a figment of the imagination of some in the administration.

and with that, mr. speaker, i'll yield one minute to the gentlelady from the virgin islands, delegate stacey plaskett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you, mr. speaker. the president's emergency tech la ration is in fact a power grab. to go udes the bounds of the law and get what he failed to achieve in constitutional legislative process. after failing to convince the american people in congress to pay for his ineffective, wasteful, multibillion dollar concrete wall the president is now trying to -- a desperate end run around congress with his unlawful emergency declaration. the president's declaring emergency over a crisis that does not exist. the statute only applies to national emergencies that require use of the armed forces for military construction projects that are necessary to support the use of armed forces. the border wall is not a military construction project. it does not require the use of

the military. the immigration law is the responsibility of the federal immigration enforcement agency, not the military. the president's declaration violates federal law and that is the crisis. this is a crisis. a crime against our constitution. it is an assault. it is a rape what the president is doing now against the constitution. against this legislative body. i am just in another world that i as a constitutional strict constructionist am on this side of the aisle on an issue like this. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. grace: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i might remind my colleagues that title 10:00, section 2808 explicitly authorizes the president to change the appropriation for military construction. he's operating within the law.

right now i would go ahead and yield two minutes to the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, also the ranking republican on homeland security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from missouri. without a doubt there is is a crisis at the border. changing demographics have created unprecedented challengers in border patrol. in the early 2000's, most illegal border crossings were young mexican men. today and -- and our laws allowed us to return them back to mexico. today that flow of mexican men has been replaced with a mix of men, women, and children from central american countries. human traffickers are ex-plitting the loopholes in our laws and understand how immigration -- how our immigration system is broken. these smugglers tell vulnerable families that their child is like a visa to stay in the u.s. if they can just get themselves turned in to the border patrol and these smugglers and their

propaganda are effective. family apprehensions for fiscal year 2019 are already 5 2% higher than fiscal 2013. these traffickers don't care about the people they smuggle. the result is that immigrants of all ages are arriving on our doorstep in terrible health. border patrol prgts a 133% increase over last year in migrants needing medical treatment after crossing the border. these changing migrant flows force our law enforcement officers to act as paramedics rather than enforcing the laws that congress has passed. we need an all of the above approach to border security and that includes manpower, 21st century technology, and barriers. with this approach we'll deter human smugglers and others crossing hundreds of miles of open desert with innocent children. we know this approach works in areas where we have built the wall system such as yuma,

illegal traffic has plummeted 95%. let's build on this success. i encourage my colleagues to stand by president trump's decision to use an executive authority to carry out this approach and keep america safe. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm glad that the other side acknowledges that the people approaching our southern border are not men from mexico but they are families with children fleeing violence in central america. that's an important distinction. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to my friend the gentleman from the state of maryland, congressman anthony brown, also chair or vice chair of the house armed services committee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. brown: there's no emergency

on the southern border. there's no invading hostile force and border crossings remain at a 40-year low. pull regular sources from military construction projects as president trump would do, projects meant to improve readiness and support our service member, impacts national security. it will hurt military families who are already dealing with military housing, with mold and lead poisoning and outdated schools and medical facilities. this declaration of national emergency will keep thousands over act i duty troops needlessly deployed at the southern border and away fwr their scheduled training activities and operational readiness. this is a fake emergency. and for president trump to claim we need to build a wall to support our armed forces, it's absurd and ridiculous. emergency declaration is just an overreaching and dangerous power grab to push forward the president's anti-immigrant agenda as supposedly boost his re-election chances. there's no national emergency, only a crisis in the oval office. i yield back my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i might point out to my colleagues how much of a national emergency this is. it was president obama who recognized this crisis at the border. in 2014, president obama requested $3.7 billion in emergency supplemental funding for what he described as a humanitarian crisis, a humanitarian crisis at the border. he specifically cited an increase in family unions trying to cross the border and a lack of resources to accommodate them. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. aderholt: i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise today to oppose the joint resolution to overturn the president's declaration, i think it's very clear that there is a national emergency that exists on our southern border because ofhe