Never Forget the Heroes: James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez Permanent Authorization of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 476 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 476, providing for consideration of H.R. 2500 under a structured rule. One hour of general debate has been provided, controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Madam Speaker, this rule makes more than 430 amendments in order. I think we broke a record. This bill has the most amendments, I think, ever made in order, and I think it is something that we should be proud of.

These amendments include ideas from both sides. I think that is important. But I have got to tell you that I am especially proud that this rule allows a debate on many truly progressive ideas.

One of these amendments would allow transgender troops their rightful chance to serve in our military without roadblocks from this administration. That shouldn't be a radical idea. Gender shouldn't matter on the battlefield.

Transgender troops have been serving in our military for a very long time. They have willingly put their lives on the line to deploy in combat zones just like all other troops. They have worn the same uniform and have been held to the same standard as everybody else.

But, instead of thanking them, instead of thanking them for their service to our country, this administration wants to prevent them from serving at all.

Out of nowhere, President Trump logged onto Twitter one day and decided to ban transgender people from military service.

This rule will give us a chance to debate an amendment to change that, to reject the President's bigotry.

There is another amendment here that would prevent the President from using the 2001 AUMF to launch an attack on Iran or engage in military hostilities without explicit congressional authorization.

Now, think about this. We were, apparently, moments away from the President launching an attack against Iran--no consultation with Congress at all, no debate on this floor, no thoughtful discussion, not even a vote.

Democrats don't want war with Iran. Most Republicans don't want war with Iran. The American people certainly don't want a war with Iran.

But this President was, apparently, about to use an AUMF passed more than a decade ago to fumble us into another conflict in the Middle East. I am glad the President backed off from bombing Iran, but I am terrified about the lack of thoughtful leadership coming from this Oval Office.

I don't know what kind of mood he will be in when he wakes up tomorrow, whether he will want to go to war with a country or not, but I think we have a constitutional obligation here in Congress to make sure that we play a role as to whether or not we enter into another war as well as preventing another war.

We need to make it clear to this administration that the President cannot use an old AUMF to initiate hostilities against Iran, period. This rule is our chance. There are dozens and dozens of ideas here that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to get debated for a long time and many on our side of the aisle have tried to get debated for a long time. This rule will finally allow us to do that.

As important as they are, the importance of this rule goes beyond just the amendments. There is suspension authority included in here that would allow us to move quickly this week and pass the reauthorization of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

How could anybody oppose that, Madam Speaker? Recently, we saw 9/11 first responders coming to the Senate and literally begging for Majority Leader McConnell to move the bill.

These people are heroes. They should never have to plead with hat in hand for the resources to help them survive.

The Senate is finally showing a willingness to move on this. So, if we pass this rule, this program could be reauthorized within a matter of days.

Passing this rule would also allow us to quickly take action on the first measure placed on the Consensus Calendar, H.R. 553, as part of the underlying bill.

This calendar was created as part of our bipartisan rules package, passed at the start of the Congress. It is a new procedure designed to expedite consideration of measures with broad bipartisan support.

Congressman Joe Wilson and Congressman John Yarmuth's bill to update the Department of Defense's Survivor Benefit Plan has well over 350 cosponsors.

Clearly, there is a lot of bipartisan support here for this legislation. Let's pass this rule and make sure it gets taken up as quickly as possible this week as part of a must-pass vehicle.

That is what this rule is all about, Madam Speaker: debating ideas and countless progressive amendments--and some amendments, quite frankly, that are very conservative that I am going to fight as hard as I can to defeat.

Moving quickly to reauthorize a program that our 9/11 first responders depend on, I think, is an absolute priority of this majority, and I hope my Republican friends will join with us in supporting this effort.

Allowing an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill to be considered on the floor without delay that benefits widows, I think, is something that hopefully will get broad bipartisan support.

So, if we pass this, we can make sure all of this happens this week.

Madam Speaker, I also want to take a moment and recognize that this underlying NDAA bill would finally confer a service medal honoring the sacrifice of atomic veterans.

It has been a long road getting to this point. The prior three House NDAA bills included similar amendment language, sometimes by near unanimous votes, but it was stripped out of conference every single time. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why.

Radiation-exposed servicemembers risked their lives for our Nation, in secret and at great personal cost. More than three-quarters of atomic veterans have already passed away, many prematurely from health problems directly related to their service.

It is past time to finally recognize their courage and sacrifice, not just with a certificate of recognition but with what they truly deserve: a service medal.

So I hope, by including this language in the base bill, it won't be stripped out as the process continues, and let's give these veterans the recognition that they have earned.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me just say this: The underlying bill is a good bill, and Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, and their staff deserve a lot of credit for this product.

It was a bipartisan process in committee, as we heard last night in the Rules Committee. Many Republican amendments were adopted in the committee process, and I think Chairman Smith, again, and his staff deserve enormous credit for getting us to the point we are at here today.

I will say that I regret very much that the marching orders coming from the leaders of the Republican Conference are that all Republicans should vote against the NDAA bill, a bill that contains a pay increase for our troops, a bill that includes items that will protect and enhance our national security, a bill that will provide all the other things I have just mentioned.

I am sorry that the Republican leaders have decided to turn this into a partisan exercise, but they can do whatever they want.

Our job is to make sure this gets done and it gets moved forward in a timely fashion, and that is what we intend to do.

Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just take issue with the gentleman from Georgia when he talks about this as being a partisan process. From what I understand, in the Armed Services Committee, 142 Republican amendments were accepted, 142.

And the gentleman's facts are a little bit wrong when he says it was a straight party-line vote reporting the bill to the floor, unless Ms. Stefanik and Mr. Bacon have changed parties--I hope they did--because they voted to advance it. Everybody in that committee should have voted to advance it, but they did, and they deserve credit for that.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Republican leadership is telling all their Members, vote ``no'' on the final passage of the bill, and vote ``no'' on the rule, unlike my colleagues on the Republican side when they were in charge, who would routinely ask Democrats who came before the Rules Committee and offered amendments and they would say, if we make your amendment in order, will you vote for the bill?

Well, we didn't ask a single Republican that question last night. And we made 62 Republican amendments in order. There are 94 bipartisan amendments in order, and so we didn't do that.

If this ends up being a partisan vote on the rule, that is the choice of my colleagues on the Republican side. I think there is lots and lots of stuff in here that everybody should support.

Let me just say one other thing about the Consensus Calendar. My friend from Georgia is just beside himself that we are moving forward a bipartisan idea that has over 300 cosponsors, overwhelmingly bipartisan. Oh, it is terrible that you are putting it in the rule. It is terrible, terrible, terrible.

Well, let me say, what happened when they were in charge in the last Congress. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Yarmuth introduced a bill. I think there were 290-plus cosponsors on the bill. My Republican friends couldn't even be bothered last session with giving the bill a hearing. They didn't bring it to the floor for a vote. They could have brought it under suspension. They could have had it as an amendment to something. They could have put it in a rule if they wanted to. They didn't do anything.

And now that we are moving forward an idea that has broad bipartisan support, they can't handle it. They are having a meltdown on the other side of the aisle.

Well, you are obsessed with the process when you should be obsessed with the widows who would benefit from the enactment of this bill. But that is fine. That is fine.

The whole point of the Consensus Calendar was to be able to bring bipartisan ideas that had overwhelming support to move those ideas forward, and we praise Mr. Wilson and praise Mr. Yarmuth for their leadership on this.

But to carry on about that it is on a rule, and not at all be concerned about it becoming law really kind of shows the difference in our priorities.

Let me tell you that one of the reasons why we think it is important to put it on the NDAA bill is because we think is a must-pass piece of legislation. This will go to the Senate. I mean, obviously, there will be a conference report, and there will be back and forth and there will be changes and additions and it will come back. But we know that this bill, if it passes the House is going over to the Senate, whether you like it or not. It is going to the Senate.

If we brought it up here under a suspension, it would die in Mitch McConnell's graveyard, like everything else dies over in the Senate. He doesn't give a damn about this; if he did, he would have done something about it.

So I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but, quite frankly, I think that they are unfounded; and I think that, quite frankly, this is a rule that deserves the support of not just Democrats but Republicans as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I understand the frustration on the Republican side. They lost an election, and so they are not getting everything they want in terms of policy. Well, elections have consequences, and I will give you an example.

I oppose low-yield nuclear weapons, and I hope that that remains the policy, but we made an amendment in order that would allow them to reverse what was in the bill. I am going to fight to defeat it, but there will be a vote on that, and we will have to live with whatever the outcome is.

The bottom line is that, if it doesn't turn out your way, it doesn't mean the process is somehow partisan. That is what happens when you win elections. You don't win on every policy debate that you decide to engage in.

And let me just say one thing about the process and the procedure, because I think it is important for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to have a little bit of a fact check here.

Our friends like to point out the ratio of amendments, but that is a cherry-picked statistic that doesn't tell the whole story. To date, we have made in order more amendments, overall, than my Republican friends did when they were in charge. We have even made in order more minority amendments, to date, than the Republicans did last Congress.

By this time in the 115th Congress, a total of only 140 amendments were made in order. Of those, 89 were minority amendments. This year, we have made a total of 1,280 amendments in

order. That is nine times as many amendments as my Republican friends made in order at the same point in the last Congress. And we have made in order 256 minority amendments this year, which is more than double the number of minority amendments the Republicans made in order at this point in the 115th Congress.

You want to look at the statistics, there they are. And the bill that we are about to debate, we are making in order the most amendments, ever, of any bill brought to the floor.

Now, I guess we could do better than that, but the bottom line is the most amendments, ever, are being made in order on this NDAA bill--and, by the way, on any bill; not just NDAA, on any bill.

So I know it is frustrating to be in the minority. I was there not too long ago. I know it is frustrating not to win on every vote and to be able to rig every vote as my friends did when they were in charge, but the bottom line is, in this place, the majority, whoever has the most votes, wins. So in terms of the process, I think my friends protest too much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I regret very much that the gentleman is going to vote against a measure to repeal the widow's tax, and I will just remind him again that, when his party was in control of the Congress, they did nothing on this--nothing--no hearing last session, not a thing.

We had, in our rules package, this item called the Consensus Calendar that said that, when there are measures that have 290 cosponsors or more, where there is broad bipartisan support, that the Speaker will move the bill forward, and in this case, any way she wants to with moving it forward.

The gentleman should be really happy, quite frankly, that it is attached to the NDAA bill because this is a must-pass piece of legislation. It will go to the Senate, and there will be a conference.

I hope my Republican friends have some sway with the Republican leader over there, Mitch McConnell, and would urge him not to try to gut this provision from the final version of the bill. But it will go to conference, and the Senate will have to deal with it.

The reason why I know this is a must-pass bill is because one of the amendments that is in order here is an amendment that was a request to the Rules Committee from Minority Leader McCarthy, an amendment to authorize funding to assist military installations recovering from earthquakes and other natural disasters. I don't think he would be wasting his time trying to put that in a bill that he thinks is going nowhere.

This bill is going to the Senate, and then it is going to be up to my friends on the other side of the aisle to try to help join with us in convincing the Republican leadership in the Senate to stand with the House position on this.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, let me say for the Record, the widows were deprived in the last Congress when my Republican friends were in control. They did nothing.

Madam Speaker, I commend Mr. Wilson and Mr. Yarmuth for their efforts on this and getting broad bipartisan support, but quite frankly, the Republican leadership failed in the last Congress. They didn't do anything, period.

We are going to do something, and we are going to make the widows proud and we are going to move this legislation forward. I hope when we do, that we can all come together and join in a bipartisan moment where we can actually point to something concrete that will help these widows.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield to me, I am happy to respond to him.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I wrote the rule on this, and we intentionally left open how the process would proceed.

We are considering this bill and, therefore, we don't need to consider it twice or three times or four times, and that is why we are shutting the process off.

So we are complying with our rule. That was the intention when we wrote it, and we are keeping our word. We are breaking nothing. We are doing what we promised.

So we are bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor, and, hopefully, it will go to the Senate and become law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we are bringing forward legislation to repeal the widow's tax precisely because we have this rules change, this Consensus Calendar. We are bringing it forward, and it is going to be voted on.

The Republicans, who have been in charge for 8 years previously, had done nothing in the last Congress to even hold a hearing, and we are being scolded that we are bringing forward this bill? Give me a break.

In terms of amendments, we have made nine times as many amendments as my Republican friends made in order at the same point last Congress. We have made more minority amendments in order than they did in the same period in the last Congress. In fact, we have more than doubled the number of minority amendments.

So, please, spare me the crocodile tears on the process.

They ran this place in the most closed way possible. We are doing things differently, and we are proud of that.

Madam Speaker, we have already made 439 amendments in order. That is the most for any bill ever. But Christmas is coming early this year, and we have two more. In a moment, I will be offering an amendment to the rule to make in order two additional amendments, one by Representative Dingell and one by Representative Jayapal.

They will bring our total amendments to the bill to 441. That is a new record. We believe this is the most amendments ever made in order to a single bill.

While this isn't technically an open rule, it is a pretty open rule.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McGovern

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, despite the fact that the gentleman refused to yield to me earlier, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) to respond to this.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I reclaim my time, Madam Speaker. Enough.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We are making the most amendments ever in order for any bill that has been brought to this House floor. This is a good process. The underlying bill--the National Defense Authorization Bill--increases pay for our troops, and, as I mentioned earlier, will help repeal the widow's tax. The 9/11 bill is also a part of this package. There is no reason, other than just pure partisanship, to want to oppose this, and if my friends want to oppose it, they can.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that admonition. I promise you, you won't have to repeat that again on my time.

I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts yielding the time.

I had a whole wonderful opening statement planned, Madam Speaker. It was going to be our first time down here on the floor together during a rule.

Janet Rossi, on my team, put together all the great stats and statistics, many of which you heard my friend from Massachusetts reference.

And then, as happens to me so often on the Rules Committee, I show up in a good mood, I show up in a great place, and then folks just poke me in that way that gets me going.

For my friend from Massachusetts to close with the Republicans have turned this into a partisan exercise frustrates me to no end.

If there is one thing I have learned in my 9 years in Congress, Madam Speaker, it is that when it comes to American national security, it never gets turned into a partisan exercise.

I don't know how your election went, Madam Speaker, or what it was that your constituents said to you. Mine talked to me a lot about congressional dysfunction.

``Why can't they get anything done, Rob?''

``Why in the world can't you all get together and cooperate?''

And I always respond with the bill that we are looking at today, the National Defense Authorization Act. I say: In six decades of working, depending on who was in the White House, who was leading the House, who was leading the Senate, six decades of working on National Defense Authorization Acts that need to be passed every single year, how many times do you think we have actually successfully gotten that done together?

You know how that conversation goes, Madam Speaker.

``Rob, I think you guys have gotten it done once in 60 years.''

``Rob, I think it has happened 4 times, maybe 12 times.''

Madam Speaker, you know what I know, which is that, over these decades, every single year, without fail--it does not matter who is in the White House; it does not matter who leads the U.S. House; it does not matter who leads the United States Senate--we come together as a Nation to support our men and women who are standing on the frontlines for us.

So, no, this is not a partisan exercise today, nor should it be from the Republican side of the aisle.

But I am mystified, Madam Speaker, as to why we have taken what should have been this continuation of decade upon decade upon decade of bipartisanship and seemingly gone out of our way, as a new Democratic majority, to make it partisan.

I know the policy isn't. I know the policy isn't. I can go right down the line, man after woman, woman after man, on the Democratic side of the aisle and find patriots who love this country and who will do whatever it takes to defend it. That is the conversation we had in the Rules Committee last night.

But I will take you back to my freshman year in Congress, Madam Speaker. I came in with that rabid class of freshman Republicans, that largest freshman class in American history. You would think, if we were going to find partisanship, we would find it in that class.

We all came in on that big Tea Party wave, folks wanting to shake things up, change things. Do you know what the National Defense Authorization Act looked like coming out of committee that year?

It passed 60-1, Republicans and Democrats standing together. The year after that, 56-5. That is what my freshman year looked like: 60-1, 56- 5, Republicans and Democrats standing together on behalf of national security.

I don't know if you have looked at the vote from the Armed Services Committee, Madam Speaker. I know you are familiar. It was 33-24, straight party-line vote, coming out of committee this year.

In the Rules Committee last night up on the third floor, Madam Speaker, we finished up about midnight. I had the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee there talking about all the things that they agree on as it comes to national security, yet, to my friend from Massachusetts' point, the marching orders came down from somewhere that prevented them from doing what we have always done, and that is report a bill in a bipartisan fashion.

It has nothing to do with who leads this Congress, Madam Speaker.

About 12 years ago now, when the very first woman to ever hold the Speaker's chair took over--that would be 2007, Madam Speaker--we didn't bring the bill to the floor under a rule in a partisan fashion. We brought the bill to the floor under suspension.

Madam Speaker, that very first bill that was passed in the Pelosi Speakership passed 369-46 on the floor of the House; 369-46. Most of the no votes were Democrats voting against the new

Democratic Speaker of the House and the national security bill; 369-46.

The year after that, the last year of the new Speakership, the year right before I came, it passed 341-48.

Madam Speaker, I go through these big numbers to make the point that it didn't have to be this way. We went out of our way, it seems, as an institution, to divide on national security. I will just give you a few of those examples.

There are 439 amendments made in order, as my friend from Massachusetts pointed out, and I think we should celebrate that. But again, there were 683 amendments offered, so 250 Members were shut out.

Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity, under the new Consensus Calendar that my friend from Massachusetts referenced, to bring bipartisan legislation to the floor.

For folks who haven't been following that, the only way to get to the House floor is to have a committee report your bill. If committees don't report your bill, you can't get to the House floor unless you end up on the suspension calendar.

This new majority, this new Democratic majority, changed the rules in what I think is an amazingly positive and productive way. What they said is, if you bring together enough Democrats and Republicans to support your bill, we are going to have to give you a special pathway to the House floor for those consensus ideas that we want to celebrate together as an institution.

Madam Speaker, my friend, Joe Wilson from South Carolina has such a bill. It is a bill to support the widows and widowers of our fallen servicemen and women. He has worked this bill with my friend from Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, and this is the very first bill to have achieved, again, this new level of excellence that the new majority laid out. If you can bring people together we will give you a special pathway to the House floor. You get a vote on your bill.

I might point out that my friend from California, Ms. Lofgren, did this very same thing. She did it on a piece of immigration legislation that I am a cosponsor of. She put together the requisite number of Republicans and Democrats, and her bill is coming to the floor, too.

Now, her bill is coming to the floor today on suspension, stand- alone, up-or-down vote to allow Republicans and Democrats to come together and support that idea.

My friend, Mr. Wilson's bill, without his knowledge, without his consultation, without his input, has been tucked into this rule, this partisan rule, this passed-by-party-line-vote rule, to be self-enacted into the underlying legislation.

I expressed my frustration to the chairman last night; that so often we fail in ways that meet the very low expectations of our constituents. This was a wonderful, positive change that Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic majority brought to this institution. Madam Speaker, it is a change that I hope will be a lasting change. It is a change that I hope will persist no matter who sits in the Speaker's chair over the next decade upon decade.

But our very first opportunity to use it, we moved it from its design, which was to be an opportunity to celebrate those things that bring us together, those hard nuts that we figured out a way to crack together, and we have turned it into yet another exercise in ``gotcha'' partisan politics.

The men and women who will be served by this legislation deserve better than that. The men and women who serve in this institution deserve better than that. And when the new Democratic majority was sworn in on the first day of this Congress, they promised the American people better than that.

Madam Speaker, today won't be the last word on this issue; but it is the first word, and it is an unfortunate one.

I hope that my colleagues will be cognizant of this mistake that they have made, and I hope that they will correct it before it is too late.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for that second admonition. I did say you wouldn't have to use it again on my side of the aisle. I can commit to you that you still will not have to issue one on our side of the aisle.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I have become accustomed to your gentle gavel in the Budget Committee, and I appreciate its gentleness here on the floor, as well.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), whose bill you have been so instrumental in, as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You see the challenges that we are confronted with here. My friend from Massachusetts is telling my friend from South Carolina how my friend from South Carolina should get his bill to the United States Senate. There is no one who has worked harder on this issue than Mr. Wilson has. There is no one whose heart is in this issue more than Mr. Wilson's is.

I hope you listened carefully to his heartfelt words, because the key point that he made is that this really wonderful, bipartisan creation of the new Democratic majority, this Consensus Calendar, if we pass the rule today will be specifically turned off specifically for Mr. Wilson's bill.

The new majority can play whatever partisan games they want to, I wish they wouldn't, but they can, with the underlying bill by stuffing in self-enacting amendments, by adding amendments after the fact, all the games that majorities sometimes play, but the new rules that you voted for, Madam Speaker, that my friend from Massachusetts brags about on his website, rightfully so, because there were important changes in those rules, the very first time we have an opportunity to utilize those rules, Mr. Wilson's bill was ripened for consideration before the House this week, it is not simply that folks have stolen his language and tucked it into this partisan underlying piece of legislation, they have specifically in the rule today prohibited him from availing himself, and by himself, I mean hundreds of our colleagues and thousands of widows that they represent, from availing themselves of the new tool created by the new House majority this year.

I do not value the new majority's use of partisan tools in the NDAA, but I understand that is the right of a new majority.

My friend from Massachusetts is exactly right. When you lose elections, losing elections has consequences, but when you pass rules, passing rules has consequences, too.

I am going to be fascinated by what happens here in about an hour and a half when the members of the new majority are confronted with an opportunity to turn off the new bipartisan reforms they just codified in the House rules 6 months ago.

This should have been a day of celebrating a positive new change from a new administration, and instead, it is a day of playing politics with families that have already given much too much to the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts is right. We have made a lot of amendments in order in this bill today, but in the absence of an open rule, we are never able to consider all of the ideas.

One of the ideas we have not had a chance to consider is whether or not we should be doing business through the Department of Defense with companies that have a direct or indirect subsidiary company that is under the control of the Chinese Government or the Communist Party.

The ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thornberry, has such an amendment. If we defeat the previous question, Madam Speaker, I will offer that amendment, which does exactly that. It prohibits the Department of Defense from contracting with any company that is a direct or indirect subsidiary of a company in which the Chinese Government or the Chinese Communist Party has a controlling interest.

Now, on the list of things I would put on the common bipartisan list of ideas,

not doing business with communist China would be one. We have seen that over and over again. We are in the midst right now of ripping out security cameras all across this country manufactured by the Chinese as a result of a prohibition in last year's National Defense Authorization Act.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be included immediately prior to the previous question.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I am holding the Rules of the House here that say in rule XV, clause 7, paragraph (c), ``After a measure has maintained at least 290 cosponsors for a cumulative period of 25 legislative days after the presentation of a motion under paragraph (b)(1), the measure shall be placed on the Consensus Calendar. Such measure shall remain on the Consensus Calendar until it is'' either ``considered in the House; or'' . . . ``reported by the committee of primary jurisdiction.''

Does tucking a measure into the underlying bill, as the self-enacting amendment does today, satisfy the (c)(1) requirement that it be considered in the House?

Madam Speaker, the gentleman has only yielded me 30 minutes, but I would be happy to reserve so that the gentleman can respond.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts, I don't believe I have any further speakers remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed serving on the gentleman from Massachusetts' Rules Committee; I confess, not as much as I enjoyed serving on the gentleman from Texas' Rules Committee, but it is because when you are on the Rules Committee, there are nine members in the majority and four members in the minority.

Now, we have talked a lot of math, a lot of votes, a lot of numbers today, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what happens when you serve on a committee where there are nine majority members and four minority members, and the answer is, what happens is you lose, and you lose a lot.

That is the privilege of being in the majority. When the American people send a new Speaker and a new majority here, that new majority gets to craft the process however they want to.

When we crafted the process when I was in the majority, we gave the minority more amendments than we gave the majority, and we did that because majorities have powers as committee chairmen. They don't have to put everything on the amendment calendar. They can tuck it into a bill.

As the roles have been reversed, again my friend from Massachusetts is making in order a record number of amendments today. He is making in order five times more Democratic amendments, folks who already have all the tools of power, than he is minority Republican amendments.

Again, it is the power of the majority. They get to do that if they want to do that. Is it fair? Well, we didn't think so. That is why we did it differently. But if that is what the gentleman wants to do, he can do it.

But to tuck a bipartisan measure--and I don't mean ``bipartisan'' because one Member signed onto it or two Members signed onto it; I mean ``bipartisan'' because hundreds of Members signed onto it--into a measure that intentionally lifts one party up while putting its foot on the throat of amendments of the other party does not constitute bipartisanship by any stretch of the imagination.

When my friend from Massachusetts was talking about the rules package--and he is the author of the rules package. I stipulate, no one knows more about the rules package than he does.

His heart was in the right place when he added this new Consensus Calendar. He said this: ``It unrigs the rules so the people's House actually works for the people again. Americans demanded a new direction, and this rules package will immediately usher in a new era for this Congress.''

We are 6 months later, Madam Speaker, and we heard from the author of the bill that is the subject of contention today. We heard from the author, the one who has gone out to do all the heavy lifting, do all the work to build all the bipartisanship--again, not one Member or two Members, but hundreds of Members. He said he wanted to avail himself of the Consensus Calendar to get a vote on the floor of the House, an unbiased, unrigged vote because, as my friend from Massachusetts said, the new rules package ``unrigs the rules.''

Yet, before we have considered anything else on the Consensus Calendar this entire year--Mr. Wilson's bill is number one on that Consensus Calendar--we are confronted with a rule today that turns off the very provision that my friend from Massachusetts inserted in the House rules package to unrig the process.

I don't question the motives of any Member of this institution, Madam Speaker, and partisan motives are fair game around here. We all wish that they weren't, but occasionally, they are.

When my friend from Massachusetts says that he has done this, this unprecedented use of the Consensus Calendar and turning it off, he says he is doing it so that the bill has the best chance of passage in the Senate and becoming law by being signed on the President's desk. I take him at his word that he means exactly that.

But I ask you, Madam Speaker, when the author of the bill, the one who has done all the work, not just for a week, not for a month, but for years to get this bill to a place where it can be considered by the Senate, why in the world would we not honor his request, his wish, his desire? Even if they are going to tuck it into this provision, why not allow the Consensus Calendar to take its course and get him the vote that he has worked so hard in a bipartisan way to achieve? If this isn't about partisan politics, why not give us two bites at making this the law of the land instead of just one?

If my friend from Massachusetts is right, and when we take a separate vote on this bill on Friday, it just disappears into the ethos, then no harm, no foul. But if my friend is wrong and the partisan game that is being played today exacts a toll--and it is not a toll on us as Members of Congress, but it is a toll on the widows of the members of our Armed Forces--then we all know that is a game that has gone too far.

I urge rejection of this rule. Defeat the previous question, allow our amendment, reject this rule, and allow the bipartisanship that this new majority offered and then enacted to come to fruition for the very first time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I am a little confused about what has happened, Madam Speaker. Are we about to begin a new hour of debate on a new amendment after we just finished the hour of debate on the underlying rule?

Under the new hour, Madam Speaker?

Well, then I would ask my friend from Massachusetts--I only had 6 minutes to yield before, and I confess I did not yield any of them to my friend. The gentleman now has 60 minutes--could I ask for more than a minute of his time, the customary 30 minutes?

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 24.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 24 expresses the sense of Congress that any report Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivers to the Attorney General should be released to the public and to Congress. This concurrent resolution is important for several reasons.

First, transparency is fundamental to the special counsel process, especially when dealing with matters of national security involving the President.

In January 2017, the U.S. intelligence community unanimously reported that ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election'' and that ``Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.'' As a result of the importance of this charge and the clear conflict of interest in a matter involving the President, Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel by the Acting Attorney General ``in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome.''

This is why in the only other instance involving the appointment of a special counsel under the regulations, concerning the Waco tragedy, the special counsel's report was released in full by the Attorney General.

Second, this resolution is critical because of the many questions and criticisms of the investigation raised by the President and his administration. It is

important that Congress stand up for the principle of full transparency at a time when the President has publicly attacked the Russian investigation more than 1,100 times and counting. Among other things, the President has repeatedly referred to the investigation as a ``witch hunt'' and called it a ``hoax,'' ``rigged,'' and a ``scam.''

This resolution is also needed because high-ranking DOJ officials have indicated that they may not release information about individuals who are not indicted. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein stated last month that ``if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens.''

This normally salutary policy must not apply in the event the Department adheres to its policy that it cannot indict a sitting President. To maintain that a sitting President cannot be indicted no matter how much evidence there is because he is a sitting President, and then to withhold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the President cannot be charged, is to convert DOJ policy into the means for a coverup.

Third, releasing the Mueller report, even in its entirety, does not absolve the Department of Justice of its obligation to provide Congress with the underlying evidence uncovered by the special counsel. This expectation is well grounded in precedent set by the Department just in the last Congress in connection with three Republican-led investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails, the dismissal of former FBI Acting Director McCabe, and allegations of bias concerning the Russian investigation.

With respect to the investigation involving Secretary Clinton's emails, this included the Department of Justice releasing to Congress more than 880,000 pages of documents regarding the FBI's decisionmaking, identifying to Congress the names of career officials involved in the charging decision, identifying to Congress specific court cases relied on in the charging decision, and making numerous DOJ and FBI personnel available to Congress for transcribed interviews.

With respect to the dismissal of former Acting Director McCabe, this included releasing to Congress all documents relied on by the Office of Professional Responsibility in making its decision.

With respect to claims of bias in the Russian investigation, this included not only releasing to the public an otherwise classified foreign intelligence application, but also releasing to Congress: one, all underlying documents and communications involving the FISA applications; two, four memos detailing the former FBI Director's communications with the President; three, materials pertaining to classified briefings involving the Trump and Clinton Presidential campaigns; and four, making even more DOJ and FBI officials available for a total of 21 transcribed interviews and hearings.

These precedents make clear the obligation of the Department of Justice to release all evidence with respect to the Russian investigation.

A vote for this resolution will send a clear signal to both the American people and to the Department of Justice that Congress believes transparency is a fundamental principle necessary to ensure that government remains accountable to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this commonsense resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the sponsor of this legislation to ensure that the work of the special counsel is not suppressed and will offer valuable assistance on today's resolution.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the gentleman from Georgia implied a few

minutes ago, that we shouldn't be wasting our time on this because it only restates what the regulations require and the Judiciary Committee ought to be spending its time more productively, I simply want to say, first, that the Democratic House majority and the Judiciary Committee are not focused on the President to the exclusion of our legislative priorities.

In the 2 months since we organized, the Judiciary Committee has passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, through the House and has passed H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, through the House. H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, passed through the committee. We have passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, through the House.

The Judiciary Committee has also held a hearing to begin the process of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and held a hearing to examine the state of competition in the healthcare industry, as well as the T- Mobile-Sprint merger.

We have introduced H.R. 5, the Equality Act; H.R. 1327, the Never Forget the Heroes: Permanent Authorization of September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Act; and the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, the so-called Dreamers bill.

These are some of the things we have been doing besides looking into the possible misconduct by the President.

In closing, I would like to include the following items in the Record:

First, the U.S. Intelligence Community report concluding that Vladimir Putin ordered a misinformation campaign directed against the 2016 Presidential election and displayed a clear preference for then- candidate Donald Trump.

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

(January 6, 2017)

key judgments

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential

election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's

longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal

democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a

significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and

scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an

influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential

election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in

the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and

harm her electability and potential presidency. We further

assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear

preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence

in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to

help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible

by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting

her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this

judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment;

NSA has moderate confidence.

Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign

based on Russia's understanding of the electoral prospects of

the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that

Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian

influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her

future presidency.

Further information has come to light since Election Day

that, when combined with Russian behavior since early

November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of

Russian motivations and goals.

Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging

strategy that blends covert intelligence operations--such as

cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian Government

agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and

paid social media users or ``trolls.'' Russia, like its

Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert

influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that

have used intelligence officers and agents and press

placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to

the Kremlin.

Russia's intelligence services conducted cyber operations

against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential

election, including targets associated with both major US

political parties.

We assess with high confidence that Russian military

intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or

GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release

US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in

exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to

WikiLeaks.

Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to

elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS

assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or

compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

Russia's state-run propaganda machine contributed to the

influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin

messaging to Russian and international audiences.

We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-

ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to

future influence efforts worldwide, including against US

allies and their election processes.

Second, I include a February 22, 2019, letter to the Attorney General from six House committee chairs expressing the expectation that the Mueller report will be made public and that the Department will make the underlying investigative materials available to committees upon request.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 22, 2019.

Hon. William P. Barr,

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Attorney General: Recent reports suggest that

Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be nearing the end of his

investigation into ``any links and/or coordination between

the Russian government and individuals associated with the

campaign of President Donald Trump'' and other matters that

may have arisen directly from the investigation. As you know,

Department of Justice regulations require that, ``[a]t the

conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall

provide the Attorney General with a confidential report

explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached

by the Special Counsel.''

After nearly two years of investigation--accompanied by two

years of direct attacks on the integrity of the investigation

by the President--the public is entitled to know what the

Special Counsel has found. We write to you to express, in the

strongest possible terms, our expectation that the Department

of Justice will release to the public the report Special

Counsel Mueller submits to you--without delay and to the

maximum extent permitted by law.

There also remains a significant public interest in the

full disclosure of information learned by the Special Counsel

about the nature and scope of the Russian government's

efforts to undermine our democracy. To the extent that the

Department believes that certain aspects of the report are

not suitable for immediate public release, we ask that you

provide that information to Congress, along with your

reasoning for withholding the information from the public, in

order for us to judge the appropriateness of any redactions

for ourselves.

We also expect that the Department will provide to our

Committees, upon request and consistent with applicable law,

other information and material obtained or produced by the

Special Counsel regarding certain foreign actors and other

individuals who may have been the subject of a criminal or

counterintelligence investigation. This expectation is well-

grounded in the precedent set by the Department in recent

years. In other closed and pending high-profile cases

alleging wrongdoing by public officials, both the Department

and the FBI have produced substantial amounts of

investigative material, including classified and law

enforcement sensitive information, to the House of

Representatives.

Finally, although we recognize the policy of the Department

to remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests

of individuals who will not face criminal charges, we feel

that it is necessary to address the particular danger of

withholding evidence of misconduct by President Trump from

the relevant committees.

If the Special Counsel has reason to believe that the

President has engaged in criminal or other serious

misconduct, then the President must be subject to

accountability either in a court or to the Congress. But

because the Department has taken the position that a sitting

President is immune from indictment and prosecution, Congress

could be the only institution currently situated to act on

evidence of the President's misconduct. To maintain that a

sitting president cannot be indicted, and then to withhold

evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the President

will not be charged, is to convert Department policy into the

means for a cover-up. The President is not above the law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Rep. Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary.

Rep. Elijah Cummings,

Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Rep. Adam Schiff,

Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rep. Eliot Engel,

Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rep. Maxine Waters,

Chairwoman, House Committee on Financial Services.

Rep. Richard Neal,

Chair, House Ways and Means Committee.

Third, the introduction to the final report to the Deputy Attorney General concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Mount Carmel complex.

Introduction

This Report contains the findings of the Special Counsel in

response to the questions directed to him by Attorney General

Janet Reno in Order No. 2256-99, dated September 9, 1999. The

questions pertain to the 1993 confrontation between federal

law enforcement officials and the Branch Davidians at the Mt.

Carmel complex near Waco, Texas. The Report is issued

pursuant to Section (e) of Order No. 2256-99 which provides,

in relevant part, that the Special Counsel shall submit ``to

the maximum extent possible . . . a final report . . . in a

form that will permit public dissemination.''

The Office of Special Counsel has organized the Report in

the following format:

(I) a description of the Issues investigated by the Special

Counsel;

(II) the Conclusions of the Special Counsel;

(III) a description of the Investigative Methods used by

the Special Counsel;

(IV) a Statement of Facts relevant to the Special Counsel's

investigation;

(V) Exhibits to the text of the Report; and

(VI) Appendices that include a narrative summary of the

relevant beliefs and practices of the Branch Davidians, a

summary of expert findings, a chronological table of events,

and the reports of experts retained by the Office of Special

Counsel.

And fourth, the Department of Justice commentary interpreting the special counsel regulations.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that one reason for this resolution, given the fact that Mr. Barr, the Attorney General, has, in fact, said that he would want to release as much as possible--and we appreciate that statement--but he and Mr. Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, have both cited the Department policy not to comment on the conduct of someone not indicted.

That leads us to expect that a misapplication of the normal Department policy to a sitting President of not commenting on someone who is not indicted, the application of that normally good policy to a sitting President who the Department believes cannot be indicted because he is a sitting President, would, in fact, greatly limit the ability of the Department or the willingness of the Department to release information in the report to the Congress and to the public.

One of the reasons for this resolution is that we want to say, no, you cannot use that normally salutary policy to convert the Department's policy of never indicting a sitting President into a coverup that you can't comment or give to the Congress information about that.

If you can't indict a sitting President and you can't give the information to Congress, then you are holding the President above the law, and you are frustrating Congress' ability to do its job of holding an administration accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons stated by all the people who spoke in favor of this resolution, myself and everyone else, I urge adoption of the resolution. I urge everyone to vote for it. It is a very important resolution to maintain the rule of law in this country

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1327) to extend authorization for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 through fiscal year 2090, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today, this body will, for what I hope is the final time, meet its moral obligation to provide for survivors and responders suffering from 9/11-related illnesses.

This obligation is two-fold.

First, on September 11, 2001, it was not just the city of New York and the Pentagon that were attacked, it was the entire country. A national attack has always required a national response. That is why responders from around the country rushed to New York to aid in the rescue and recovery effort in the immediate aftermath. Today, sick responders and survivors live in all 50 States. This is a national problem, and Congress must provide a national solution.

Second, tens of thousands of responders and survivors are sick because the Federal Government, in its rush to get Wall Street reopened, ignored the evidence and the expert opinions of scientists. The then-head of the Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly assured us that the air around the World Trade Center was ``safe to breath.'' We knew it wasn't, but the Federal Government kept insisting it was.

And, compounding the Federal Government's culpability was its failure to conduct a comprehensive cleanup of the environmental disaster created when the World Trade Center towers collapsed. For example, the EPA administrator told the public that asbestos could be cleaned from apartments with a damp cloth and a wet mop.

Based on these false assurances, students were sent back to schools that had been contaminated with the toxic dust cloud without ventilation systems being cleaned first. People kept working to clear the pile for months with no protective equipment. Quite simply, the Federal Government lied, and now tens of thousands of people are sick with 9/11-related illnesses. It now falls to us--in the words of Abraham Lincoln--``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan.''

Three times, Congress has come together to provide a health program and compensation for the victims of 9/11 through a victim compensation fund, or VCF. Most recently, in 2015, we made the World Trade Center Health Program effectively permanent, extended to 2090, but reauthorized the VCF, the victim compensation fund, for only 5 years.

As we heard in a Judiciary Committee hearing last month, a 5-year authorization was not nearly long enough. People are still getting sick as diseases, such as cancer, often emerge only after long latency periods. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, in the coming years, cancer claims will represent 63 percent of all claims before the VCF, up from 44 percent today.

Further, as the number of sick responders and survivors continues to rise, the limited resources Congress provided to the VCF have proven inadequate and now thousands of families are facing up to 70 percent cuts in compensation.

I refuse to accept that. Every sick responder and survivor should be treated with the same dignity and compassion, regardless of when they became sick, and no one should be forced to spend their last days walking the Halls of Congress begging us to reauthorize this program.

That is why we are here today, to pass what I hope will be the last authorization we ever need for the VCF.

This bipartisan legislation, with over 330 cosponsors, will reverse all of the cuts in compensation and make those families whole. It will extend the authorization for the VCF through 2092, substantially the same timeline as the World Trade Center Health Program, and make technical improvements to the program.

We have asked so much of our responders and survivors. It is time for us to give them the peace of mind they deserve and pass this bill once and for all.

Finally, I want to take a moment to recognize the three men after whom we named this bill.

James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez passed away after battling 9/11-related illnesses. A month ago, Detective Alvarez testified before the Judiciary Committee, just 24 hours before what was supposed to be his 69th chemotherapy treatment, a treatment he, ultimately, was too sick to receive. Two weeks ago, he passed away.

Like every responder and survivor of 9/11, these three men kept fighting for this program, even when they knew it was too late for them. That is the spirit of 9/11. This bill is now their namesake, and we vote today in their name.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), one of the chief sponsors of the bill.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House, someone who has done more for this than anyone else. Without the gentlewoman's strong support, this bill never would have passed back in 2010.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who is the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Madam Speaker, I have one more speaker, and then I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, 9 years ago, I stood here and called up for consideration the original 9/11 bill, the James Zadroga Act.

I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Majority Whip Clyburn for their roles in passing that bill, and now for moving us as quickly as possible to get this bill done.

I also want to thank my colleagues from New York, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), for standing with me in this fight for so long, and to thank all the advocates, many of whom are here today, who have given so much and have worked so hard to pass this bill.

Finally, I want to thank Lisette Morton, my longtime legislative director and director of policy planning and member services for the Committee on the Judiciary, who is leaving my team at the end of this month after nearly 20 years.

Lisette worked for me on September 11, 2001, and she was tireless in her efforts to get a proper detoxification and cleanup after the attack in New York and to hold the EPA accountable for its failures. Without her fierce advocacy and dedication, there would be more victims today, and we would not be here considering this bill today. She will be greatly missed by this institution, by my staff, and by me.

Now, Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

She will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I now urge all my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this resolution, but as a matter of time and coming through this week, I have 30 minutes, so I might as well talk about a resolution that is a restatement of the regulation. I want to provide some background on the special counsel's regulations.

Special Counsel Mueller is operating under a different regulatory framework from the independent counsel statute that gave us the Starr report.

The Clinton administration Justice Department, which was led by Attorney General Janet Reno, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, and Neal Katyal, drafted the special counsel regulations in effect today. They established a regulatory framework that gives the Attorney General flexibility.

Attorney General Barr has a few options when he receives the information from Mr. Mueller. He can give Congress the complete report or a summary, or he can simply tell Congress that the Mueller investigation has concluded.

The Clinton administration regulations do not require a full report to Congress. However, during his confirmation, Attorney General Barr said he wants to be ``transparent'' with Congress and the public ``consistent with the rules and the law.'' I have no reason to think Attorney General Barr would back away from those statements he made before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe he is truthful and will be truthful to his word to make as much public as he possibly can.

The American people should not expect another Starr report. The Clinton Justice Department made sure another President would not have salacious stories aired before the American people. Janet Reno herself testified before Congress in 1999 that it was a bad idea for independent counsels to publish final reports.

Many Members of the Democratic majority in Congress today voted against the public release of materials related to the Starr report.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a narrative related to a roll call vote from the 105th Congress. For the Record, I note that the following Democratic Members voted against the release of the Starr materials: Speaker Pelosi, Majority Whip Clyburn, Chairman Nadler, Chairman Cummings, Chairman Engel, Chairman Waters, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Markey, Chair Lofgren, and Chairman Neal, among others.

It is amazing that we have now changed our perspective on that, in light of a Republican in the White House.

Again, this resolution simply, basically, restates the regulations that are currently in place that were written under the Clinton Department of Justice. It is going to go forward. The new Attorney General has said he wants to make as much public to the American people as he legally can.

I believe in transparency. I believe that there are many other things we could be working on, but I am happy to support a resolution that is actually just a restatement of the regulatory burden already placed upon the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how about engaging in personalities against the sitting Attorney General? You are saying that he was appointed for a reason.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Is it not also directed at the House to not also impugn the integrity and the character of a sitting Cabinet member?

I wouldn't want to do it either, Mr. Speaker.

Offer? Can you offer it? You said you were able to offer an advisory opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I continue my parliamentary inquiry.

I made a parliamentary inquiry concerning a Cabinet member, not the President. I understand your advisory opinion against the President. I fully agree with it. I am asking about a member of the Cabinet.

Wow.

Wow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for enlightening us on that. It is okay, basically, if you impugn the integrity of a sitting member of the Cabinet. I guess we just learned something new today. That is encouraging. As far as Members of the House, I get that it is not in the rules, but it also shouldn't be a part of this debate.

This is a simple resolution. It simply restates the regulation. Don't make it any more or any less than what it is. That is why we are here. We are going to approve this, we are going to vote for it, but let's not make it any more than what it is. Let's continue on so we can get a vote, everybody can go home, and maybe we will come back and actually vote on legislation that actually matters.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know, maybe I need to make the talking points to the other side clear. I agreed on Monday that I was voting for this. We are not opposing this, because it is simply a restatement of the regulation. I know that it is fashionable to think that we are not. So, again, I am sorry, I could have maybe made the talking points more clear at Rules that I was voting for this so we could have saved extra time on some of the discussion here.

Mr. Speaker, again, we will continue to go through this, and, at this point, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said today, and it is interesting to me--I think this is the funny part of this, because so many times we would come up here and we retreat to our partisan sides and we say, I am going to be a ``yes''; you are going to be a ``no.''

The sad part about it is the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), my colleague, I said ``yes'' on Monday night. I said ``yes'' to the resolution on Monday night. Yet it seems like somehow, through the process: Well, we need everybody to come together.

We have talked about this. It is nothing but a restatement of the regulation.

Attorney General Barr will follow the regulation. He has said so. He has been in committee, and during his time of confirmation, he has said so.

I think what we need to understand here, and maybe we also need to throw this out here, and maybe this is something because I have heard a lot of my colleagues across the aisle talk about what they believe should be in this report. Well, maybe I have a problem and maybe a news flash to give them: What happens when it comes back and says none of this was true, the President did not do anything wrong? Then the meltdown will occur.

I heard probably, earlier, just one of my colleagues actually on the other side stated that the elections has thrown chaos into the system. No, the reason the election has thrown chaos is because President Trump won and the Democratic candidate didn't know where Wisconsin was. You all remedied that this time, though. The Democratic candidate for President will actually have been to Wisconsin by the election day next time.

There are other reasons to do this. Transparency is good.

As we go forward, my hope would be, on this issue, let's let the report be given to the Attorney General. Let's let the Attorney General do the regulations and follow the regulations and give as much as he has said in his confirmation hearing: that he wants to be transparent, he wants to be a part, he wants this to come out, because he understands the questions and the turmoil that this has caused.

So I have nothing to believe that this would not be true. There is nothing that has been presented here today to think that it wouldn't be true. That is what makes this resolution even more amazing to me: Nothing has been presented that Mr. Barr would not do what the regulations say.

Now, there may be more on it and everything else, but let's talk about what actually the resolution says, and that is what it says.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say thank you to the chairman. I appreciate it. Mr. Hurd was on his way over here. I did my best song and dance. It didn't last long enough. I am from the South. I am bad because I can't dance that well. So I appreciate the gentleman giving him that moment.