Equality Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 377 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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 be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 377, providing for consideration of H.R. 5 under a closed rule, with 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 312 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Lastly, this resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 987 under a structured rule, with 90 minutes of general debate, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Twenty-seven amendments are made in order.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for three important pieces of legislation: H.R. 987, H.R. 312, and H.R. 5.

H.R. 987 is the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act, a package of several bills, many of them bipartisan, that went through the House Energy and Commerce Committee under regular order. This bill combines three key bills to lower drug costs by promoting generic competition and four key bills to strengthen healthcare, reverse the sabotage of the ACA by this administration with respect to marketing and outreach, and rescind the Trump administration's efforts to promote junk plans that lack the protections of the Affordable Care Act.

The American people are justifiably demanding action by Congress to make prescription drugs more affordable. Prices are so high that recent data show 24 percent of Americans didn't fill a prescription in the past year due to high costs.

My constituents have been vocal in demanding action on drug pricing, patients like Bill, a senior with diabetes who attends my church, parents like Sarah with children who have special health needs. Folks like these need help now.

This package would lower costs by banning anticompetitive practices that large drug companies employ to keep generics off the market.

This bill will also tackle many of the reasons we have seen enrollment

through the Affordable Care Act decline in recent years.

Since coming into office, President Trump has cut paid advertising and outreach efforts for healthcare exchanges by 90 percent. This wanton political decision to cut these efforts is but one part of the administration's attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

Furthermore, lack of transparency on the part of Health and Human Services around funding levels for outreach plan enrollment rates and other vital statistics has created an information vacuum on the performance of the ACA.

Greater transparency is required in order for Congress to hold the administration accountable for its efforts to defund education and outreach for the Affordable Care Act.

Second, we have H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. This important bill recognizes and respects the Tribal sovereignty of the Mashpee Wampanoag, a Tribe that has inhabited New England for over 12,000 years and, in fact, welcomed the Pilgrims to the new world.

This legislation has strong bipartisan support in Massachusetts among other Tribal nations and with Tribal allies in Congress. Had President Trump not tweeted about this bill last week, it would have likely passed on suspension and been sent to the Senate for consideration. The members of this Tribe cannot wait any longer for recognition, and we need to pass this critical legislation without further delay.

Finally, Madam Speaker, this is a week that will be remembered in our history books because, at long last, this body is taking up consideration of the Equality Act. Forty-five years ago this week, the legendary Congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the first version of the Equality Act, a bill that will give full legal protections to LGBTQ people all across our country.

This version of the Equality Act that we consider today is the result of years of careful legislative drafting and amends existing civil rights laws to provide protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in key areas of public life: employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded programs, and jury service.

Additionally, the Equality Act updates the public spaces and services covered in current law to include retail stores, services such as banks, legal services, and transportation services. These important updates will strengthen existing protections for everyone.

The journey to this final version of the Equality Act was led by a man who is a history maker in his own right, co-chair of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congressman David Cicilline from Rhode Island.

Congressman Cicilline worked with lawyers and advocates from the left and the right, religious groups, and myriad civil rights groups to make sure that the language of the Equality Act achieved full legal equality while doing nothing to undermine existing civil rights protections for other marginalized groups.

The resulting bill is supported by 130 of the largest employers in the country, our largest labor unions, and hundreds of organizations, including, to name just a few, the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Women's Law Center, the Episcopal Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the United Church of Christ.

Most importantly, it is supported by a clear and overwhelming majority of the American people. Seventy-one percent of Americans support legislation like the Equality Act to protect LGBTQ people against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Rarely does Congress have the chance to take up legislation so clearly supported by our constituents. That is probably why, since the day that Congressman Cicilline first introduced this version of the Equality Act in 2015, it has always earned bipartisan support and currently has Republican cosponsors in both the House and the Senate.

The clear majority of both this Chamber and the American people recognize that, for far too long, LGBTQ people have faced discrimination with no Federal legal recourse. It is beyond dispute that LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and especially transgender women of color, face discrimination across this country.

This is a personal issue for me. It has been personal since my baby sister came out to me about 40 years ago.

For many people in this country, that is when the fight hits home. It gets personal when someone you love says, ``This is who I am,'' and you know and value that person, and you will do whatever you can to make sure that your loved one can live life to the fullest, free from hate and discrimination.

I am sad to say that my home in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is one of the 30 States that defies the will of its people by not having legal protections for LGBTQ people. The idea that my sister, someone who put her life on the line for our country when she served in the armed forces, could drive across State lines and lose protections is heartbreaking.

The Equality Act ends the patchwork of State laws and creates uniform nationwide protections. LGBTQ people won't have to worry that being transferred to another State by their employer or needing to move home to take care of ailing parents will cause them to lose civil rights protections. From sea to shining sea, LGBTQ people will have the security and stability that comes from knowing that if they face discrimination, they have legal recourse.

It is also important to note what the Equality Act does not do. The Equality Act does not impinge on religious liberty. Religious liberty is a cornerstone value of our Constitution and our country. Religious organizations are able to prefer their own members and their version of morality in hiring for religious positions such as ministers, rabbis, or schoolteachers. The Equality Act does nothing to change that.

The Equality Act clarifies what has long been held, though, that religious freedom laws do not create an exemption to civil rights laws. Just like a person can't use a claim of religious freedom to refuse to sell a house to an interracial couple, under the Equality Act, LGBTQ families will be protected from discrimination, regardless of its motivation.

Consider the stakes facing LGBTQ people too often across this country. A same-sex couple walks into a restaurant. They hired a babysitter to look after their young children and are hoping to have a relaxing night out. They are seated and looking at the menu when the manager comes over and tells them they have to leave. They are not welcome there.

This kind of insecurity and humiliation occurs on a daily basis across this country. In 30 States, the couple would have no legal recourse. Often, humiliation is just the tip of the iceberg.

Same-sex couples are far more likely to be denied housing. Qualified and high-performing transgender people are more likely to be fired from their jobs. LGBTQ young people face rejection, homelessness, and discrimination in school, denying them an education. These injuries compound and lead to poverty, homelessness, and violence.

The impact is felt hardest by transgender women of color, who confront racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and gender-identity discrimination. The intersection of these forms of discrimination can even be deadly, as it was for Shantee Tucker, a transgender woman of color from Philadelphia who was murdered last fall.

The protections provided by the Equality Act give LGBTQ people an equal chance at the American Dream. While discrimination and rejection have ended the lives of too many transgender people, many are succeeding, despite discrimination.

In Pennsylvania, Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, serves in the Governor's cabinet as secretary for health. Mara Keisling, a Pennsylvania native, is the founder and executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality and a pioneer for civil rights protections. Danica Roem, the first transgender State legislator, serves in the Virginia House of Delegates. LaLa Zannell is fighting violence in New York City. Raffi Freedman-Gurspan was the first openly transgender White House staffer. Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, who was at Stonewall, has spent her life fighting to end

the over-incarceration of transgender people. The list goes on and on.

I am proud that the House will finally act to provide Federal protections to LGBTQ people with passage of the Equality Act. The fight for equal rights is far from over, but I am proud to be part of a majority that prioritizes equal treatment for all of its citizens, regardless of whom they love.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just note that, with respect to H.R. 5, we had regular order. H.R. 5, the Equality Act, went through the Committee on the Judiciary. It had a hearing, and then we also had a markup. This is a new process, apparently, since the last Congress. And then, of course, we had the Rules hearing last night.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

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

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record four letters, first, a letter from the National Partnership for Women & Families urging support; second, a letter from the Human Rights Campaign, also urging support for H.R. 5; third, a letter from the American Federation of Government Employees; and finally, a letter from several civil rights groups, all urging support for H.R. 5.

National Partnership

for Women & Families,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2019.

Dear Representative: The National Partnership for Women &

Families is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that has

fought for decades to advance the rights and well-being of

America's women and families. We work to foster a society in

which workplaces are fair, equitable and family friendly;

where everyone has access to quality, affordable health care,

including reproductive health care; and where every person

has the opportunity to achieve economic security and live

with dignity.

We write to voice our strong support for the Equality Act

(H.R. 5) and to urge you to vote YES on this groundbreaking

legislation. We also urge you to vote NO on any motion to

recommit that may be offered to undermine or alter the

Equality Act or otherwise harm civil liberties.

Despite significant progress, lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people still face considerable

discrimination and lack necessary protections across the

country. While some states have enacted laws that protect

against discrimination, the patchwork nature of these

protections means that millions of people continue to face

harassment, exclusion and uncertainty that negatively impact

their safety, their day-to-day lives, their families and

their ability to participate fully in society.

Part of achieving our nation's promise of equality, dignity

and fairness is ensuring that all people, regardless of

sexual orientation or gender identity, have equal opportunity

to succeed. No one should have access to services or doors to

opportunity closed because of outdated gender stereotypes

about how people should act, look or behave. This requires

stronger national nondiscrimination protections based on sex,

sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Equality Act is historic civil rights legislation that

would amend and supplement the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

other key federal nondiscrimination laws that provide

protection from discrimination on the basis of race, color,

national origin or religion. This legislation would

strengthen protections from discrimination on the basis of

sex, and add critical new protections from discrimination on

the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Specifically, it would provide clear, explicit protection

against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender

identity in education, employment, housing, credit, federally

funded programs and federal jury services. These protections

are essential in ensuring that LGBTQ people have the right to

live with dignity and equality.

While the primary focus of the Equality Act is on LGBTQ

people, the Act would also close longstanding gaps in federal

law and provide important new legal protections for all women

by, for the first time, prohibiting discrimination on the

basis of sex in public spaces and services and in all

federally-funded activities. This means that, for example,

when women experience harassment as customers in restaurants,

stores, hotels, taxis or airports, there will now be a

remedy. The law will also ensure that breastfeeding parents

aren't excluded from or treated less favorably in public

places just for feeding their children, and it will make

clear that pharmacies can't refuse to fill a woman's birth

control prescription.

The bill's provisions that would ensure that sex does not

stand as a barrier to full participation in federally funded

programs or activities will mean, for example, that a

developer with a federal grant couldn't discriminate against

women-owned businesses in its contracting. Women would also

have new tools to challenge a police department's

systematically inadequate response to sexual violence and

intimate partner violence, if the police department received

federal funds; and would be able to challenge denials of

reproductive health care where a federally-funded entity

otherwise provides comparable or comprehensive health care.

These protections against sex discrimination are a critical

step forward in advancing women's equality in this country.

As a leading national women's rights organization we also

feel compelled to state emphatically that the Equality Act's

protections for transgender and gender nonconforming people

in no way undermine the rights or protections afforded to

women and do not jeopardize women's safety or their ability

to participate fully or equally in sport or in any other

aspect of our society. Transgender women are women, and any

attempt to mischaracterize their gender identity or suggest

that they are trying to ``take advantage'' of protected class

status fundamentally misunderstands the reality of

transgender people's lives and experiences. Furthermore, it

causes real harm to the more than one million Americans who

identify as transgender, a population already subject to high

rates of violence and abuse, negative mental and physical

health outcomes, and experiences with discrimination and

stigmatization.

The Equality Act is a long-overdue step forward in

extending civil rights protections to millions of women and

LGBTQ people. Establishing clear protections is critical at a

time when vulnerable communities are

under attack. The Equality Act would provide a consistent,

national standard and ensure that everyone has the

opportunity to live safely and with dignity, to advance at

work, to provide for one's family and to thrive economically.

Sincerely,

National Partnership for Women & Families.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

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

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a list of 364 organizations endorsing the Equality Act, as well as a list of companies supporting H.R. 5 who employ over 9.8 million workers in the United States.

Madam Speaker, today we will move forward on three pieces of legislation whose timely consideration is long overdue. We will move to protect Americans' access to health insurance; provide much-needed relief on prescription drug prices; provide Federal recognition to a Native American community; and at long last, pass the Equality Act, to remove the burden of discrimination and move us closer to a country where members of the LGBTQ community have an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

The Equality Act will not be the end of our long journey towards full LGBTQ equality, but it will finally get

our laws in line with the values our country was founded upon. As was recognized in our founding documents, we must continually take steps to make our country more perfect.

Acknowledging in law the challenges facing LGBTQ people, and taking concrete action to correct them, brings us one step closer to that perfect union.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

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

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

We, Madam Speaker, are here today on three very different pieces of legislation, which, unfortunately, makes this a complicated rule. One of our bills concerns civil rights, one concerns healthcare, and one concerns Native Americans. I will move through each of these bills relatively quickly, and then I want to address the process we followed to get here today.

The first bill, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5, is a complicated and complex piece of legislation that would make sweeping changes to our Nation's civil rights laws, if enacted. In general, the bill adds the terms ``sexual orientation'' and ``gender identity'' to the list of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act, joining classes like race, gender, religion, and national origin.

As I noted in our hearing yesterday, most Republicans in the House will oppose this bill not because we do not believe that all people should receive equal treatment under the law but because we have real concerns about how this bill will work in practice. A term like ``gender identity'' has such a vague definition that even proponents of the bill do not agree on exactly what the term means.

That should cause legislators to be especially thoughtful and provide clarity about what the term means and how the law will be applied. But we have not done so here.

Republicans have raised numerous questions about how this bill will work in practice. Will female athletes in junior high, high school, and college be forced to compete in women's athletics against competitors who were born biologically male? Will female sexual assault victims be forced to share vulnerable same-sex spaces like locker rooms and dressing rooms with other individuals who were born biologically male? And since the legislation appears to allow people to define their own gender identity, will it allow people to shift back and forth between gender as it suits them?

These are not rhetorical questions. They are real concerns that we have raised, with good reason, throughout the process.

H.R. 5 is known as the Equality Act, and I know every Member of the House, Republican and Democrat, agrees with the principle that all people should be treated equally under the law. But even as we strive toward that goal, when we are dealing with legislation of this magnitude, we must consider how the bill will work in practice.

Unfortunately, I don't think my friends in the majority have clear answers to very legitimate questions. Last night, during debate at the Rules Committee, our concerns were dismissed as we were told that the courts and administrative bureaucrats would sort out these unanswered issues. That is simply unacceptable.

Why would we want any ambiguity when it comes to a person's civil rights? We should be very clear about congressional intent, and the only way to do that is to write a law the way you intend for it to be carried out. Sadly, this bill falls well short of that certainty.

The second bill, H.R. 987, is actually seven bills: three genuinely bipartisan bills addressing prescription drug costs and four partisan and controversial bills addressing ObamaCare.

As I pointed out last night in our hearing, I don't particularly understand what the majority is trying to accomplish here. There are three bills that are all bipartisan that could easily progress to becoming law. I am even a cosponsor of one of those bills. Yet, I have to vote against the entire package because I do not support the partisan and controversial bills attached by Democrats.

Madam Speaker, at some point, the majority needs to decide if they are here to score political points or if they are here to govern. If they want to continue scoring rhetorical victories, then by all means, they should keep doing what they are doing, keep putting up partisan bills that won't go anywhere in the Senate and won't be signed into law, keep putting up messaging bills for the purpose of signaling to their primary voters, and keep spending their days engaged in show votes that won't ever improve the lives of those they were elected to represent.

If they want to govern for the American people, then the majority must move forward with real legislation that can get real support here, in the Senate, and at the White House.

We had the chance to do that with this package. The majority chose not to do so. I think that is a real missed opportunity for us, both as an institution and as a country.

Finally, the third bill, H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act, is a matter I want to discuss at some length because I think there has been, frankly, a lot of misinformation put out about this particular piece of legislation.

The Mashpee Wampanoag is a federally recognized Tribe based in Mashpee, Massachusetts. H.R. 312 would simply reaffirm the taking of land into trust for the benefit of this Tribe.

When the Federal Government takes land into trust for a Tribe, it is reserving that land for the benefit of the Tribe and Tribal members both now and into the future. It ensures that the Tribes have a home, that they have a stable place to build communities and to marshal their resources and conduct business. It ensures that the land that was promised to Tribes, and that was held by those Tribes, in many cases for many centuries, remains in Tribal hands.

Holding land in trust is a commitment made to Tribes by the Federal Government. It affirms Tribes will continue to be able to exercise sovereignty over their own land. That is really all this issue is about today, whether or not the Mashpee Wampanoag will be able to exercise their own sovereignty over their own land.

Unfortunately, some who oppose this bill are doing so because they are viewing this issue through a purely political lens rather than what our own Constitution says about Tribal sovereignty. This isn't a bill about a particular use for the land, and it isn't a bill about particular Members of this institution or the Senate. Instead, this is a bill about keeping Federal promises to Tribes.

Our country hasn't always kept those promises, and we have an opportunity today to step up and make clear that regardless of what happened in the past, today, the Federal Government keeps its promises to Tribes, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Before I close, I would like to make a couple of points about the process this week, particularly on the Equality Act and the healthcare issue.

On the Equality Act, 35 amendments were proposed. I thought that many, if not most, of these should have been considered on the floor. Yet, in the final rule, not one amendment was made in order, and we are considering this bill under a closed rule.

The majority is choosing not to make in order many amendments that deserve our consideration on the floor, like Ms. Holmes Norton's amendment to clarify that Washington, D.C., residents cannot be excluded or disqualified from jury service based on sexual orientation or gender identity, or the bipartisan amendment that would restore the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to this bill, or Representative Johnson's commonsense amendment clarifying that nothing in the act should be construed as to deny parents the right to be involved in their minor child's medical care. These are all deserving amendments that should have been heard on the floor, and yet the majority chose to make precisely none in order.

On H.R. 987, the majority went in a different direction. In total, 51 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and 15 of those were sponsored by Republicans. Yet with today's rule, 27 amendments were made in order, but just one amendment was made in order that was sponsored by a Republican, along with one bipartisan

manager's amendment--one out of 15. All the remaining amendments, 92 percent of those made in order, were sponsored solely by Democrats.

Madam Speaker, I think we can do better than that.

Last week, I reminded the House that when my party was in charge of the last Congress, we went out of our way to make minority and bipartisan amendments in order. Forty-five percent of all amendments made in order in the last Congress were sponsored solely by Democrats, while a further 17 percent were bipartisan.

As of today's rule, the stats are looking much worse for the current majority. Seventy-three percent of all amendments made in order were solely sponsored by Democrats through May 14. Thirteen percent are bipartisan. Just 14 percent were sponsored by Republicans.

We had an opportunity today, particularly on H.R. 5 and H.R. 987, to take steps toward remedying this issue.

I must continue to encourage my good friend, and he is my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, to work with us to make more bipartisan and minority amendments in order and to ensure that all Members, regardless of party, have an opportunity to be heard on the floor, as he has often promised.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself a few seconds to respond to my friend from Pennsylvania.

We don't consider the markup in committee a very good markup. Only four amendments were considered, none were accepted, and, frankly, a number of Members seeking recognition for amendments were not recognized. So to think that this was anything other a train moving through a station, I think, is to mischaracterize how that particular markup worked.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, fellow member of the Rules Committee, and also a leading member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for just a few minutes to respond to my good friend, the chairman. I want to tell you, there is nobody I hold in higher regard in the House of Representatives than Chairman McGovern, nobody I consider a better personal friend, nobody I consider a more responsible Member.

On this, we disagree. The gentleman is right, neither side is perfect. In this case, we are going to bring attention to this amendment issue until we see results. That is precisely what my friend did when he was in the minority, and there are some times we should have listened to him and we did not.

In this case, I think the imbalance is so egregious that we are going to continue to make that case until we see a change. Maybe we won't. Hopefully we will, because I know my friend approaches this with good intentions.

Secondly, I would say this bill was so important, the Equality Act, it ought to have amendments. That is the point. That is how you build consensus. I think they are missing the opportunity to get a lot of people who would support the basic concept that they are trying to advance.

And, finally, on the drug bill, I have just got to be honest with you. When they had a chance to pass something that would work and chose to bundle it with something that they knew couldn't pass, that makes me wonder how serious they are about dealing with that problem.

But, hopefully, we will get an opportunity to deal with that again. And that is an area we know we can work together on. We have proved it in committee.

So, with that, I look forward to continuing to work with my good friend, the chairman. I know that we will occasionally have differences. That is what this is all about. We will work those differences out.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my very good friend, who also is a distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to inform the House that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019.

This bill includes four titles, three of which passed the House last Congress, and one of which has already passed the House this Congress on suspension.

My amendment will also include three additional provisions agreed to by the Senate when they considered their version of this bill, so that what we will debate will be identical to what the Senate passed with an overwhelming majority vote in February.

The most critical title of H.R. 336, in my opinion, is the Combating BDS Act of 2019, which will allow a State or local government to adopt measures to divest assets from entities using boycotts, disbursements, or sanctions to influence Israel's policy.

Madam Speaker, yesterday was the 71st anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. I can think of no better way to celebrate Israel's independence, reaffirm our support for Israel, and indicate our ongoing commitment to a peaceful and more secure Middle East than to consider and pass H.R. 336 immediately.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to urge opposition to the rule. The majority has proposed three different measures today, and while I am a supporter of the bill concerning Tribal rights, I am opposed to H.R. 5 and H.R. 987, and I regret that.

Quite frankly, had the process on these bills been different, I think the vote that we would see in this Chamber would be very different today. I think, literally, a more fulsome and more open process and amendments on H.R. 5 might have unlocked dozens of additional votes for that legislation.

I think with H.R. 987 we don't have to speculate. We know three of those bills passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee with unanimous, bipartisan support, all of them dealing with drug prices. That would have been an easy vote. We could have moved that through.

My friends could have still brought the other four matters that they cared about under a rule, brought it to the floor. They have got the votes to move it. It would have precisely the same prospects of success it is going to have in the United States Senate.

The President has already made it clear, since he issued a statement, that he is very likely to veto it if it were to make it to his desk. So why in the world we threw away an opportunity to do some good for the American people in an area where we agree, in order to advance something that we know cannot become law, is mystifying to me, to say the least.

Again, H.R. 5 is well-intentioned and designed to expand civil rights, but it also adds a term with no clear definition to our civil rights laws without regard for how it will work in practice.

H.R. 987 has four bills that are unacceptable, three bills that are eminently acceptable. I do want to close though on a positive note.

Madam Speaker, I do applaud my friends for bringing the Native American issue to fruition today. I am going to be opposing them on the rule but supporting them on that legislation. I think it was a very wise decision to put it under a rule, quite frankly, and I applaud my good friend Chairman Grijalva for working with my good friend Chairman McGovern and making sure that that happened. This important piece of legislation, which, quite frankly, is important not just to the Tribe in question, but establishes the principle that we won't let land going into trust be taken out of trust, is very important.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for being here today and covering for us.

Madam Speaker, again, we have talked about this: The Democrats in this bill are pushing something quickly. We have talked about this many times and sometimes I just want to talk about this because I feel that, however well-intentioned the bill is, it is not coming under full scrutiny. After considering only four members in the committee and rejecting each of them, including three that simply added rules of construction, the chairman requested the House consider this bill under a closed rule, and his request was granted. Now, we can disagree about policy, but it is hard to argue this bill wouldn't have been improved by full debate about what the bill says in consideration of as many amendments as possible.

Americans can all agree that everyone deserves to be treated with respect. No one should be mistreated by his employers, coworkers, or, frankly, anyone else. However, when lawmakers propose amendments to Federal law, we must avoid doing more harm than good. We also must not pass legislation that could harm children; set back the rights of women they have fought so hard to obtain; and erase the gains made possible by other Federal civil rights laws, such as Title IX. H.R. 5 does all these things. This bill would do much more harm than good in many ways, and the people who would bear it the most would be the women and children who would get the brunt of the damage.

Again, we can have disagreements on what we believe this to be, but without a full vetting on the possibilities, all the nice language today about what it would or would not do and what it is supposed to do gets under the scrutiny of what the law actually says. That is the part that I have the most problem with, not the intent, not the desire, that is something we fight about--and we do--and the goodness, I never question. It is how you go about it.

I made this statement on this floor before, Madam Speaker, what makes you feel good does not often heal you. And today may make us feel good, but in the end probably will not do what we intend it to do. And that is a concern, especially with the way this bill has come to the floor.

I know this has been a consideration. We considered female sports in which, last year, two male athletes won the top two spots in a Connecticut girls class S indoor track meet. One of those female athletes finished eighth and missed an opportunity to compete in front of college coaches by two places. In her words, ``We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it's demoralizing.'' Allowing men to compete against women in women's sports isn't demoralizing because female athletes like Selina aren't talented, it is demoralizing because it makes their talent irrelevant.

I don't say this. This is not Doug Collins' opinion. This is also the opinion of tennis great, Martina Navratilova, who explained the threat H.R. 5 poses to women's sports: ``Unless you want to completely remake what women's sports mean, there can be no blanket inclusion rule. There is nothing stereotypical about this--it's about fairness and it's about science.'' And that came after she made initial comments, went back after being criticized for them, reviewed it, looked at everything, and then came back with that statement. She basically, again, doubled down and agreed on what she was saying. And she is one not to back away from those needing equality.

If H.R. 5 becomes law, others will be asking, What did we do at this moment when we had a chance to look at a bill that maybe we could look at and fix or make it better, but we didn't?

Never before in American history has a political party tried so dramatically to rewrite the Federal civil rights laws to include an undefined, self-referential, ideologically driven term called ``gender identity'' in the U.S. Code, applicable to literally any entity that receives Federal assistance, including elementary schools, colleges, and healthcare centers nationwide. H.R. 5 would make self-reporting of gender identity a protected class under Federal law and require doctors and educators to blindly follow the self-reporting of adolescents and young adults. Healthcare protocols and even state law would be no defense, as they would be superseded by this Federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. I know this has been debated and characterized from my friends across the aisle as not true, but a plain reading of the text says it is true, and this is something we have to deal with.

We heard proponents of H.R. 5 call people who oppose it as either ignorant, bigoted, oppressive, or hateful. I will not make similar characterizations across the aisle of my friends. I believe we have a genuine disagreement here. That is what this House floor is for, but, unfortunately, it is a closed rule today and has been relatively closed in the process up until this point.

Madam Speaker, I implore my colleagues to listen to the stories of stakeholders everywhere, including the transgender girls and boys this bill is meant to help. We may be hurting them by allowing doctors to prescribe hormones and perform major surgeries on adolescents without parental consent or involvement. In fact, H.R. 5 would actually compel doctors to medicalize children without even consulting their parents. Families of transgender children are begging Congress to listen to them.

But, also, H.R. 5 endangers the First Amendment rights of every single American. Because the bill makes no provision for sincerely-held religious belief, it would criminalize the fundamental tenets of major world religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Biological sex is a scientific reality, yet H.R. 5 would target faith traditions that acknowledge it as such and want to live their lives accordingly.

Today, we must listen to all Americans, including the LGBTQ community, and recognize many within the community have also raised concerns about this legislation. H.R. 5, in the words of the Women's Liberation Front leader, nullifies ``women and girls as a coherent legal category, worthy of civil rights protection.'' It would endanger millions of American women and undermine fundamental American rights to faith in both religion and science, and actively put children at risk by medicalizing them in harmful and permanent ways without parental involvement.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, which is being rushed to the floor without Members having an opportunity to vote on amendments and I believe carefully considering what is being put before them.

Again, Madam Speaker, think about what we are asking here. For the first time, something was raised in our committee hearing that said: Do you think people would commit fraud by doing all these changes and going through medical procedures and everything, that they would do that just to simply commit fraud? Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, and to anyone listening this morning, this bill does not require any of that. It requires nothing except a self-admonishment or knowledge that I am what I say I am today. That is all this bill requires.

So many of us are just asking: Is there a better way to do this? Is there a better way to look at this? Probably not. But this way, this is not right and is being rushed.

Again, as I started with today, I will sort of end as well, sometimes what makes you feel good--and I understand the majority's desire to bring this forward and to a fulfill a promise, I get it--but, in the end, is it also going to do what you want it to do in the long-run? Or are there going to be unintended consequences that we don't want to acknowledge today in our rush to do something we promised? Sometimes it is better to back up and make sure it is right before we can fulfill a promise.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Spano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to just basically respond to that colloquy, because it is really interesting because none of us, especially myself, has said anything about houses of worship. We do know that is the bridge too far.

What we are concerned about in the bill is where it says any of these groups, affiliations, Catholic affiliations, Jewish affiliations who get Federal money to do other things, they would come under this, and this is where the RFRA protections is something.

So, the conversation here was nice. It provided a great cover, but it did not answer the question that many of us have asked in this process as we go forward. So I get that.

Also, as we look at this further, this is why we have asked to see if we could do this in a different way and do it in a better way to define these terms and to protect all parties in this, and not just run hastily into something that could cause problems in the future.

This colloquy was nice but did not answer the underlying question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana, the Republican whip, for yielding.

On Monday, there will be no votes expected in the House.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be made available by the close of business today.

The House will also consider H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. That will be considered under a rule.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 987, the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act. This legislation is composed of seven bills that would protect and expand affordable healthcare and lower prescription drug costs. The legislation consists of separate bills from the Energy and Commerce Committee to ban junk health plans, bring generic prescription drugs to market more quickly, provide funding for States to establish State-based marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act, require and provide funding for outreach and enrollment, and fund the navigator program that assists Americans during the open enrollment period.

All of these bills will be directed at trying to reverse some of the steps that have been taken to undermine Americans' access to affordable, quality healthcare.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 5, the Equality Act. LGBT Americans and their families deserve to be protected against all forms of discrimination no matter where they live. This legislation would ban discrimination against LGBT people in housing, employment, education, jury service, credit and financing, and public accommodations.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The good news is, we just passed a bipartisan bill with 34 Members from my friend's side voting in favor of that bill to give very, very substantial relief and an additional $3 billion to take care of the storms and natural disasters that have occurred since we passed a bill to the Senate many, many weeks ago that, unfortunately, was not dealt with by the Senate, largely because there was a reluctance to help the Americans who happened to live in Puerto Rico to the extent that we are helping other people around the country as we should.

I agree with the gentleman. We had a bipartisan bill today. I am hopeful that we can have a bipartisan bill moving forward.

As my friend knows, the amendment that was offered, the MTR that was offered, was offered to an object in the bill where there had been already a substantial increase, with apparently the argument being made on the floor that that money was going to be taken from the place to which we appropriated it to another area to which it was not appropriated.

We had that somewhat, I want to say, confrontation with the President on doing exactly that, taking money from MILCON and wanting to put it in a wall.

Very frankly, there was the opportunity to do that in the subcommittee and in the committee. In fact, as the gentleman knows, many of his colleagues who serve on that committee voted against funding the level of Head Start that they wanted to make a $2.8 billion increase to.

That aside, I will tell the gentleman that, clearly, we want to make sure that we handle people at the border in a humanitarian way that is consistent with the American way.

It is ironic, I will tell my friend, as you heard in the debate, that today is the 1-year anniversary when we started a policy of taking children from their parents at the border, separating them. Some of those children to this day have not been reunited with their parents. We are very concerned about that.

One of the things that I know the gentleman knows is that when we opened government--the government was shut down when we took over--we included a little over $500 million for humanitarian expenditures for people at the border so we could treat them fairly. I think, frankly, that money has not all been spent at this point in time.

We do know there is a challenge for us at the border, with the numbers of people who are seeking asylum and seeking refuge. We are certainly, as the gentleman suggested, going to work on trying to respond to that in a bipartisan, effective way.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

He had a lot of facts and assertions in his comments. First of all, let me correct: He adopted the President's number. The President's number was wrong. It bore no relationship to reality. He picked it out of the air. Numerous fact-checkers have indicated that.

The facts are that $42 billion has, in fact, been allocated, $20.3 obligated, and $12.7 outlaid. So, clearly, there are funds that have been allocated, but not the $90 billion to which the gentleman referred.

Having said that, obviously, what held it up in the Senate was the argument over Puerto Rico. I mean, that is why we have been put to the process of passing another bill.

The good news in that delay is, we did take care of the Midwest. We put $3 billion in there for disasters that occurred subsequent to the first emergency disaster relief bill that we passed. And, as I said, we included $500 million when we opened up the government for humanitarian relief.

We included another half a billion dollars for judges because there are, as the gentleman knows, legitimate seekers of asylum who are fearful of their own lives, the lives of their families

are in danger, and they are coming here.

The gentleman well knows there are some people in the White House who want to see the numbers of immigrants to America almost eliminated, so that there is some discussion and disagreement in the White House. I don't know exactly where the President stands on that, but he certainly has been hostile to immigration.

So, I take the gentleman at his belief, but we have not necessarily seen that from the White House.

Having said that, we will work--because we believe, as he does, that people who come to the United States need to be treated, for whatever reason they come to the United States, in a way consistent with our American values, in a humanitarian way.

And it is--I will repeat--ironic that we are debating this issue on the year's anniversary of children being taken from the arms of their mothers and fathers and sent hundreds of miles and, in some cases, thousands of miles away, and still have some of them who have not been reunited with their parents.

I am glad that there is concern about humanitarian treatment now. That is appropriate. I share the gentleman's view on that. Hopefully, we can reach bipartisan agreement in the very near term.

As the gentleman knows, the President's request was just sent down last week. As the gentleman further knows, we have appropriated money to certain objects. And we had a confrontation on that, and both the House and the Senate thought the President was taking money and applying it to an object which we had not authorized.

Then the Congress stood up for itself, in a bipartisan way, in the Senate and in the House.

Unfortunately, the President vetoed that bill, and he is spending money that was not authorized by the Congress of the United States.

We are having a number of challenges to the underpinning of our democratic system and the authority of the Congress of the United States versus the exercise of authoritarian power by the President of the United States, and I would hope the gentleman would share that view.

But, having said all that, we clearly want to get to the same objective, and I am sure the Senate--and I know, as I have just talked to Mrs. Lowey--they are going to review the request, as Ms. DeLauro said on the floor, see what the money is going to be spent for, make sure that it is, in fact, going to be spent for humanitarian relief at the border.

We are very concerned about that and, I think, rightfully so. That is what it is projected to be, and we want to make sure that that is what it is.

So, we will proceed, hopefully, in a bipartisan way and, hopefully, with relative speed.

But I hope the Senate, Madam Speaker, will take up this relief bill and pass it forthwith so that the folks who have been so damaged by natural disasters will get some relief and will understand that their Federal Government cares about them and is going to give them the relief they need.

I hope that we can move that as quickly as possible.