Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 144 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 144, providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 46, relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.

The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Additionally, the rule provides that the provisions of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act shall not apply during the remainder of the 116th Congress to a joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019. This provision was included to avoid privileged legislative action on redundant resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, today we must stand up for democracy; we must stand up for the rule of law; and, most importantly, we must stand up for the United States Constitution, the Constitution that we took an oath to defend when we were sworn into office.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution we swore to defend granted Congress the power of the purse. That means Congress decides how we spend the American people's hard-earned money.

Congress spoke when we passed, and President Trump signed, a spending bill that granted him $1.4 billion for fencing along the border. Now President Trump is acting like a dictator by ignoring Congress and declaring a national emergency. As a result, billions of taxpayer dollars would be taken from high-priority military construction projects that ensure our troops have the essential training, readiness, and quality of life necessary to keep the American people safe.

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have visited countries where the rule of law takes a backseat to the whims of their Presidents. Just look at Venezuela, where Nicolas Maduro has removed every single obstacle to his power.

When he objected to the rulings of the judges, he ended their terms early and replaced them with his political allies. When the democratically elected congress didn't agree with him, he created a new congress filled with his supporters.

Last year, he even banned prominent opposition leaders from running into the Presidential election. He has demonized the press and even took CNN en Espanol off the air. Last night, he detained one of America's journalists, Jorge Ramos, of Univision.

Fighting with judges, manipulating elections, attacking the press. Mr. Speaker, does any of this sound familiar?

Now you have a situation where food is so scarce that the average Venezuelan has lost 24 pounds in the last year and more than 3 million have fled the country. The Maduro presidency, now that is a true national emergency for the people of Venezuela.

The collapse of democratic institutions is also happening in Nicaragua and Guatemala. The President of Guatemala and his allies in congress are taking the country down the same path, removing every check on their power. They have expelled the international prosecutors who dared to investigate them.

And just as Guatemala's Government has tried to undermine and delegitimize the police and prosecutors who are investigating, President Trump has called Robert Mueller's investigation a ``witch hunt'' and denigrated the brave men and women of the FBI.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this President--or any President, Republican or Democrat--to take us down the same path as Venezuela, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, all to build a wasteful and ineffective wall along our southern border.

These women and children coming from Central America do not represent a national emergency. That is why 58 former national security officials, both Republicans and Democrats, issued a statement saying there is ``no factual basis'' for the President's emergency.

Our call to duty today is to protect, to defend our Constitution. We will vote, and we will see how many in this body have that same respect for the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in this effort. It is not too late for my colleagues across the aisle to tell the President that this is wrong, that the Constitution that we swore an oath to uphold really matters.

We stand here today to stop this power grab of our own democracy. A ``yes'' vote will affirm our democracy. A ``no'' vote further erodes the trust in our democracy and, again, expands executive power.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on which side they stand.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I can think of many other things that we could be talking about that truly, truly, truly call out and scream out for a national emergency.

Homelessness in our communities: Thousands of people in our communities sleep on a street, under a bridge, children sleeping in vehicles every single night.

I think about the opioid epidemic, and how many of our families are simply immune to the issues around drug abuse and how addiction overcomes them?

I think about last year around Christmastime when 800,000 of our Federal workers were going without a paycheck and went without a paycheck for 35 days. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could not find 1 minute and 6 seconds to give them a paycheck, to open up the Federal Government, to do their duty.

Instead, in the Rules Committee, we took up an emergency order on labeling of cheese curds. They found that to be more important than the lives and the families of 800,000 Federal workers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about the scary people from our southern border. I am not that scary looking, am I? I think not. The fact is that the number one trading partner for California and Texas is Mexico, a friendly country. For Central America, we are standing up for our responsibility to uphold democracy in the Northern Triangle, to address the root cause of migration. That is where our focus should be.

Do we need an immigration reform package that brings 11 million people out of the shadows? Absolutely. These are the 11 million people who our agricultural partners depend on to deliver fresh food to our table. But we are not doing that here. What we are doing here, what the President has chosen to do, is political theater, political theater for 2020.

In essence, a vote against this resolution means a vote against the families of the military people who are depending on us to provide infrastructure, schools for their children to learn, and quality housing.

Do Democrats think and believe that fortifying our borders is important? Absolutely. We have committed billions of dollars to ensure that we stop the narcotrafficking that happens at our ports of entry. That is where it is happening.

We need to work together on these issues, not relinquish our responsibilities, our legislative responsibility, and the power of the purse that we hold.

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

Mr. Speaker, political theater, political posturing for 2020, that is what we are hearing.

This is the law. This is the Rules Committee moving forward a piece of legislation that will prevent the President from calling a bogus national emergency, from stealing money from our troops, from taking from those who don't have and those who are giving everything that they have to protect our Nation. Political posturing for 2020.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

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

Mr. Speaker, fact-checking the President is not an attack against the President. The facts matter. As a matter of fact, the President himself at his press conference said: ``I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.''

What does he mean by that? Last year, Republicans gave him $25 billion if they read the bill, but I actually brought it to their attention on the floor that the bill actually read $75 billion that they were allocating for a border wall. The facts didn't matter then for one side of the aisle.

The President himself said it. ``I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.'' That is not an emergency. I was a 911 emergency dispatcher for 17.5 years. I can cite many examples of what an emergency is. Building a wall much faster is not an emergency. That is political theater. That is political posturing for 2020.

Where is the President stealing this money from? Certainly, he is not getting it from Mexico as he promised. Mexico said ``no.'' The President is stealing $2.5 billion that Congress approved to combat illegal drug activities around the world.

I know that my colleagues believe that fighting international drug organizations is important. I know this because I traveled with Republicans and Democrats to the jungles in South America. We talked about eradication of narcotrafficking.

What about the $3.6 billion that the President is stealing from military construction? A study earlier this year found that 16 percent of military families had a positive view of their base housing. That means 55 percent had a negative one.

Many families reported unsafe conditions, including lead-based paint, rampant mold, exposed asbestos, faulty electrical wiring, vermin infestations, and gas leaks. Is that not an emergency? Is that not worthy of the bipartisan vote that we took to allocate that money so that they can make those fixes?

I know my Republican colleagues support military families. I know that because I have traveled with them to Afghanistan. I have traveled with them to other countries. I know that this is wrong. This so-called national emergency is wrong, and I know my colleagues know that this is wrong too. This is undemocratic. This puts us at the cusp of a constitutional crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our Constitution and in defense of our republic and urge all members to join me in voting for H.J. Res. 46, which terminates the phony declaration of emergency issued by the President on February 15, 2019.

The reason this resolution is before us today is because of the petulant intransigence of a single person, the current President of the United States.

As a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Homeland Security, I have visited the southern border on numerous occasions in recent weeks and months and can state confidently that there is no national emergency or national security crisis that justifies the President's reckless and unconstitutional decision or compels the Congress to abdicate its responsibilities under Article I to check and balance the Executive Branch.

The President is only pursuing this tactic of declaring a national emergency after realizing that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was absolutely correct when she informed him that he did not have the support in Congress to require the taxpayers to pay for his broken promise that ``Mexico would pay for the wall, 100 percent!''

In fact, according to the latest Marist Poll, the most recent polling data available, Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the President's national emergency declaration by a 61 percent-36 percent margin.

The President's decision is opposed by both men and women in every region of the country, by every income group and education category.

National security experts across the political spectrum are unanimous in their assessment that the situation on the southern border does not constitute a national emergency, an assessment echoed by leading former Republican senators and Members of Congress.

They understand that after failing to convince the American people or Congress to pay for his ineffective, wasteful, and immoral multibillion dollar concrete wall, the President has now embarked on a course of conduct that is deeply corrosive of the constitutional system of checks and balances wisely established by the Framers and which has served this nation and the world so well for nearly 250 years.

Having failed miserably to achieve his objective in the constitutional legislative process, the President is trying a desperate 11th hour end-run around Congress with an unlawful emergency declaration that contravenes the will of the American people and negates the awesome power of the purse vested exclusively in the Congress of the United States.

The Congress will not tolerate this.

Despite being repeatedly admonished and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the President continues to propagate false information regarding the state of our southern border.

Mr. Speaker, these are the facts.

Net migration from Mexico is now zero or slightly below (more people leaving than coming) because of a growing Mexican economy, an aging population and dropping fertility rates that have led to a dramatic decrease in unauthorized migration from Mexico.

Migrant apprehensions continue to be near an all-time low with only a slight increase from 2017.

The combined 521,090 apprehensions for Border Patrol and Customs agents in fiscal year 2018 were 32,288 apprehensions fewer than the 553,378 apprehensions in 2016.

To put this in perspective, on average, each of the 19,437 Border Patrol agents nationwide apprehended a total of only 19 migrants in 2018, which amounts to fewer than 2 apprehensions per month.

In the last few years, an increased proportion of apprehensions are parents seeking to protect their children from the violence and extreme poverty in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

But even with more Central Americans arriving to our southern border seeking protection, total apprehension rates are still at their lowest since the 1970s.

The absence of a massive wall on the southern border will not solve the drug smuggling problem because, as all law enforcement experts agree, the major source of drugs coming into the United States are smuggled through legal ports of entry.

The southern border region is home to about 15 million people living in border counties in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

These communities, which include cities such as San Diego, Douglas, Las Cruces, and El Paso, are among the safest in the country.

Congress has devoted more U.S. taxpayer dollars to immigration enforcement agencies (more than $21 billion now) than all other enforcement agencies combined, including the FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshals, and Secret Service.

The bulk of this money goes to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with a budget of $14.4 billion in fiscal year 2018 and more than 59,000 personnel.

CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in the country, and more than 85 percent of the agency's Border Patrol agents (i.e., 16,605 of 19,437) are concentrated on the southern border.

Expanded deployment of the military to the border to include active- duty troops could cost between $200 and $300 million in addition to the estimated $182 million for the earlier deployment by the President of National Guard to the border.

Mr. Speaker, having been soundly defeated legislatively by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, the President wants to finance border wall vanity project by diverting funds that the Congress has appropriated for disaster recovery and military construction.

The funds the President wants to steal were appropriated by Congress to help Americans devastated by natural disasters, like Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, or for other purposes like military construction.

Congress did not, has not, and will not, approve of any diversion of these funds to construct a border wall that the President repeatedly and derisively boasted that Mexico would pay for.

In fact, the President has admitted he ``didn't have to do this,'' but has opted to do so because ``I want to see it built faster.''

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday a bipartisan group of nearly 60 national security officials including former secretaries of state, defense secretaries, CIA directors, and ambassadors to the UN issued a statement declaring that ``there is no factual basis'' justifying the President's emergency declaration.

Instead of protecting our national security, the President's declaration makes America less safe.

The President is stealing billions from high-priority military construction projects that ensure our troops have the essential training, readiness and quality of life necessary to keep the American people safe, directly undermining America's national security.

The President's declaration clearly violates the Congress's exclusive power of the purse,

and, if unchecked, would fundamentally alter the balance of powers, violating our Founders' vision for America.

Opposing the President's reckless and anti-American decision transcends partisan politics and partisanship; it is about patriotism, constitutional fidelity, and putting country first.

That is why nearly two dozen distinguished former Republican Members of Congress are urging Republicans in Congress to vote for H.J.R. 46 and uphold ``the authority of the first branch of government to resist efforts to surrender'' our constitutional powers to an overreaching president.

To quote Thomas Paine's Common Sense: ``In absolute governments, the King is law; so in free countries, the law ought to be King.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, and reject the President's power grab; I urge a resounding YES vote on H.J. Res. 46.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know it flatters both me and the gentlewoman from California that you have made it your habit to be down here during Rules Committee time. It is good to know that you respect what we do upstairs as much as the members of the committee do.

I always enjoy coming down for the Rules Committee debate, because it is the only debate on all of Capitol Hill where the Reading Clerk reads every single word of the bill that we are about to consider. Ordinarily, we waive that, but the rules don't let you waive it. You have to read the rule so folks will understand what is happening today.

I happened to time the Reading Clerk today. I didn't put him up to anything special. He read as he always does. It took him 1 minute and 6 seconds to read the resolution that is before us.

I heard my friend from California talk about the important constitutional questions that are here before us today. I heard my friend from California equate our President to discredited despots around the globe and how we must stand up to prevent that behavior here in America. I heard my colleagues who took to the floor this morning for 1 minutes be sanctioned by the Chair and advised to cease engaging in arguments of personality and attacks against our President.

One minute and 6 seconds it took to read the resolution before us today, Mr. Speaker, and that is 1 minute and 6 seconds longer than this resolution has been considered in total in every committee throughout this Capitol.

I want to say that again. You heard my colleague talk about how critically important this resolution of disapproval is as it relates to our constitutional powers. You heard it described as a power grab equivalent to those of discredited despots. And we haven't talked about it at all in this Chamber. In committees, not one witness has testified.

One minute and 6 seconds is how much we have invested in these nationally important matters.

I listened, Mr. Speaker, as you cautioned Member after Member to cease engaging in personal attacks on the President during their 1 minutes this morning. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that that is exactly what we are doing here today.

If you want to have a debate about Article I and Article II powers and how we ought to retrieve the power that has slid down Pennsylvania Avenue through administration after administration after administration, I am not just your willing partner, I am your enthusiastic partner and passionate advocate. But that is not the bill we have before us today. It is not the debate we are going to have today.

This is another in a long string of measures that have been brought to the floor of this House that could have been brought in a bipartisan way. I don't mean one Republican; I don't mean two Republicans; I mean the majority of Democrats and the majority of Republicans standing together to speak with one voice on behalf of the American people. But time and time again, we are missing that opportunity.

This isn't a constitutional issue today, Mr. Speaker, though you would not know that, because we have not had any witnesses testify. This is a legislative issue before us today.

There is, in fact, a National Emergencies Act that allows the President to do extraordinary things if he or she decides there is a national emergency. That is not unconstitutional. Congress passed the National Emergencies Act; the President signed the National Emergencies Act. Perhaps the Supreme Court one day will decide that was an unconstitutional delegation of power by the Congress, but the Congress delegated that power in the National Emergencies Act.

The way we talk about this issue, Mr. Speaker, you would think this is the first time you and I have seen this in the few years we have been in Congress. Of course, you and I know that is nonsense.

There are 31 other national emergency declarations in effect today-- 31 other national emergency declarations. National emergency declarations from the Obama administration are still active today.

If we are so concerned about Article I and Article II power grabs, perhaps these emergency declarations that have been on the books since the last administration, Congress should deal with those affirmatively here on the floor.

There are national emergency declarations still in effect from the Bush administration. There are national emergencies still in effect from the Clinton administration. Mr. Speaker, there are national emergencies still in effect from the Carter administration. This House has made not a single effort to draw back that power from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Those are legitimate questions. Those are important questions. Those are things that bring us together as the people's representatives in this House, not bills designed just to poke a stick at a President who has real passion and real conviction about issues of real importance.

Do you know what is in this resolution today, Mr. Speaker, what is in this disapproval resolution today, that will make a difference on the border in terms of ending human trafficking? Not one thing.

Do you know what is in this resolution today that, if we come together to pass, will make a difference in terms of drug trafficking on the border? Not one thing.

What about if we come together to pass this resolution today for the very serious issue of weapons trafficking across our border? Do you know what we will do today to fix that? Not one thing.

Victims of sexual assault as they are being trafficked into this country, do you know what we are going to do to fix that today? Not one thing.

Do you know how many Dreamers are going to have their hopes realized today with a pathway to permanency here in the United States of America? Not one.

Man, we are good at bringing issues that are designed to poke each other in the eye. We are so good at bringing issues designed to try to embarrass one and boost another. But I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are not so great with actually solving real problems.

For the first time in my congressional career just last Congress, Mr. Speaker, we brought a bill to the floor that would have provided permanency

for our Dreamers and that would have provided solutions on our border for human trafficking, for weapons trafficking, and for drug trafficking. You know how many Democratic votes we got on that bill, Mr. Speaker? Not one.

Now, to be fair, it wasn't one bill; it was two bills. Folks said, hey, if this one is not the right one, let's bring another one. Maybe this is going to bring people together.

Do you know how many votes we got on the second bill, Mr. Speaker, from the other side of the aisle? Not one. The only bills that have come to the floor to provide a pathway for Dreamers in my 8 years in Congress, and we got not one vote from the other side the aisle.

Is that because the other side of the aisle doesn't believe in those solutions? No, that is not why. It is because the other side of the aisle, in its wisdom, deemed that to be a resolution not designed to support the Dreamers, but designed to divide. I disagree with that conclusion, but that is the conclusion that was made. Thus, the only opportunity in a decade we have had to support Dreamers, not one Democrat stood up and said yes.

I call that a failed opportunity, and I am not interested in figuring out who is to blame for that failed opportunity.

This is a failed opportunity today, too, Mr. Speaker. Sadly, it is another in a series of failed opportunities here in 2019.

I believe my colleagues are going to see through the divisiveness of this resolution, through the charade of constitutionalism right down to the very core of partisanism that underlies this resolution.

But just remember, 1 minute and 6 seconds, Mr. Speaker. Before I took to the microphone today, 1 minute and 6 seconds from the Reading Clerk is all the time this new Congress has dedicated to an issue that you are going to hear from my colleagues again and again is one of critical national importance, international importance, constitutional importance. How can those things be true?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the text of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, if we pass the resolution, as my friends on the other side of the aisle have presented it, we will save not one single life. If we defeat the previous question and move on to H.R. 962, we will, in fact, save lives.

Mr. Speaker, to speak to that issue, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my friend and a great leader in our conference.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), an appropriator and ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a member of the class of 2010.

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

Mr. Speaker, you just heard an impassioned plea from my friends on the other side of the aisle about the important constitutional questions that are before us today, about how the President's emergency declaration violated those sacred constitutional principles.

Candidly, I don't know if my colleagues are right or not because we have not had one legal expert come to talk about the National Emergencies Act. Most of us were not in Congress when it passed several decades ago, but it is a delegation of authority from Congress to the executive.

You just heard my friend from New York come to the well and say, listen, we have been working in a bipartisan way to offer a bill to rein in those authorities. I think that is important work. I think that is work that we ought to all be able to agree on. We should be doing that work first.

I told you earlier, Mr. Speaker, the sum total of all of the time this institution has spent working on these important constitutional questions is the 1 minute and 6 seconds our Reading Clerk Josef spent reading us the resolution today.

We will vote on this rule today. We will vote on the underlying disapproval today, having never had the committees of jurisdiction hold even a single hearing.

Now, lest you think there is just no time in the calendar, this resolution is referred to the Transportation Committee on which I sit. In fact, I had to leave a Transportation Committee hearing in order to come up here to do the rule today.

We are working on the Green New Deal in the Transportation Committee today. We are working on electric vehicles and how to reduce carbon emissions across the country. Now, I am not saying that is not important work, but I have not heard one of my colleagues talk about the dearth of electric vehicles and how that is threatening the future of our land.

I have heard my colleagues talk about this important constitutional question that this disapproval brings before us, and, yet, there was not one hearing on it.

Now, lest you think, Mr. Speaker, that if we deal with this today, we won't deal with it again. No. We are going to have some hearings on this resolution. When? Later in the week after it passes.

Now, I don't know if that is a pattern that we are going to get into. I hope that it is not. Having had no hearings and no witnesses testify on this issue, we are going to have an Appropriation Subcommittee hearing later this week to talk about exactly these issues, where the money is coming from, what the impact of that is, and whether or not it is wise.

We are going to have a hearing later this week in the Judiciary Committee talking about the National Emergencies Act, and whether or not it permits this kind of activity, and what kind of changes ought to be made.

This resolution will have already been considered. This vote will have already been taken, but we will eventually get around to having thoughtful conversation about this.

Mr. Speaker, I close where I began. There is more that unites us as Americans than divides us. And even in politics, there is more that unites this institution than divides us. Making sure that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue only is exercising those authorities delegated to it by either the Constitution or this Congress, is a shared value.

But if you listen to the debate here on the floor, from the Speaker's chair, you had to caution our colleagues against engaging in attacks of personality against the President. We heard debate, not of thoughtful constitutional principles, but of hateful administration policies.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my friends, I don't believe those words, those actions, or those efforts are going to bring us one bit closer to the shared values that we have in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the rule today and vote against the previous question so that we can bring up a bill that will save lives. This bill will save not one life; will prevent not one drug trafficker from coming into the country; will protect not one migrant family. It will do nothing, Mr. Speaker, to solve real problems that face this country.

If we defeat the previous question, we can at least take a commonsense step toward doing exactly that. Vote ``no'' on this rule, vote ``no'' on the previous question, and let's commit ourselves to finding a way to come together.

If you believe there is more that divides us than unites us, these first 45 days of this session have been just perfect for you. But if you believe, as I do, that we can do better, let today be the end of the partisan attacks. Let today be the end of bringing bills to the floor designed to make a point instead of make a difference, and let's make tomorrow better.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, I want to share and join in with him in the tribute that has been paid to our former colleague John Dingell.

I served proudly on the House Energy and Commerce Committee with Chairman Dingell, and what a giant, what a true institutionalist of this House, the longest serving Member, a colleague of whom we will have fond memories and will share those fond memories, I am sure, in the days and weeks to come.

I know, Madam Speaker, and to my colleague from Maryland as well, every time we go into that room, the committee room for the Energy and Commerce Committee, we always get to look up now and know that it is named after our colleague John Dingell and always remember his wit-- because he was tough, but he had a great wit to share along with the combat that you would always get to engage in with him.

I will always remember, when the vote was finally called, he always had his own unique way. As the clerk would be calling the roll of the committee and they would call a member and the member would say ``aye'' or ``nay,'' he would always say: ``Dingell votes aye.''

He would have his unique way of addressing the issue of the day, and we will always remember him. To his wife, Debbie, and his family, we keep him in our prayers.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for going through the schedule, and I would share that assessment as well, that if those arrangements are made early next week, I would expect a large contingent of our colleagues to want to be there. We will all be there in spirit with John and his memory, as well as our wishes to his family.

As he and I may have disagreed on some issues, he was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and we would talk about that. Mostly, when I had those conversations with Chairman Dingell, it was about this great institution, this people's House that we both have the honor to serve in, and his appreciation for what this institution means to our great Nation. Those will be memories I will always cherish.

As we look to the schedule, I know the gentleman alluded to the conference committee that is meeting. I am encouraged, as I talk to different conferees, by the conversations, the issues that they are tackling. Clearly, the issue that has been at the front and center of the differences that we are trying to work through deals with border security.

As we look to resolve the differences, ultimately, it is my hope that we find a way to properly fund the tools that are needed to actually secure the border, as our experts, our men and women who risk their lives to keep our border safe, have laid out in detail: obviously, technology to help them do their jobs better, the need to increase security at ports of entry and to have more of the drug-testing equipment that can do a better job of keeping drugs out of our country.

Clearly, part of that solution has to be some form of physical barriers--whatever you want to call them, wall, physical barrier--along areas where we have the worst problems.

If I can bring to the gentleman's attention, there was a story yesterday in the Washington Examiner titled, ``Border agents just apprehended convicted child molesters and an MS-13 member at the Texas border where there's no barrier.'' This is a Washington Examiner article from yesterday, and I include it in the Record.

[From the Washington Examiner, Feb. 7, 2019]

Border Agents Just Apprehended Convicted Child Molesters and an MS-13

Member at the Texas Border Where There's No Barrier

(By Eddie Scarry)

U.S. Border Patrol agents said Thursday that they

apprehended several illegal immigrants at the southern border

in Texas, in places where there are no physical barrier walls

to deter illegal crossings.

Among those caught crossing into the U.S. were a Mexican

man with a previous conviction in Georgia for child

molestation, a Honduran man with a record in North Carolina

showing a conviction for ``Indecent Liberties with Child,''

and another Honduran male with a Florida record that

identified him as a member of the violent M-13 gang.

The apprehensions occurred in the Rio Grande Valley sector

of the southern border on Monday and Tuesday, according to a

release by the Border Patrol.

I toured a portion of that sector in January, and agents

said that areas that feature a 25-foot barrier of concrete

and steel have proven critical in blocking illegal border

crossers, forcing them to attempt their crossings in specific

areas where they can be apprehended. They've asked for more

of the same kind of border wall to fill in the long gaps that

current exist.

When President Trump said during his State of the Union

address Tuesday that his proposal is for new barrier that

``will be deployed in the areas identified by the border

agents as having the greatest need,'' this is what he meant.

Madam Speaker, for my friend, the majority leader, I want to read this comment and ask a question about this.

Among the other things that they were able to identify as they were able to stop, just earlier this week, some of these people coming in, a person with ``a previous conviction in Georgia for child molestation, a Honduran man with a record in North Carolina showing a conviction for `indecent liberties

with a child,' and another Honduran male with a Florida record that identified him as a member of the violent MS-13 gang.''

This is just one more example, earlier this week, of people who are coming across our border illegally in areas--and the article notes that this happened in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the southern border on Monday and Tuesday, according to our Border Patrol agents, in areas where there is no physical barrier.

So as the gentleman himself has said just a few days ago, and I quote, ``physical barriers are part of the solution'' to improve border security, I would ask the gentleman, when we get this conference report hopefully wrapped up this weekend, can the gentleman give an assurance that there will be money to properly not only secure the border but to include the physical barriers that are not there in those areas where we have child molesters and gang members coming across our southern border?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I think we are all going to be encouraging those members of the conference committee to continue the work that they are doing. That headway seems to be going in the right direction.

Hopefully, we come up with a bill by early next week that we can vote on next week before we get to the deadline on the 15th to continue to properly fund those other areas of the government that haven't been funded. That includes the border security that is necessary, including physical barriers.

Shifting gears, I would ask the gentleman about a piece of legislation that we filed that we have been trying to get unanimous consent to bring up, and this is H.R. 962, a bill by my colleague, Ann Wagner from Missouri.

As we saw earlier, in these last few days, you had the Governor of New York signing legislation that, among other things, would allow for a baby that comes out of the womb alive, whether it is from an abortion that wasn't successful--whatever the case, if a baby comes out of the womb alive, the fact that in the State of New York, and now we saw the Governor of Virginia talking on a radio show about how that process and procedure would be carried out where the baby, after it is born alive, can be killed legally in those States.

As we talk about the sanctity of innocent life, clearly, there are many different divisions amongst the parties on the issue of abortion. But to many, this issue transcends abortion. This isn't related to abortion anymore. If a baby comes out of the womb and is alive, the fact that in only 26 States there are protections that that baby can't be killed, that means in nearly half of the States in this country, that baby still can be killed legally.

I still don't completely grasp how that is legal in America, that someone who is born alive can still be killed and have that be legal in certain States.

So we have a bill called the Born-Alive Protection Act that would ensure that, regardless of how you feel about abortion--pro-life, pro- choice--after the baby comes out of the womb alive, it shouldn't be able to be killed. H.R. 962 gives that protection that it can't be killed. I would ask the gentleman if he would allow that bill to come to the House floor for a vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that when we did bring that piece of legislation last year, the Born-Alive Protection Act, it did pass the House, 241-183, in a bipartisan way, with six Democrats voting with us to pass that bill to the Senate. It did not get passed in the Senate.

However, as you look now, there have been a number of alarming developments that have raised the profile of this issue.

When the Governor of New York signed into law his legislation and celebrated the fact that, in his State, you can kill a baby after it has been born, and you saw applause in the legislature over that, it shocked people across the country. It horrified and angered people across the country.

When the Governor of Virginia, just a few days ago, went to a radio station and described, in detail, how a baby born alive can still be killed, can be killed after it is born alive, and it is legal in that State, it is legal, and not protected in nearly a majority of our States, this issue has come to the forefront of Americans.

Again, pro-life, pro-choice, wherever you are on this issue, the vast majority of Americans feel strongly that you should not be able to kill the baby after it is born alive.

So we can talk about a long, drawn-out legislative process, but now there is more interest and more anger to confront this violent act of murder. How can it be anything other than murder to kill a child after it comes out of the womb? So I know we can talk about a long, drawn-out procedure.

I have made it very clear I will be filing a discharge petition if we can't get to the point where we get this bill brought to the floor in a quicker way. There is a quicker way to do this and address this problem.

Again, if you ask most pro-choice people in America, they don't think it is right that you can kill the baby after it comes out of the womb. And so, as the gentleman can talk about a regular order procedure, this bill has passed the House before, and now there is more interest in the Senate to confront this issue. We have the ability to give them that opportunity.

I would just ask if the gentleman would reconsider, to move this in a quicker way and allow the unanimous consent motion to go through. If no one objects, we can bring that bill to the floor. And so far, as we have been making the motion for unanimous consent, there has been no opposition expressed. They have just not allowed the motion to go forward and be recognized.

So I would just ask the gentleman to reconsider and allow us to, at least, have that opportunity to try to bring this bill to the floor in the quickest way possible, to stop this barbaric process from being allowed anywhere in America.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. I would just ask if the gentleman would urge the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to move swiftly to bring this bill up for a vote as we continue to use every legislative tool we have available to, hopefully, try to get a unanimous consent agreement to bring the bill to the floor. But ultimately, if that is not allowed, and if the committee process doesn't work and actually take attention to this in a quick way, then we will go a different route and use the discharge petition route.

So we have continued to try to make the point that this issue needs to be addressed by this Congress. The President, in his State of the Union Tuesday night, was very clear that Congress ought to address this issue. And the President, in his speech--and I thought it was an incredibly eloquent speech, confronting the challenges we face, but also talking about the greatness of this country and highlighting some of the people who achieved greatness, the three men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, and the challenges they faced to liberate Europe, to keep America free.

Ultimately, one of those gentlemen actually went on to help liberate Dachau; and to see the Holocaust survivor who was at Dachau, and liberated by that very gentleman, to both be on the same row of the gallery, was a special moment, a special moment that reminds us of the greatness of this country.

And as the President talked about that at the end, he challenged us, he challenged Congress to reach for greatness, not gridlock, but for that same greatness as we confront the challenges that this great Nation faces today.

This action, the fact that, in many States of this Nation, it is allowed to kill a baby after it has been born, is a moral wrong that we need to fix. That is another act of greatness that we need to rise up to; and I hope we do in the quickest way possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend Mr. Scalise, the Republican whip, for his comments. It is a testimony to the love and respect that John Dingell enjoyed in this House from both sides of the aisle.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, there is no one in this House who doesn't have a particular story about John Dingell. So, before we begin this colloquy, I want to again express my gratitude for the life and service of my friend John Dingell.

Madam Speaker, I was with him Wednesday. He died yesterday. I was with him the day before he died. We sat together for 2\1/2\ hours and talked. As I left, I leaned down and I kissed him on the forehead, and I said: ``I love you, John.''

I think I was speaking for, literally, scores of Members who worked with him on the committee, who worked with him on the floor, and who saw him in various different venues as a colleague.

They loved him as well for his integrity and for his fairness. And, yes, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, he could be tough, and he could be rough, but he also could be gentle and accepting and open.

All of us in this country were blessed by his time on this Earth, so much of

which he gave back to the rest of us in the form of service in the Armed Forces and in this House and in his community.

History will remember him as its longest serving Member of the House of Representatives, but we who knew him well remember John Dingell as a man of extraordinary character, intellect, courage, and purpose.

From healthcare to the environment, from workers' rights to veterans' care, John worked tirelessly over six decades in the House to make sure Congress was doing right by the people who the House represents. His legislative record of achievement speaks volumes about who it was he believed he was fighting for every day in office.

Medicare, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, all of these bore his imprint. What an extraordinary record of service and accomplishment. And that is because he was a champion of affordable healthcare, equality under the law, the right to vote, economic opportunity, and a healthy future for our children and grandchildren.

To his beloved Michigan, he was an indefatigable defender of autoworkers and their role in the American economy.

John was steadfast in his belief that the best way to serve them and all his constituents was to work, whenever possible, in concert with those across the aisle and not against them.

We are, after all, all Americans. We serve Americans. We serve a great country. He believed in Congress, and, oh, how he believed in his country. He believed in sitting down together and working through our differences in a way that was respectful and civil.

Madam Speaker, I hope that spirit and his example will imbue in us a resolve to find compromise in these challenging times. John, as everybody knows, followed his father into service--22 years of service.

In 1955, in December, his father passed away, and John was sent by the voters to continue the service of the Dingell family. John Dingell, Sr., was a major proponent of New Deal legislation in this House, serving from 1933 to 1955.

John was followed in service here by the ``lovely Deborah,'' as he so affectionately and lovingly called her. His wife is an extraordinary Member of Congress herself, and we are blessed to have her. Debbie is an extraordinary woman, an outstanding Member of the Congress of the United States.

We stood in a moment of silence just a few minutes ago. I hope that we will adjourn in his honor today.

Debbie has been carrying on the Dingell legacy of seeking bipartisan results while remaining steadfast to the progressive values that brought her into public service.

I offer, Madam Speaker, my condolences, as I do to John's children and grandchildren and to their entire extended family.

I thank the minority whip for his comments and expression, which demonstrates what we have all said. John Dingell was, of course, a Democrat, but John Dingell was more than that, by far. He was an American and a fierce promoter of the people's House and the work that was done by all the Members of the people's House, so I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, 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 Tuesday, 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, with last votes expected no later than 3 p.m.

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

The House will also consider H.J. Res. 37, a war powers resolution on U.S. involvement in Yemen. This legislation will force a much-needed conversation about how to bring to an end the violence and the humanitarian crisis that we see in Yemen.

In addition, Madam Speaker, the House is expected to consider the conference report that finishes fiscal year 2019 appropriations. I understand that progress is being made, and I am hopeful--I am hopeful--and optimistic that we can have a deal that comes together early next week. Members are advised that additional legislative items are possible.

Let me simply say that Members ought to know that there is a possibility as well, given the death of our colleague, John Dingell, and the desire of so many to attend his funeral, that the schedule may be modified to accommodate that effort and that travel to Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. I am not a member of the conference committee.

He quoted me in what I said. We are for border security. I am hopeful that the conference committee reports out a bill that all sides can support that does, in fact, try to make our borders more secure. I look forward to having that bill, hopefully, on the floor next week prior to the 15th or on the 15th, so we can: A, ensure that the government is not shut down; and, B, ensure that we have a bipartisan agreement on how we can make our borders more secure.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the question. As the gentleman knows, this bill was introduced in the last Congress in which the Republicans, his party, were in charge of the House and the Senate and the Presidency, and it did not pass the Congress and go to the President.

We will pursue the regular order. This bill, like every other bill, will be referred to committee, and the committee will handle its consideration as the committee sees fit.

The gentleman has talked about, or there has been discussion about, a discharge petition that is obviously available. We were trying very hard to have people we call Dreamers allowed to stay in the only country they know. Unfortunately, the leadership was against that discharge petition, and it never got to the floor.

For many bills that either side may want, some come to the floor, some don't. But this will go through the regular process, and it is going to be referred to the committee of jurisdiction. We will see how that proceeds.

My answer, however, is the same to the gentleman, Madam Speaker. We have a process. The bill has just been introduced. It will be referred to committee, and the committee will have it under regular order to consider. I cannot predict what the committee will do with that bill, but I understand the gentleman's strong feelings. I respect those; and I respect the fact that this is an issue that is current.

But, again, my answer to the distinguished Republican Whip is that we will be considering that in the regular order and, at that point in time, I am sure that he will be able to testify before the committee, if and when there

is a hearing, and that others will as well, including the sponsor. But we are going to pursue the regular order on this bill and other bills as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today alongside my colleagues to speak out against the radical and dangerous policies being pursued by Democratic leadership and State legislators across the country.

In New York, a new law legalizes what amounts to infanticide-- allowing abortions up to and even after birth for almost any reason-- and ends the safeguards that protect babies born alive after an abortion attempt.

In Virginia, a similar bill is under consideration that could lead to babies being denied lifesaving medical care. As Governor Ralph Northam put it: ``The infant would be kept comfortable . . . and then a discussion would ensue.''

I think this is sickening. That is why my colleagues and I have called for the House vote on H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a commonsense bill to require that medical care--just medical care--be provided to children who survive a failed abortion.

Sadly, Democratic leadership in the House is standing in the way and refusing even to allow an up-or-down vote on this issue. This is not a partisan issue. It is simply what is right.

We have got to stand together against this radical and inhumane agenda. We must act to protect the rights of all infants.

I am grateful to be joined in this call by so many of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Third District of Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Fourth District of New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the co-chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, and I thank Representative Chris Smith for his leadership and courage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Second Congressional District of Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from the Second District of Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who is the sponsor of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends who are here, Jaime, Representative Roby, and Representative Ann Wagner standing here, and I reiterate the reason we are here is that we are serious about this.

I did the unanimous consent tonight and asked the Speaker to bring that bill down right now and bring it to a vote.

This is an issue of what is right and what is wrong. This is an issue where we have been able to rise up together tonight and speak for those who not only can't speak for themselves but those that could potentially be born alive in this country and given a lethal injection by a doctor or some other medical professional.

What is going on in this country is absolutely horrific.

I yield to the gentlewoman.

It does happen. We are going to do all we can to absolutely prevent this happening. I thank my colleagues who have spoken so far.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my friend and fellow Hoosier from Indiana's Sixth District.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my friend from the Second District of Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from the Fifth District of North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my friend from the First District of Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Fourth District of Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a great friend of mine who stands for life every single day that she is here.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire on the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Utah's Second District, Representative Chris Stewart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Florida's Fourth District, Representative John Rutherford.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my fellow Hoosier from Indiana's Fourth District, Representative Jim Baird.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Michigan's Seventh District, Representative Tim Walberg.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from South Carolina's Fifth District, Ralph Norman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from West Virginia's Third District, Representative Carol Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Ohio's Sixth District, Representative Bill Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), my friend from Washington's Fifth District.

Mr. Speaker, I would again inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my friend from Illinois's 18th District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), my friend from North Carolina's Sixth District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my friend from Georgia's 12th District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), my friend from Texas' 22nd District.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me this evening to stand up for the most vulnerable among us.

We stand together to defend the sanctity of life, to speak out against a radical anti-life agenda that would effectively legalize infanticide.

I have long fought to defend the unborn, but I am shocked that I now have to defend the right to life of newborn infants. These precious children are in peril, their rights are under attack, their lives are under attack, and this House has the responsibility to act.

Tonight the American people heard our call to action. It is time to vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Will the leadership of this House listen or will the Democratic majority continue to allow this march toward legalized infanticide?

If we don't send a strong message that every baby has been endowed by its creator with inalienable rights, that we are not defending the fundamental principles of the Constitution, if we don't protect these children from harm, we are abandoning the basic truth of our humanity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for standing with me here tonight. I urge the support of House bill H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and to stand against infanticide.

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