Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 46) relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 145 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 145, providing for consideration of H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, and H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019.

The rule provides for consideration of each bill under a structured rule. The rule also provides 1 hour of general debate on each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 arrived at a time of emergency for America--a real emergency. Every year 120,000 Americans are shot in our country, and 35,000 of them are shot dead. Seventeen thousand of the people wounded or killed each year are children or teenagers, their families devastated, their lives forever changed.

In 2017, gun deaths in America hit the highest level in 40 years, with 40,000 Americans killed.

We have lost more Americans to gun violence in our own communities than to the Vietnam war, the Revolutionary

War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Iraq war, and the Afghan war, combined. This war at home never stops. Each day--yesterday, today, and tomorrow--another 100 people in America are shot and killed by gun violence.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a global problem; it is an American problem. While 35,000 Americans are killed by gunfire here each year, it is 146 people in the United Kingdom, 142 in Portugal, and 30 in Japan.

We lose more people to gun violence in a single weekend than England loses all year. We lost more people in the Las Vegas massacre alone, in one bloody night, than the nation of Japan lost to gun violence in 8 years.

No other developed, high-income country's lethal gun violence even comes close to the American carnage allowed by our loophole-ridden gun laws. The gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher than the average of other high-income countries and hundreds of times higher than some of them.

Now, the good news is that we know what to do to begin to end this crisis. We must close the loopholes.

In 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act went into effect and required licensed firearm dealers to contact the FBI to run a background check through NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The Brady Act made it illegal to sell a firearm to felons, to fugitives, to people who had been committed to mental institutions, to drug addicts, to domestic abusers, to undocumented immigrants, and to other disqualified categories.

The Brady Act worked as far as it went. It stopped more than 3 million illegal purchases of firearms by convicted felons, violently abusive partners, fugitives, the mentally ill, and so on. But there are gaping loopholes in the law because unlicensed gun sellers, the people who sell guns online today or at gun shows or in other private transactions, can sell firearms without having to run any background check whatsoever.

More than one-fifth of U.S. gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without any background check at all, which means that millions of people obtained millions of firearms without going through the Brady system, and people who commit gun crimes overwhelmingly obtain their firearms from the unlicensed sources. A 2013 study found that 80 percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes were obtained from sources that were not required to go through the background check.

The criminals are not stupid. They follow the loopholes. They go to the internet. They go to the gun shows. They go to the convenience store parking lots to get their weapons of mass destruction without any background check at all.

Our legislation will close these dangerous loopholes by guaranteeing that there is a thorough NICS background check on every gun sale or transfer, with only a few carefully defined exceptions for intrafamily gifts and a few other cases.

Mr. Speaker, there are three primary things you need to know about this legislation:

First, it is backed by more than 90 percent of the American people-- fully, 97 percent of Americans, including 97 percent of gun owners, 97 percent of Republicans, and 99 percent of Democrats. It is the very essence of common sense, the sense we all have in common, to make the background check system comprehensive and universal, leakproof, foolproof, and not ridden by the loopholes.

A background check doesn't work if criminals know that there are massive and lawful ways to cheat and get around it. So America, today, stands up to close the loopholes, and that is why this is a day of great triumph for the gun safety movement that has swept America in response to Parkland, Las Vegas, Newtown, and the other massacres that our people have endured.

Second, this legislation is perfectly constitutional. As Justice Scalia found for the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Second Amendment permits reasonable regulation to exclude from gun ownership violent felons, the mentally unstable, and so on.

Despite all of the solemn invocations of the Second Amendment that we continue to hear bouncing off of the walls of Congress, the opponents of this legislation could not muster a single witness to actually argue that this legislation is unconstitutional, and that includes the George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment who was brought in and just expressed her policy misgivings about the bill without articulating any constitutional analysis at all and rejected the opportunity to say that this legislation is unconstitutional.

The reason 97 percent of Americans favor this legislation is because it is perfectly consistent with the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, and it sweepingly advances public safety at the same time.

Third, this bill will dramatically lower gun violence in America. More than 90 percent of Brady background checks take less than 90 seconds to complete. But these checks have literally stopped more than 3 million illegal gun purchases by felons, fugitives, domestic offenders, the violently mentally ill, undocumented aliens, and so on. Every day, background checks stop 170 felons and 50 domestic abusers from purchasing a gun. Imagine how much more effective this system will be when we close these gaping loopholes.

Yet, even in the face of the shocking death toll which distinguishes our society from the other wealthy societies on Earth, despite the overwhelming public support for this legislation, and despite its clear constitutionality, our friends across the aisle oppose closing the internet, the gun show, and the private sale loopholes.

Instead of getting on our side to close the loopholes, what do they give us? More loopholes. They brought us dozens of amendments to try to suggest more loopholes to the current law.

That is obviously not the direction that America needs to go in, and you will hear some more about that today, Mr. Speaker. They have given us a veritable loophole factory. But now is the time to close loopholes, not reproduce them.

Let's focus on the public safety, which is the cardinal purpose of law in the social contract in a democratic society. Let's pass this excellent bill, and let's pass H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which closes the Charleston loophole, the loophole that made it possible for a guy to go out and get a gun because the dealer decided to give him a gun after 3 days because they were still doing a background check.

This loophole says that if it has taken 3 days or more, you have a right to go ahead and get your gun. We are going to close that one, the so-called default proceed provision. We are going to close that one, too, so that we don't see any repeat massacres like the one that took place in June of 2015 at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement by the National Task Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence, which is in favor of this legislation and against any weakening amendments.

National Task Force To End Sexual & Domestic Violence

The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic

Violence, a coalition comprising federal, state, local and

tribal organizations and individuals who have fought for

federal protections for survivors of domestic violence,

dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, oppose any

amendments to H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of

2019, that exempts any persons from the firearms background

check requirement. This includes amendments exempting victims

and survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault,

including those with protective orders.

Firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic

violence, and this is true no matter who owns the firearm.

Research shows that a male abuser's access to a firearm

increases the risk of intimate partner femicide fivefold and

does not support the contention that firearm possession is a

protective factor for the victim. The testimony of Christy

Salters Martin, a professional boxer and experienced gun

user, to the Senate Judiciary Committee illustrates this.

Despite her boxing prowess and familiarity with firearms, her

abuser was able to take her gun from her and shoot her with

it, narrowly missing her heart. Firearms do not make victims

of domestic violence safer; firearms put victims at greater

risk.

Furthermore, domestic abusers are adept at using the

justice system against victims. Abusers often accuse the

victim of being the perpetrator of violence, making police

reports and seeking protective orders. Abusers are also adept

at finding loopholes. If persons with protective orders are

exempted from the background check requirement, many abusers

who are prohibited from possessing firearms would seek

protective orders in order to circumvent the background check

requirement to obtain firearms to terrorize their victims.

Moreover, requiring a victim to undergo a firearms

background check is not a hurdle to obtaining a firearm. Most

firearm background checks are completed in under a minute. A

victim seeking to purchase a firearm would still be able to

do so quickly, unless the victim was legally prohibited from

possessing firearms.

Rather than adding dangerous exemptions to a law that is

supposed to protect victims and survivors of domestic

violence, Congress should focus on ensuring that adjudicated

domestic abusers do not possess firearms. This includes

ensuring federal firearms prohibitors protect all victims of

intimate partner violence, including dating partners, and

ensuring that domestic abusers who are prohibited from

possessing firearms relinquish their firearms. The best way

to protect victims is to disarm abusers.

Just to quote a small part of it: ``Firearms pose a significant danger to victims of domestic violence, and this is true no matter who owns the firearm. Research shows that a male abuser's access to a firearm increases the risk of intimate partner femicide fivefold and does not support the contention that firearm possession is a protective factor for the victim.''

And there is more in here of interest.

I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona for her thoughts on the question of sexual and domestic violence.

We, indeed, have a provision within the legislation which allows for an exemption from the background check requirement in cases of an imminent threat of great bodily harm.

The question has been raised: Does that include sexual assault, dating partner violence, stalking, and so on? We thought it was self- evident that it did, but, in any event, Representatives Horn from Oklahoma and Murphy from Florida are introducing a clarifying amendment to be very specific that it is included.

At that point, perhaps we could welcome the support of the distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona, because we are being very clear at that point that our exception for imminent bodily harm and violence includes sexual assault and so on.

I am certain that the gentlewoman's intentions are good, just as are the intentions of the offerers of the amendment in the bill.

Let me just address, in case the gentlewoman hasn't decided to come over to our side now, some of the general points that were made against the legislation.

The gentlewoman articulated an argument we have been hearing a lot of from our counterparts, which is that criminals don't follow the law and, therefore, there is no reason to get rid of the loopholes and strengthen the law, because criminals won't follow the law.

Now, the fallacy of that argument is plain to see. It is an argument against all law.

It is an argument against the law against murder because murderers obviously don't follow the law against murder.

It is an argument against the law opposed to theft because thieves don't follow the law against theft.

But I think anyone who takes time to really study what law is understands that the purpose of the law is to deter people from negative, socially harmful action, the way that the Brady Act has deterred more than 3 million people--felons, fugitives, the mentally unstable, and other unauthorized categories--from accessing a weapon.

Now, that argument sweeps so broadly that it is an argument against having the Brady Act that we have now, and perhaps that is the intention, simply to take down the law that we have got now.

Another purpose of law, of course, is to punish people who violate it and then, again, to send a moral message about what the social norms are.

And we have got social norms about driving, for example. Would we say we are not going to have driver's licenses in America because people who drive without a driver's license ignore the law requiring you to have a driver's license?

It is a completely nonsensical argument.

Let's come back to reality and talk about what the Brady Act actually requires the gun dealers to ask people.

Here are the basic questions that are being asked:

Are you under indictment for or have you ever been convicted of a felony?

Are you a fugitive from justice?

Are you an unlawful user of a controlled substance?

Do you suffer from mental illness?

Have you been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces?

Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner?

Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

Have you renounced your United States citizenship?

Are you unlawfully present in the United States?

Mr. Speaker, those questions have created a dragnet that has allowed us to stop more than 3 million people from getting weapons who shouldn't have them.

But there are these big, gaping loopholes out there that they can go on the Internet and get one, or they can go to the parking lot of a convenience store in a private sale and get one, or they can go to a gun show and negotiate a private sale and get one without having to answer those questions.

Well, the American people have spoken on this. That is really why this is the first legislation advocating gun safety to hit the floor of the House of Representatives in a quarter of a century.

This is a great day for the gun safety movement that has overtaken America, rejecting the unconscionable toll of 100 people dead every single day in communities across the land.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the sponsor of the underlying bill, H.R. 8, who has done such a magnificent job advocating this cause through thick and thin.

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

I suppose that we are in a rush to do anything, something, anything that works in order to curb the terrible toll of gun violence on our society.

In the last Congress it is true there was other legislation that was brought to us. One was a proposal to legalize silencers in America, which sounds to me more like an agenda of organized crime than it is of the U.S. Congress trying to seek public safety.

But there was this bipartisan Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which was a massive assault on federalism and States' rights. It would have destroyed every State's concealed carry law in the country to a level at the lowest common denominator. So if you could get a license to carry a concealed loaded weapon in one State--and in some States there are more than a million people who have been able to get them through completely permissive and lax laws--then you could go anywhere in the country. That is their proposal. That is what is coming out of the loophole factory.

I just would like to assure my friend that we have a provision in our legislation, if you read it carefully, which says that you can temporarily transfer a gun at a shooting range, at a shooting gallery, or for purposes of hunting, so he doesn't have to worry about this.

Our friends are either not reading carefully enough or they are overlooking very clear passages in our legislation which deal with commonsense concerns.

This is bipartisan legislation. It is backed by more than 90 percent of the American people, and it is going to advance common safety. So rather than searching for mysterious reasons to oppose it, why shouldn't everybody get together to say this is something that will promote the public safety?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

I want to thank my colleague for advancing our discussion here because I think now we are really starting to get somewhere.

The gentlewoman suggested an amendment which allows for the transfer of a firearm to a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault who has an order of protection issued by a court. That is an extremely narrow exception.

Most women who are enduring domestic violence don't have a civil protection order. Part of that is because of the incompetence of the laws in a lot of States, and part of it is because they haven't had the wherewithal to go and get one.

But our legislation and our amendment sweeps much more broadly. It allows any woman who is a victim of domestic violence, who faces a threat from their attacker, to be loaned a gun by a family member or be loaned a gun by a friend until the threat is resolved.

My friend suggests that there is something ambiguous about the words. I just don't see the ambiguity. Their original argument attacked the utility of all criminal law, saying we shouldn't have criminal laws, essentially, because criminals won't follow them.

This seems like an attack on law itself. Law depends upon language. But the language is clear here that if there is a threat and if you are suffering from the threat of domestic violence, sexual assault and so on, then you can get the gun.

Who interprets it? Well, you have got the right to go out and get it. If someone were to prosecute you for doing that, the prosecution would clearly lose.

So I am afraid that our friends are looking for problems in this bipartisan legislation which simply don't exist.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first, to clarify one thing, this is bipartisan legislation. We have at least five Republicans who are cosponsoring and supporting this legislation. I assume my friend doesn't mean to read those five Republican Members of the House of Representatives out of her caucus.

I am not quite sure what happened in Maine, but I know that there are around a dozen States and the District of Columbia that have already gotten rid of the loopholes that we are going to get rid of today in this Federal legislation.

My friend also invokes Second Amendment rights. I thought that we had put that red herring to rest in 2008 in Heller v. District of Columbia. Justice Scalia said that reasonable regulation to screen out felons and fugitives and the mentally unstable is perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.

Everybody on both sides of the aisle favors the Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. If you are going to oppose this legislation, you have to base it on some public safety rationale and not pretend like anybody has made a constitutional argument, because nobody has made a constitutional argument.

Finally, on the question of the domestic violence amendment, I would invite my friend to come on over, and we would gladly have unanimous consent to have her added to the amendment, which is the broader amendment she is talking about. Of course, her amendment was the narrow one, which required you to have a civil protection order before there would be an exception from the provisions of the legislation.

She said she was misdirected by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. All I can say is the legislative process is a treacherous place and a rocky road for people in the minority. I have been dealing with that for several years. In any event, we would love to have you join the amendment now. Mr. Speaker, I make that offer to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is the great and distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, far from trying to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, our legislation will save law-abiding citizens from criminals, simply by expanding the successful Brady law, which has been in effect for decades now.

The gentlewoman introduces a constitutional argument at the last minute here, saying that our legislation is unconstitutional because there may be undue fees imposed. Of course, those are the fees that are currently imposed under the Brady law, so I am afraid that my friend has just made an argument for the unconstitutionality of the current law, which has saved us from more than 3 million felons, fugitives, mentally unstable people, drug abusers, and undocumented aliens from acquiring firearms in the country.

Mr. Speaker, our country is a social contract. I know we have got a lot of young people here today. We are a social contract. If you go back and read any of the social contracts--there is Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, or Thomas Jefferson--any of them say, we leave a state of nature, which is a state of war and a state of violence, in order to live in a civilized way.

But how civilized is it when tens of thousands of Americans, every year, are being killed in firearm violence? Every day, another hundred Americans are killed with guns.

In 2017, the highest level in 40 years, nearly 40,000 Americans died from gun violence. That is not a civilized state. That is a state of war. That is a state of violence.

We know what the loopholes are, and we are going to close the loopholes with our bipartisan legislation, which has support from Republicans and it has support from Democrats. The public opinion polls show that more than 95 percent of the American people support what we are trying to do here--close the gun show loophole, close the private sale loophole, close the internet loophole--make sure that everybody who purchases a gun in America is purchasing it only with the universal comprehensive mental and criminal background check.

We have amendments for the discrete exceptions that are necessary, including in cases of imminent violence, including rape and sexual assault via domestic violence. We think that this legislation is excellent legislation that every Member of Congress should feel proud voting for.

Mr. Speaker, I submit both H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Check Act, as well as the bill to close the Charleston loophole, so that criminals are not given guns after 3 days. We are able to delay that process in the event that more investigation is needed.

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, and I thank Mr. Raskin for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, want to reduce gun violence. I think there is just a difference of opinion on how we get there.

Unfortunately, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, although well-intentioned, will not reduce gun violence as Mr. Raskin said, and instead it will turn everyday, law-abiding individuals into criminals and could actually do more harm than good.

I grew up in a family that didn't have guns. After my dad returned from World War II, he stopped hunting. So, because I wasn't around them, I have to admit I had an irrational fear of guns for awhile. It wasn't until I became an adult that I got educated.

I remember I first went to a debate where the person who was talking for gun rights said: Do you know who follows the laws? Law-abiding people follow the laws. Who doesn't follow the laws? Criminals do not follow the laws.

So although well-intentioned, often laws are unenforceable, and criminals just do not follow them.

H.R. 8, again, I believe is well-intentioned. But it will not solve the problem. H.R. 8 would not have prevented any of the mass shootings in the last 20 years, not one of them.

I studied them because I am on the Judiciary Committee along with Mr. Raskin, and we heard this bill in that committee. In most cases, guns were obtained legally. Recent attackers have passed background checks to acquire their firearms, including the attackers at the Thousand Oaks, California, shooting; the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania shooting; the attacker in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Florida, shooting; the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida; and the Las Vegas, Nevada, shooting. None of these attacks would have been prevented if H.R. 8 or H.R. 1112 were law.

Then, the attackers in the Columbine High School Colorado shooting used straw purchasers for their weapons, an act that is already illegal and has been illegal since at least the 1960s.

Adam Lanza, the attacker in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, shooting used his mother's firearms which were legally purchased by his mother. So as you can see--and I have each one of them listed how the attackers got their guns--H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 would not have prevented any of these shootings.

Not only would none of the mass shootings be prevented by H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, but the Department of Justice under President Obama said that in order for universal background checks to actually work and be enforceable, a Federal gun registry is needed. Yet this legislation in H.R. 8 specifically prohibits a registry; thus, again, it is unenforceable.

The fact is criminals don't get their guns legally and will not go through a background check to get their guns even if this bill were signed into law.

A recent Department of Justice report of prison inmates that used guns in their crimes showed that 56 percent obtained their guns illegally and another 25 percent received them from family members-- which, by the way, family members are still allowed to get the guns under this law.

It is obvious, then, that they did not get their guns from a gun show or private sales, as Mr. Raskin is concerned about.

H.R. 8 will also turn everyday, law-abiding citizens into criminals if it becomes law.

Let's look at the amendments that were rejected by the Democrats in the Rules Committee and in the Committee on the Judiciary that offered to protect law-abiding citizens from becoming criminals.

First, there was an amendment--I thought commonsense--that someone thinking of committing suicide would be exempted from temporarily turning over their gun to a friend, and it is not allowed under this bill. They would become a criminal.

So, somebody who wants to commit suicide could not transfer their gun to someone else.

If a law-abiding citizen wanted to let someone temporarily use their gun on their own property, they would become a criminal under this bill.

If a farmer or rancher wanted to temporarily lend a gun to a ranch hand for the purposes of ranch activities, the farmer would become a criminal under this law.

If a domestic violence victim was in fear for her life and wanted to temporarily borrow a gun from a friend to protect herself, she would become a criminal under this law.

Let's also look at some commonsense amendments rejected by the Democrats that would have prevented undue burdens and duplication on law-abiding citizens who have already passed a background check but now have to go through another background check under this law.

People who have security clearances. This is the application to get a government security clearance, page upon page, background check, extensive background check. Yet, someone who has this and has gone through this still has to get another background check.

People who have a concealed carry weapon issued by a State, they have to go through another background check.

People who have already gotten a gun permit from States which require them; they have to go through another background check.

People who have global entry, who have gone through a background check, they have got to do it again under this bill.

Even law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers have to go through another background check under this bill.

This is placing undue burden on law-abiding citizens.

Now I want to share testimony from a young woman from the Judiciary Committee. This woman was a victim of rape on her college campus. And the reason I am bringing it up is because well-meaning gun control laws actually prevented her from carrying a gun to school because the State she traveled through did not allow her to carry a gun in order to defend herself.

This is a clear example of how law-abiding citizens--not criminals, law-abiding citizens--who follow the law and how this young woman and others like her were actually harmed by well-intentioned gun control laws.

As a survivor of domestic violence, I know all too well how hard it can be to protect oneself or find a lifeline out. My abuser often controlled all my finances. I wouldn't have been able to pay for a background check or a gun.

Sometimes getting a gun from a friend could actually be your only option; yet, unfortunately, under this bill, I tried to offer an amendment, but it was rejected.

Now let's turn to H.R. 1112, which changes the length of time that a background check has to be completed from the current 3 days to 10 business days and then another 10 business days for an appeal. So it could be 20-plus days.

The reason I am bringing this up is I want to tell you a story--a real story--about Carol Bowne. She was a New Jersey woman who was stabbed to death while waiting to be approved for her firearm application.

She already had an order of protection through the courts, but that wasn't enough. She needed more than just that piece of paper.

H.R. 1112 will make the realities of Carol's story happen across the country, putting millions of women and law-abiding citizens in danger. Women who seek avenues of protection will be forced to wait almost a month--20 days to a month--like Carol. How many women will potentially suffer like Carol?

H.R. 8 also has other problems.

Unfortunately, the debate in the Judiciary Committee was cut short. Many commonsense amendments were not even heard. Only 10 amendments out of 100 were heard before the chairman cut off debate.

Because of the rush to get this bill through, there is another problem. There is vague language that is not defined and, thus, is open to interpretation.

I know, in some of the amendments, the majority party has tried to give an alternative to my good, commonsense domestic violence amendments, but it doesn't do any good. And this is the reason; it is because the language is so vague.

It says: Under H.R. 8, a person is allowed to temporarily transfer a firearm if it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

The question is: There is no definition of this, so how long is a temporary transfer? Who determines that? Does the victim determine it?

Who determines if there is imminent death? Does it qualify if a victim of domestic violence thinks they will be killed? Or does the person transferring the gun have to be in the same room and there be some kind of shootout and they throw a gun to them?

What do ``imminent danger'' and ``imminent death'' mean?

With something as important as the Second Amendment, I think we owe it to the American people to do our work and take as long as we have to in order to have a fair and open debate on major pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of things that were said previously.

I had sponsored an amendment, as a survivor of domestic violence, to allow victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse who have orders of protection to be able to get transferred a gun if they might be in fear for their life.

As I have said, often victims of domestic violence don't have the financial means or they are so restricted by their perpetrator that it is difficult for them to go out and purchase a gun, let alone get a background check, and so they might have a friend whom they can borrow it from.

Now, in response, I think, Mr. Raskin, if I am not mistaken, said that the Democrats did help domestic violence victims. I just don't think that their amendment cuts it, and I am going to read the amendment if this is the one that the gentleman is talking about.

It says: A temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the

imminent death or great bodily harm--and then here is the amendment-- including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse.

I would say just because you add the words ``domestic violence,'' ``victims of domestic abuse'' doesn't mean this is going to help; and the reason is simply because of what I said before, that these terms in here are really unclear. I really would like somebody to explain, and they are not defined anywhere, who determines prevent imminent death or great bodily harm?

So, let's say I am a victim of domestic violence and I think my perpetrator is going to kill me. Does imminent death and, in this word, say, last only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death? So does that mean the person who--my friend who can lend me a gun has to be right there in the same room and see that there is imminent death coming?

I mean, there is no definition here. So it is unclear to me that this would help at all.

Also, what is the definition of ``temporary transfer''? How long is that? How long is temporary transfer? Does that mean, you know, just enough time you can throw somebody a gun while they are imminently in death? I mean, do you have to be right there? What does this mean? There is no definition.

So, if we are going to proceed with this, I think that we should at least define what these terms mean. Therefore, I really wish that my amendment that said that victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse that have an order of protection through the court--through the court-- would be allowed to at least borrow a gun to defend themselves from, maybe, a friend.

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

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

I would like to refute some of the things, or talk about some of the things said by my friends on the other side.

One of the things that I do want to talk about is that Mr. Raskin said that my amendment is such a narrow exception for domestic violence victims. I had a broader one in Judiciary Committee, if the gentleman remembers, and Chairman Nadler told me that it was too broad, that it was too vague, so that is why I made it very specific.

If the gentleman would like, I will make it broad again.

Also in the Rules Committee, there was another amendment as well, and we are both on Rules, too, of course.

There was a broader one from Mr. Scalise, who is a victim of gun violence. He had an amendment that was ruled out of order. That basically said any victim of domestic violence, which was broad, but then he had another subsection that said victim of domestic violence or sexual abuse that has an order of protection. So we covered both, yet it was ruled out of order. So we really tried.

Now, the other thing that you brought up, that it is very clear what imminent danger means, and that would cover somebody, and surely a domestic violence victim would not become a criminal under this law. Well, I don't think it is very sure.

So I ask Mr. Raskin, my colleague, if he would be open to removing the word ``imminent'' and just say ``danger,'' instead of ``imminent danger,'' because to me, ``imminent danger'' means you have to be right in the same room, you know, and throw somebody a gun or something. I mean, to me, the word ``imminent'' needs to be removed from the language.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the number of times now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said: Oh, so many people support this universal background check.

Well, I disagree. I disagree, because there is proof right in Maine. They had a ballot measure, and it was rejected by the majority of the people.

I suppose it depends on how you ask the question, but I just don't think that when you get into the details of how it takes away our fundamental Second Amendment rights and actually burdens law-abiding citizens and actually may harm people, some of these laws--like was the case with the young woman who testified in Judiciary who said that good-intentioned gun laws actually prevented her from defending herself, and she was raped.

So I would say I have some disagreements with some of your statements.

I also want to point out that there are many things that we can do on a bipartisan basis, and this obviously is not bipartisan. I am a co- chairwoman of the Women's Caucus in Congress, and I have talked to my counterpart, a very nice woman and Congresswoman. We really do want to work on bipartisan solutions to gun violence. I would say one of those is let's really concentrate on mental health issues.

Now, we have done some things in the past. We did the Fix NICS Act, which we passed last year on a bipartisan basis, which really is an attempt to fix the national background system so that local jurisdictions actually report when there are problems, which I think is very valuable.

We also did legislation in a bipartisan manner that would protect our schools more.

Here is another thing we could do in a bipartisan manner. As you have noted, 3.5 million people have been stopped by NICS since 1994 from getting guns, and 112,000 were stopped just last year. But you know what? Only 12 of those 112,000 were actually prosecuted. Why? I mean, we have laws on the books now, and we are not even enforcing them. So I think that is another thing we can do on a bipartisan basis.

Again, this bill, I believe, does more harm than good. I do think my colleagues are well intentioned. I do believe that all of us, whether we are Republican or Democrat, want to reduce gun violence.

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

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 make my amendment in order, which would allow domestic violence and sexual assault victims with orders of protection to be exempt from the gun transfer prohibitions. This amendment is crucial to saving lives.

As a survivor of domestic violence, I know what it is like to be in fear for our lives.

This commonsense amendment is clearcut. If you are a victim with an order of protection, you can borrow a firearm or transfer a firearm to you. It is important, because victims don't often have the means to purchase or go pay for a background check.

The Democrats have presented a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence as a reason for not needing my amendment. However, with all due respect, the National Task Force does not speak for every victim, and they certainly do not speak for me. In fact, they never even contacted me, and I have been an outspoken person saying I am a survivor of domestic violence since I ran for Congress. I am also the person who sponsored the amendment to extend the Violence Against Women Act, yet they have never talked to me or reached out to my office.

The majority offered a political amendment on domestic violence, which I have already talked about, which really does not do any good, because the definitions of imminent danger are not defined, and it will not be carried out and will not be effective.

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, in closing, we all want to solve gun violence in the United States, but H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will not solve the problem.

As co-chairwoman of the bipartisan Women's Caucus, I am committed to working across the aisle on solutions we can all agree on. However, this is not one of them. We can talk about mental health. We can talk about strengthening the NICS background check system even more. We can talk about enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

H.R. 8 will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by making everyday gun transfers a crime and putting those who seek to protect themselves in jail for wanting to do so.

H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 will place an undue burden on citizens who already have a background check. For instance: security clearance, global entry, State-issued permits, et cetera.

These pieces of legislation put law-abiding citizens in danger by disarming them and emboldening criminals. The bad guys never follow the law. In fact, I believe that this legislation violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution because it does not prohibit undue fees for background checks and, thus, some people cannot afford them

and, thus, not be able to get a gun to defend themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The only crisis is the constitutional crisis that has been created by the President of the United States by his direct and ill-conceived abuse of power which is noted in the Constitution as a violation of the Constitution.

It is sad that the President has declared a national emergency for the purpose of misappropriating funds from previously designated and important uses to build a wall, uses that would be dealt with in a national emergency in case of war that would then call for the building of direct materials and buildings necessary for troops engaging in war.

The only response to my good friend who has come back from the border and saw people going over the border is to engage more Border Patrol agents and train them to do the job that they are designated to do. We, as Democrats, support that.

Illegal border crossings are at a near 40-year low. Sixty national security personnel, ambassadors, CIA, DNI, and others have indicated that this is wrongheaded. It is wrong.

The President's declaration clearly violates Congress' exclusive power of the purse, and if unchecked, would fundamentally alter the balance of powers, violating our Founder's vision for America. That is unconstitutional.

To quote Thomas Paine in ``Common Sense,'' it says, `` . . . in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king.'' This is the abuse, the declaration, and we should vote for the underlying resolution to restore constitutional order.

Let me also indicate that as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, the numbers of Mexicans from Mexico has decreased.

The numbers coming now are what we call OTMs, other than Mexican. They are coming and fleeing bloodshed in countries where they are being threatened with a decapitation of their head.

Mothers are being told that if you stay, we know you are pregnant, you can have the baby, and we will kill you after the birth. These are the stories that those of us who visited the border are hearing over and over again.

If there is a crisis, it is a humanitarian crisis. We, as Democrats, have no problem with funding the resources necessary for the border, including, as indicated, the increase in personnel, technology, and transportation equipment.

I have been to the border when the need for night goggles and other types of equipment were rendered important. Let us do the right thing. Vote on this resolution, and do the constitutional point of restoring order to this government.

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.