H.Res. 491

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

I don't want to put any pressure on you, Mr. Speaker, but it comforts me to see you as the Chair up there today. There are those days where you need particular leaders to be there at a particular time, and I will tell you that I am not telling anybody in this Chamber anything they don't already know: You have made an entire career in this institution reaching out, building unlikely alliances, making it work where other folks said it could not work. And when my friend from Maryland, whom I thank for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, talks about what it is our constituents expect, what it is our citizenry expects, I think they expect that, Mr. Speaker, and we have one of those bills before us today in the intelligence reauthorization act.

There is more in this rule, Mr. Speaker, than I believe I have seen in any rule in my 9 years in Congress and years serving on staff here. We packed it all in there last night, and I don't want to miss the lead on this rule, which is an intelligence bill that is named after two congressional staffers who passed away last year. They spent their lives in service to this institution and to the intelligence community, and we are grateful for that service.

If you have not looked at the intelligence community recently, Mr. Speaker, you will see Devin Nunes on the Republican side of the aisle and Adam Schiff leading it on the Democratic side of the aisle. I can picture those two faces because I usually see them on split screens on FOX or MSNBC, and I can't think of many things they have had to say where they agreed with one another over the past 4, 5 years, and yet we have a bill today in sharp contrast to the partisan nonsense that was the NDAA operation last week.

We have a bill that has come out of the Intelligence Committee with two strident, passionate Republican and Democratic leaders there on the Intelligence Committee, that came out unanimously, that they presented unanimously in front of the Rules Committee last night and we have a chance to pass here on the floor of the House.

You also find in this rule, Mr. Speaker, 31 amendments that have been made in order to that intelligence reauthorization bill. Even though we found bipartisanship in the committee, even though we found unanimity in the committee, the Rules Committee, in its wisdom, last night, decided to make 31 more ideas available to be considered here on the floor of the House.

You see in this rule, Mr. Speaker, the ability for the House to take up Arms Export Control Act measures. These are also measures you are going to find bipartisan support for, also measures that you will find, again, as my friend from Maryland referenced, the House doing what you would expect the House to do, what our bosses back home sent us here to do.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that there are times when folks feel their deeply held beliefs cannot be compromised for the sake of bipartisanship. I find that trying to find a way to get to yes is better than trying to find a way to get to no. There is always a reason to get to no.

Instead of looking for ways to oppose our political rivals, we have to act as the Intelligence Committee did, in a manner where we can find issues on which we agree. It is the only way to move this process forward.

Mr. Speaker, America's national security and that of our allies, which is what the intelligence community helps to protect and support every day, is about more than scoring political points.

I mentioned those split screens on the TV where you do see folks lobbing accusations back and forth. Sometimes it seems to be political sport instead of serious legislating.

The measure we have before us today is not political sport; it is serious legislating. And we are going to have a chance to come together as a House not just to discuss it, not just to improve it, but to implement it.

Mr. Speaker, among the things that you will find in this bill, the foreign influences around the globe, and we have talked about them in all of their various incarnations here on the floor of the House over the last 2 weeks. This bill requires a report on China's influence over Taiwanese elections.

Chinese influence around the globe is at an unparalleled high. We are now rivaled by the Chinese in every single aspect of international influence and policy, but they have outsized influence in Taiwan, and we require that report.

We require a report not just on Russian interference in our elections, Mr. Speaker, but in elections across the globe. It would be naive to suggest that the Russians would limit their influence in elections to trying to manipulate the greatest and freest country in the world. They are working across the globe to influence elections wherever free people live.

Combating Chinese and Russian aggression in elections, Mr. Speaker, is not something, as is so often told in the media, that divides us; it is something that unites us. We saw that in the Intelligence Committee, and we are going to see that here on the floor of the House, and I am very proud of that. I wish we could have continued that effort, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with every word my friend from Maryland said about standing up for Article I. Of all of my frustrations of 9 years in this institution, the deference of the United States Congress to the executive branch has been my greatest frustration. It exists for one reason and one reason only, and that is that men and women, colleagues like my friend from Maryland and I, have been unable to find a way to speak with one voice on issues that are Article I versus Article II issues.

Go down the list in your time in Congress, Mr. Speaker, whether it is the contempt resolution this institution passed for former Attorney General Eric Holder, that contempt resolution that passed on party-line votes in committee and party-line votes here on the floor of the House and went down to the executive branch where absolutely no action was taken on it whatsoever; take production of papers, whether on Fast and Furious or whether on the Census, production of papers, whether from the President's counsel or from the President's press secretary, we have these discussions and we cannot--no, we have not found a way to come together to speak with one voice.

We have an opportunity, a model. You will remember some number of weeks ago--now, months ago, Mr. Speaker--where we were very concerned in this Chamber about anti-Semitic remarks that were broadcast in the public domain. We came together as an institution to speak out against anti-Semitism.

It didn't happen overnight. In fact, my friend from Maryland authored that resolution, to his credit. But he didn't sit down with a pen and put some words on a page and bring it here to the floor for consideration. He had to work it. And I don't mean work it a little bit; I mean work it hard: it was coming; it was not coming; it was coming again; it was not coming. To find a pathway forward so that this House speaks with one voice instead of divided voices was an effort that was put in.

Now, granted, at the end of the day, it was a little more milquetoast than the resolution that I would have drafted, but sometimes that is the trade you make to be able to expand the acceptance of a resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Every single time in this Chamber, as it comes to reining in Article II or reining in the judicial branch, every single time we speak with a divided voice, we weaken this institution.

I have never seen a resolution that tried to hold two Cabinet Secretaries in contempt at the same time. Maybe that has happened historically; I don't know that answer. I have not seen it in my time.

I heard last night from the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and the ranking member was unwavering in his commitment to Article I and our preeminence in the constitutional model. But he was also unwavering in his commitment to there is more that we could do to work with the administration as opposed to begin to poke that sharp stick, and so this resolution does not have his support.

Well, if we begin our effort to do oversight over the administration and we are already divided before that bill even leaves committee, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have the outcome that we want here on the floor of the House.

And then, of course, this rule in those contempt efforts is targeting a United States citizenship question that would have gone on the Census. We talk about that as if that is an outrageous thing.

I appreciate the kind words my friend from Maryland had to say about President Lincoln. I am going to have to get the Clerk to read them back to me because I am going to use that over and over again about a wonderful Republican President, but I want to use the words that Mr. Raskin used.

But when President Lincoln was presiding over this land, it was common practice to have a citizenship question on the United States Census.

In fact, every single Census from 1820 to 1950 had a citizenship question on it. It was noncontroversial. In 1950, we took it off of the short form; it moved to the long form. And so from 1970 to 2000, that question was on the long form every single Census. And then in 2000, we took it off the long form and we put it onto the American Community Survey, that half-decade measure that goes out to create the data that Mr. Raskin rightly noted is so important to all of our communities back home.

If, for the first time in American history, in the history of the Census, we decide that citizenship is somehow now a forbidden topic, that we can't find a way to discuss it, that it is not important to who we are as a Nation and how it is that we look at ourselves, fair enough.

That is not what the Supreme Court case was about, Mr. Speaker. As we well know, the Supreme Court case simply said: You can put a question about citizenship on the Census if you want to. You just didn't do it the right way, and so we are going to ask you not to do it that way. There are those ways and means of getting that done. You just didn't do it the right way.

I raise that, Mr. Speaker, not because I am a Census guru. I am not. I don't serve on any of those relevant committees. But in this era of outrage, where folks have begun to confuse civility with weakness--and that is a confusion that I think is to all of our detriments--the desire to have a question about citizenship on the Census has nothing to do with this President, this administration, Republicans, Democrats. It has been that way since 1820.

Thoughtful men and women, concerned men and women, serious legislators have been interested in this information for over 100 years.

If we want to have the conversation that somehow citizenship can't be discussed anymore and we should ban it

from all Census documentation forever, I don't think that would succeed, but it is certainly a legitimate topic of debate. But what is not legitimate is to suggest that the only reason that anyone would ask about citizenship is to pursue some sort of nefarious, xenophobic purpose. It is simply not true.

I represent a majority minority constituency, Mr. Speaker. Twenty-six percent of my bosses are first-generation Americans. You want to find folks who love America, come down to where I live, find folks who have waited in line, folks who have paid their money, folks who pinned all their hopes and dreams to, ``If and only if I can get there, my children and my grandchildren will have a better life.''

That is what brought us all here at one generation or another. Whether you came in 1650 or whether you came in 1950 or whether you came yesterday, those are the dreams that bring us here.

There is a lot to be outraged about in today's culture, but I haven't seen any of it get fixed by being more outraged.

I have seen it get fixed by men and women like yourself, Mr. Speaker, who value trust, who value candor, who value honesty, and who value real relationships.

Anything that is hard, I can't solve with someone I don't trust. If one side is good and one side is evil, where do you go from there? What does that negotiation look like? That is not a conversation; that is you have got to now destroy one another. That seems to be the path that folks too often opt for in politics today.

There is more that unites us than divides us in this constitution and in this country, Mr. Speaker. You might not know that by the parts of this rule that are going to get the most attention today.

Adam Schiff, Devin Nunes, there are not two Members in this institution who feel more strongly and differently about the direction of public policy than those two men, and they came together, not to advance themselves, but to advance the Nation. They came together, not because it was easy, but precisely because it was hard and necessary, and brought us this bipartisan package we have today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for bringing that resolution to the floor, and I hope we will have ample time to celebrate those successes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I misunderstood my friend from Massachusetts. I think what my friend said is he does not care whether his words coarsen this institution, he does not care whether or not his positions diminish us as an institution, he does not care about the rules of this institution, which prohibit exactly the kind of words that he knows they prohibit and yet he uses anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my friend if he believes that his cause of admonishing this President is going to be advantaged by diminishing this institution?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. If the President believes every word that he said, does that excuse his behavior, in the gentleman's mind? Does it excuse his behavior to believe it?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. It is a perfectly legitimate assertion and attestation my friend from Massachusetts makes, and of course we all share that belief.

Mr. Speaker, when I was down here for the rule last week with my friend from Massachusetts, the other side was admonished, not once, but twice for violating the House rules for coarsening our debate, for diminishing our civility, for violating our rules; not a social contract about how we ought to treat each other, but rules where we have committed about how we will treat each other.

Today during 1 minute speeches, Mr. Speaker, not once, but twice the Chair admonished the other side to say: You are breaking our rules of civility. You are violating our standards of decorum. Our children are watching, and your behavior doesn't pass muster.

And now my friend--and he is my friend and I admire his work--he is passionate in the causes for which he advocates, and I believe that it is his passion, not his contempt for this institution, that leads him to say those things that he says. I believe he loves this institution, but he is misguided, when the Chair admonishes him again today now, and he has no apologies for his colleagues, no apologies for this institution.

We do have serious issues. I am not meaning serious like Russia and China, which those are serious, I don't mean serious like the hate that is fomenting in this country, which is serious. I mean all of it that is serious that nobody in this institution can solve unless we solve it together, and I want to find that pathway forward. This isn't it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman remember when Joe Wilson apologized, which is more than what my friend from Massachusetts has done when the House has condemned him from the Chair today?

I remember when my friend Mr. Wilson lost his temper. I do remember it. And I remember him apologizing for it because he didn't want to bring shame on this institution.

I would welcome any time the Chair admonishes either side of the aisle for violating our rules, coarsening our debate, doing those things that we all agree we don't want our children to see on TV, I welcome folks to correct that behavior.

Mr. Speaker, I fear my comments are falling on deaf ears, but I hope I am mistaken.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

While my friend from Texas is sometimes known for running over the gavel at the end of her comments, it is only because it comes from the heart. When I think about Members in this institution who are unhampered by a lack of passion, I think of my friend from Texas. But when I look for an honest broker, who will be true to her word and partner when partnership is required, my friend from Texas embodies that, as well. I appreciate both her words and her restraint here this morning.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend from Texas. I think that is a welcome invitation.

Mr. Speaker, thinking about the policies before us today, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to bring H.R. 3965 to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately preceding the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard a lot about the controversial citizenship question in the Census. Whether or not it should be controversial is a different issue altogether.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend and the ranking member on the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I regret that there is so much that is packed into this rule. It is one of the reasons I urged defeat of the rule today.

Everyone in this Chamber wants to vote to have this debate on the national intelligence reauthorization bill. Everybody wants to be a part of that. Again, 31 amendments made in order will improve that bill, a bipartisan product coming out of a very contentious committee.

The rest of these issues are more complex. And I don't mean complex because we shouldn't discuss them. We should. I mean complex because we haven't discussed them.

I think I am prepared to yield time if the gentleman needs it. I know my friend from Maryland is not the author of the resolution condemning the President, but the gentleman mentioned my friend from Texas (Mr. Olson) and Mr. Olson's comments on the Republican side of the aisle.

I ask the gentleman, was Mr. Olson consulted to try to create the language that we see before us today?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) consulted as we tried to draft this language that is before us today?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, was Mr. Upton, who the gentleman referenced as having sympathetic words to say, was the gentleman consulted about the drafting of this resolution?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, so Mr. Kasich was also not consulted and Ms. Murkowski also not consulted.

Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about a serious issue and we are going to craft a serious response and we want to speak with one voice from this institution, might it be a good idea for there to be at least one conversation between Democrats and Republicans about how to proceed?

Might it be a good idea to have more than one conversation?

Might it be a good idea to put partisanship aside and actually do those things that I know my friend from Maryland wants to do and I want to do arm in arm with him?

We keep missing opportunities in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, opportunities to make this institution stronger, opportunities to make this Nation stronger. We are missing them, and we are creating scars along the way.

What could be an operation in building trust has become an operation in building distrust.

What could be an operation designed to heal, I suspect, is going to be an operation that brings more needless pain.

We have a good bill in the intelligence reauthorization, Mr. Speaker. We have a good series of bills in arms export control. We could be down here talking about those because of the bipartisan work that has gone into it already.

Not one conversation has been had between tweets over a weekend and a resolution condemning those on the floor of the House, not one effort made to speak with one voice in the United States House. That tells you just about everything someone needs to know about why this resolution is on the floor with these two contempt resolutions in this place at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule. I urge defeat of the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I said earlier today that I wish we were not here, but we are here. Now, I wish to indicate that I am appalled at any commentary that demeans or hurts a fellow human being or a fellow American or fellow world citizen. So the recounting of various statements, I realize and recognize that comments were made about statements to ease the pain of those who were receiving it.

Right now, we are talking about comments that came from the highest office in the land, which really does reflect what this little book, the Constitution, says, that this Nation was organized to create a more perfect union. Yet, unfortunately, the officer in the White House, the President of the United States, took to tweeting and talked about the first African American woman from the Seventh District, the first Palestinian American woman, the youngest woman elected to Congress, and the first Somali American woman, women of color.

It is imperative today that, along with H. Res. 494, my resolution, we condemn this action, and we do it together. I ask my Republican colleagues to vote for the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security, I rise in support of H. Res. 489, a resolution condemning President Trump's racist comments directed at Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 2018, in an election widely regarded as a referendum on the performance and disapproval of the Administration of President Donald J. Trump, the American people voted to vest control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the Democratic Party to restore the system of checks and balances designed by the Framers in 1787 in Philadelphia.

The Representatives elected to the 116th Congress comprise the most diverse class in American history with respect to its racial, ethnic, and religious composition, and also includes the largest contingent of female Representatives and the most members ever of the LGBTQ community.

Among the cohort of the 40 Representatives first elected to the Congress in the November 2018 election are several whose membership is historic, including the Representative for the Seventh District of Massachusetts, the first African American woman elected from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Representative from the Thirteenth District of Michigan, the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress; the Representative from the Fourteenth District of New York, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress; and the Representative from the Fifth District of Minnesota, the first Somali-American elected to Congress.

In the discharge of their official duties as Members of Congress, these talented and dedicated Members of Congress traveled to the southern border of the United States to observe the living conditions and treatment received by migrants and refugees seeking asylum in the United States who are currently being held in detention facilities operated under control or supervision of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), some consisting of nothing more than tent villages cordoned off under highways.

Upon their return to the Capitol, these Members of Congress reported their shock and horror regarding the appalling and inhumane conditions to which detainees were being subjected by CPB at a public hearing of a House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

On July 14, 2019, the President of the United States reacted to the criticism of his Administration's treatment of detainees by these Members of Congress in a series of unhinged tweets that questioned their loyalty to the United States and implied that due to the circumstances of their birth they had no right to exercise the responsibilities and privileges of duly elected Members of Congress.

Specifically, the President tweeted that it was:

``So interesting to see ``Progressive'' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly . . . and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.''

The President's statements are false in that three of Members of Congress he impugned are in fact natural born citizens and the fourth- is a naturalized citizen.

Although the recent statements of the President are inaccurate and offensive, they are consistent with prior statements he has made to stoke to division, discord, and disharmony among the American people.

Let us not forget that the current President of the United States burnished his political reputation by claiming falsely for more than 5 years that his predecessor was born in Kenya and not in the United States and thus was an illegitimate President. The current President of the United States launched his 2016 campaign for the Presidency by saying of persons from Mexico seeking to immigrate to the United States: ``They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.''

The current President of the United States claimed that a Hispanic federal jurist could not preside over a court proceeding to which then presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization were defendants accused of civil fraud because ``He's a Mexican!''

In January 2018 the current President of the United States is reported to have inquired of his advisors: ``Why are we having all these people from (expletive deleted) countries come here?'', referring to persons from countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

And most contemptible of all, on August 15, 2017 the current President of the United States said he regarded as some ``very fine people,'' the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Ku Klux Klansmen who descended on the peaceful community of Charlottesville, Virginia to advocate racism and who were met by peaceful counterprotestors in a clash that the white supremacists turned violent and resulted in the death of Heather Heyer and left injured many other innocent persons who were gathered to affirm the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and to honor the sacrifice of unsung American heroes who devoted their lives to the ongoing quest to continue perfecting our union.

Mr. Speaker, the recent and past statements and actions of the current President of the United States demean the office he holds and falls short of the standard set by the 16th President, whose administration was devoted to unity, healing, and ending racial division.

In his famous March 4, 1861, Inaugural Address, President Abraham Lincoln foretold the reasons why the efforts of the current President of the United States to rend our union are destined to fail:

``We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.''

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate to share my perspective on immigration and significant and positive impact it has in the development of this, the greatest nation in human history.

Like the Framers did in the summer of 1776, it is fitting that we gather in the nation's capital on a sweltering July day to reflect upon America's long and continuing struggle for justice, equality, and opportunity.

After all, all that any of us wants is an honored place in the American family.

I am often reminded that as I speak there is a family somewhere about to begin a dangerous but hopeful quest.

Somewhere south of the border, maybe across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Laredo, Corpus Christi, or Brownsville or maybe just south of Tucson or San Diego or Douglass, Arizona.

Somewhere there is a family in the Old Country anxiously about to embark on their own journey to the New World of America.

They come for the same reason so many millions came before them, in this century and last, from this continent and from every other.

They come for the same reason families have always come to America: to be free of fear and hunger, to better their condition, to begin their world anew, to give their children a chance for a better life.

Like previous waves of immigrants, they too will wage all and risk all to reach the sidewalks of Houston or Los Angeles or Phoenix or Chicago or Atlanta or Denver or Detroit.

They will risk death in the desert; they will brave the elements, they will risk capture and crime, they will endure separation from loved ones.

And if they make it to the Promised Land of America, no job will be beneath them.

They will cook our food, clean our houses, cut our grass, and care for our kids.

They will be cheated by some and exploited by others.

They work in sunlight but live in twilight, between the shadows; not fully welcome as new Americans but wanted as low-wage workers.

Somewhere near the borders tonight, a family will cross over into the New World, willed by the enduring power of the American Dream.

I urge all Members to join me in supporting H. Res. 489.

All American should take pride in and celebrate the ethnic, racial, and religious diversity that has made the United States the leader of the community of nations and the beacon of hope and inspiration to oppressed persons everywhere.

And in addition to the love and pride Americans justifiably have for their country, all persons in the United States should cherish and exercise the rights, privileges, and responsibilities guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), who is a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 15 seconds.

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

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

The gentleman from California has 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

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

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

Madam Speaker, the way to move forward is by voting ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.

To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, it is indicated that we all are created equal, with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That is immigrant and nonimmigrant. That is an individual whose religion you believe in and one you do not. That is a lifestyle that you may not know and understand. It may be a race or ethnicity that you have never come to be able to accept.

In this Nation, the founding Thirteen Colonies fleeing persecution were described as creating an experiment. It was not a perfect experiment.

There were some of us who came to this Nation in the bottom of the belly of a slave boat. There were some who were indentured servants. Many came by boat. Some walked across a border that has created havoc. But they were people desperate for freedom and the right to make their lives better.

We can account for those people by the history books and the decades of heroes and sheroes who have come in a different skin, a different religion, a different basis. They have even put on the uniform of this Nation because they love this country.

I am reminded of the era of Dr. Martin Luther King, the many miles he walked with the soldiers, the Civil Rights soldiers, and his early book titled ``Why We Can't Wait.''

I join with the idea that we must work for the American people. We must provide for the increase in the minimum wage, good healthcare, and education.

At the same time, there is something in this Nation that our children demand that we do. What are the values of the red, white, and blue? What are the values of those stars that represent the many States of this Nation? The values are that we are a Nation based upon laws, morality, values, a love of country, due process, equality, and justice. It means that every single person must have the fundamental right of respect.

This resolution is simply that. It is a fundamental right to respect and dignity--in this instance, for four Members of the United States Congress from Boston, from New York, from Minnesota, and from Michigan.

As they go on to their places, it is very clear that they must have the respect that is deserving of this particular Congress.

These four women are no less deserving of dignity than anyone else. This resolution is simply one that is to seek--not condoning, as was said--a condemnation of attitudes that may parlay racist beliefs.

No one stands for that. We cannot go on to all that is good without saying to the Nation and the world that this is not good; it is not America; and we will not accept that as our definition because we do believe in the creation of a more perfect Union.

I conclude by saying that we condemn the hurtful and offensive comments that demean immigrants and people of color, especially if those comments originate from the White House. What we will do today is accept the challenge of Dr. Martin Luther King, a peacemaker, a man of hope, and we will say why we can't wait because the Nation calls upon our higher angels.

That is what we will do when we affirm this resolution on behalf of the people of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for this very important resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his scholarship and his passion, the chairman of the Rules Committee, my good friend from Georgia, and all those who have come to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is a somber moment. It is not a moment that I cherish. My privilege in serving the greatest country in the world has allowed me to serve with three previous Presidents. Not one time from the three previous Presidents have I ever heard the words that were uttered this weekend.

I believe in harmony. I just came out of a Helsinki Commission meeting, an organization that deals with peace around the world. We were talking about how we can impress upon the world to not use religion for hatred. Religion is love.

One of the answers I gave was to show the examples here in the United States, where religions from all different perspectives come together in a time of disaster and need. It is something that touches our heart.

When we vote for a President, we want that President to touch our hearts, to lift us up, and to make us better people.

I cannot argue with the fact that 49 percent of the American people believe that this President is a racist. It hurts my heart because I come in a skin color where I have been at the sad end of racist tactics and words. I am a product of busing. But it does not diminish my love for this Nation.

So it disturbs me for this wonderfully diverse group of new Members who have come to the United States Congress from all over the Nation, including the LGBTQ community, and among the 40 Representatives who came was the Representative from the Seventh Congressional District of Massachusetts, the State's first African American woman; the Representative of the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, the first Palestinian woman; the Representative from the 14th Congressional District of New York, the youngest woman; and the Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota, the first Somali American elected to Congress.

In the discharge of their duties, they went to the border--their passion, their youth, just as I had done--and saw the appalling conditions that children were held in. They came back and expressed themselves, protected by the First Amendment.

They used no violence. They only wanted to wake up the Congress, as all of us who went and could not accept the pain did. In fact, wherever I go at home, people are asking: What are you doing for the children at the border?

So, they didn't do anything extraordinary, in terms of what Members should do, having the responsibility of oversight.

Then came, in the last 72 hours, these words: ``So interesting to see `progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt, and inept anywhere in the world, if they even have a functioning government at all, now loudly and viciously

telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth, how our government is to be run.''

``Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came?''

I will be introducing a condemnation resolution that recounts the life and legacy of this President while 49 percent of the people believe that he is racist.

I only ask that we come together today to do the right thing, to do what the 16th President said right after the Civil War: ``We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory'' will swell when again touched, ``as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.''

Today, if we condemn this language, it will say to America that we cannot accept this kind of behavior. That is what is bringing the country together, that we accept each other's diversity.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security, I rise in support of the rule governing debate on H. Res. 489, a resolution condemning President Trump's racist comments directed at Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 2018, in an election widely regarded as a referendum on the performance and disapproval of the Administration of President Donald J. Trump, the American people voted to vest control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the Democratic Party to restore the system of checks and balances designed by the Framers in 1787 in Philadelphia.

The Representatives elected to the 116th Congress comprise the most diverse class in American history with respect to its racial, ethnic, and religious composition, and also includes the largest contingent of female Representatives and the most members ever of the LGBTQ community.

Among the cohort of the 40 Representatives first elected to the Congress in the November 2018 election are several whose membership is historic, including the Representative for the Seventh District of Massachusetts, the first African American woman elected from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Representative from the Thirteenth District of Michigan, the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress; the Representative from the Fourteenth District of New York, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress; and the Representative from the Fifth District of Minnesota, the first Somali-American elected to Congress.

In the discharge of their official duties as Members of Congress, these talented and dedicated Members of Congress traveled to the southern border of the United States to observe the living conditions and treatment received by migrants and refugees seeking asylum in the United States who are currently being held in detention facilities operated under control or supervision of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), some consisting of nothing more than tent villages cordoned off under highways.

Upon their return to the Capitol, these Members of Congress reported their shock and horror regarding the appalling and inhumane conditions to which detainees were being subjected by CPB at a public hearing of a House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

On July 14, 2019, the President of the United States reacted to the criticism of his Administration's treatment of detainees by these Members of Congress in a series of unhinged tweets that questioned their loyalty to the United States and implied that due to the circumstances of their birth they had no right to exercise the responsibilities and privileges of duly elected Members of Congress.

Specifically, the President tweeted that it was:

So interesting to see ``Progressive'' Democrat

Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose

governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst,

most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even

have a functioning government at all), now loudly . . . and

viciously telling the people of the United States, the

greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our

government is to be run. Why don't they go back and help fix

the totally broken and crime infested places from which they

came.

The President's statements are false in that three of Members of Congress he impugned are in fact natural born citizens and the fourth is a naturalized citizen.

Although the recent statements of the President are inaccurate and offensive, they are consistent with prior statements he has made to stoke to division, discord, and disharmony among the American people.

Let us not forget that the current President of the United States burnished his political reputation by claiming falsely for more than 5 years that his predecessor was born in Kenya and not in the United States and thus was an illegitimate President.

The current President of the United States launched his 2016 campaign for the Presidency by saying of persons from Mexico seeking to immigrate to the United States: ``They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.''

The current President of the United States claimed that a Hispanic federal jurist could not preside over a court proceeding to which then presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization were defendants accused of civil fraud because ``He's a Mexican!''

In January 2018 the current President of the United States is reported to have inquired of his advisors: ``Why are we having all these people from (expletive deleted) countries come here?'', referring to persons from countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

And most contemptible of all, on August 15, 2017 the current President of the United States said he regarded as some ``very fine people,'' the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Ku Klux Klansmen who descended on the peaceful community of Charlottesville, Virginia to advocate racism and who were met by peaceful counterprotestors in a clash that the white supremacists turned violent and resulted in the death of Heather Heyer and left injured many other innocent persons who were gathered to affirm the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and to honor the sacrifice of unsung American heroes who devoted their lives to the ongoing quest to continue perfecting our union.

Mr. Speaker, the recent and past statements and actions of the current President of the United States demean the office he holds and falls short of the standard set by the 16th President, whose administration was devoted to unity, healing, and ending racial division.

In his famous March 4, 1861, Inaugural Address, President Abraham Lincoln foretold the reasons why the efforts of the current President of the United States to rend our union are destined to fail:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.

Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds

of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when

again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels

of our nature.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate to share my perspective on immigration and significant and positive impact it has in the development of this, the greatest nation in human history.

Like the Framers did in the summer of 1776, it is fitting that we gather in the nation's capital on a sweltering July day to reflect upon America's long and continuing struggle for justice, equality, and opportunity.

After all, all that any of us wants is an honored place in the American family.

I am often reminded that as I speak there is a family somewhere about to begin a dangerous but hopeful quest.

Somewhere south of the border, maybe across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Laredo, Corpus Christi, or Brownsville or maybe just south of Tucson or San Diego or Douglass, Arizona.

Somewhere there is a family in the Old Country anxiously about to embark on their own journey to the New World of America.

They come for the same reason so many millions came before them, in this century and last, from this continent and from every other.

They come for the same reason families have always come to America: to be free of fear and hunger, to better their condition, to begin their world anew, to give their children a chance for a better life.

Like previous waves of immigrants, they too will wage all and risk all to reach the sidewalks of Houston or Los Angeles or Phoenix or Chicago or Atlanta or Denver or Detroit.

They will risk death in the desert; they will brave the elements, they will risk capture and crime, they will endure separation from loved ones.

And if they make it to the Promised Land of America, no job will be beneath them.

They will cook our food, clean our houses, cut our grass, and care for our kids.

They will be cheated by some and exploited by others.

They work in sunlight but live in twilight, between the shadows; not fully welcome as new Americans but wanted as low-wage workers.

Somewhere near the borders tonight, a family will cross over into the New World, willed by the enduring power of the American Dream.

I urge all Members to join me in supporting H. Res. 489.

All American should take pride in and celebrate the ethnic, racial, and religious diversity

that has made the United States the leader of the community of nations and the beacon of hope and inspiration to oppressed persons everywhere.

And in addition to the love and pride Americans justifiably have for their country, all persons in the United States should cherish and exercise the rights, privileges, and responsibilities guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that my faith, my commitment to many people of different colors who respect the distinction or difference but also the greatness of this country, my love of those who serve, causes me to say, as many of my colleagues here are ready to say: Let us sit down at the table of peace and reconciliation.

I hope we will have some who will acknowledge that these actions--I will try to be generic--and words were certainly not becoming of the United States of America. The American people must see us work together on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time that I have stood in this well this year on this floor about this subject, and I have been clear at every juncture: Racism, bigotry, and anti-Semitism will find no refuge in the people's House.

We expect each other to speak fairly, truthfully, and respectfully of all our fellow Members of Congress and of the President--not because we agree with each other all the time, but because we have great respect for the Americans who elected us and to represent them from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.

I come here today, Mr. Speaker, with much grief and many questions. The first may be procedural, but it is not trivial.

The Democrats wrote a resolution last night. It is on the floor today. I just have a question: What happened to the 72-hour rule ensuring Members have an opportunity to review legislation and seek feedback from constituents before voting on it? What happened to regular order? This never came through committee.

Why does the House have rules if the Democratic majority only follows them when politically convenient? And, also, as was brought up in the rules debate, there was even no consultation with others who would want to be a part of this.

The President has every right to be frustrated with Congress for the work that we have failed to do on multiple fronts, including the border. I also understand that his recent tweets make it hard for us to move forward.

Attacks are like quicksand: They trap and they defeat us before we know it. They are distracting us from legislating. That was true when a lawmaker implied last week that a Member of the House leadership was singling out ``newly elected women of color'' and when other Representatives were accused of enabling a racist system.

It is true as we see little to no concern from my colleagues across the aisle when a foreign flag is raised over an American facility or a terrorist firebombed another facility.

It is true when the President of the United States, out of frustration, tweeted this weekend, and it is true of many comments coming from lawmakers today.

In fact, it is interesting for my chairman to say that they have called out the President every time but, also, many times--and this is just a small listing of every week that they have not called out their own Members for things that I cannot read on this floor.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are too quick this Congress to allow political ends to justify procedural means. But that is not democracy rooted in our unalienable rights, rights the second clause in this resolution affirms. The resolution is simply a lesson in political expediency.

Integrity is a prerequisite to our covenant to govern by the consent of the people, which this resolution also affirms.

We knew when we voted for the House rules this January that we could not, in this Chamber, use certain language about other democratically elected leaders. We agreed to let ideas compete for our votes and use rhetoric as a tool to build bridges instead of as kindling to burn those bridges down. Yet not a week goes by, as we have already pointed out, without Members of this body issuing statements or tweets that I could not and will not read from this floor without violating our rules.

It is amazing, but not surprising, that some of my colleagues are using this platform to call for impeachment since many have been making that call since November of 2016--no justification then, and definitely not now.

You see, Mr. Speaker, pleas for decorum are not merely a refuge for lawmakers who find themselves in the minority. Decorum is a symptom of a healthy and confident democracy. When we can debate ideas on this floor, decorum ensures democracy's every voice can be heard.

I would like to lend my voice to the chorus of lawmakers supporting the first 15 clauses of this resolution, but for the misguided title and the fourth page of this resolution, we could have had a suspension vote.

To its credit, the resolution states the House of Representatives ``is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum.'' I agree.

Everyone who votes for this resolution will now be on record as opposing illegal immigration, and I hope we can all work together to address the border crisis based on that common foundation.

Again, you don't need a vote on this resolution to do that. You simply have to look at the border and acknowledge the crisis.

But we will still have a problem with this resolution. We cannot, by our own House rules, support a resolution that labels the President in this way, and I will not.

The rules that have governed this body since the first United States Congress do not allow us to devolve in that way. However, it doesn't mean that we can't condemn racial or ethnic prejudice. It doesn't mean we can't decisively reject anti-Semitism, as we have on this floor. In my view, we have not done it so far in this Congress to that extent, but we have time for a clarion call on that front. I know some colleagues on both sides of the aisle who could join each other in that conviction.

Our own standards of decorum, however, in fact, empower us to welcome to America every person who respects our laws and wants to help defend our freedoms. These standards also give us a platform to admit when we and those around us make mistakes.

When we consider the power of this Chamber to legislate for the common good, I wonder why my colleagues have become so eager to attack the President that they are willing to sacrifice the rules, precedents, and the integrity of the people's House for an unprecedented vote that undercuts its very democratic processes.

I wonder, if the comments in view today are what some of my colleagues say they are, why this resolution had to rephrase them to make its point. The resolution condemns comments in a way that exposes the breathtaking partisanship of today's exercise.

The resolution quotes only three words from the comments it rejects-- the words ``go back'' and ``invaders.'' Beyond those three words, the resolution substitutes its own phrasing and editorializing for the words this resolution has in view.

Again, a partisan show. That is a tell that today's resolution is more of a political jab than anything else. It is, therefore, a signal for us to take a moment to look inward.

I wonder if, when we are tempted to accuse our sister, our brother, our fellow American, political foe, or Madam Speaker of racism--by the way, I do not believe that the President is a racist. I do not believe the Speaker of this House is a racist. I do not believe the majority leader is a racist. I do not believe the minority leader is a racist. We can go down this line. I do not believe that. Then why do we insist on using this floor to litigate the propriety of statements made outside these walls?

We assign a lot of wicked intent to a lot of tweets, even though 280 characters offers us the least context for making our points and endless potential for misunderstanding each other.

To be fair, a lot of political speech today seems to be made to deepen our divide by highlighting our differences, and that is a cause for sadness. That is exactly what the rules of decorum in this body are designed to guard against.

We have a choice this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. We can pursue escalation against our fellow Americans, or we can pursue reconciliation on their behalf. Only one of those options makes room for this body to do its job: the legislating of the solutions for the challenges of the American people.

Many of the Members are my friends, and I am thankful for the chance to work alongside each of them every day. But, today, we renew our commitment to the democratic ideals of this Chamber by voting against a flawed resolution, against a political statement, against something that could not even be written in a proper way without adding editorial and paraphrased comments.

I would ask each of my friends on both sides of the aisle to evaluate what is before them, evaluate what we have done, and evaluate what we don't take up for political convenience when it is our side saying it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a time check on both sides, please.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I was just going to ask the gentle Speaker of the House if she would like to rephrase that comment.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order the gentlewoman's words are unparliamentary and request that the words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I made a point of order that the gentlewoman's words were unparliamentary and request they be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I request that the gentlewoman's words are unparliamentary and request that they be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the minority leader.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, point of order.

Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman's words are unparliamentary, and I insist they be taken down.

Madam Speaker, I now withdraw my point of order.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

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

Madam Speaker, I will not belabor this. I have made many of the points that I have said before. I think this was rushed to the floor. I think this is what happens, unfortunately, when things are rushed.

There are things that need to be done, and the decorum of this House is important. We have had a long lesson of that today.

The very essence of the resolution, which has issues beyond, needs to be considered. When we do this, then I think, as I said in my opening-- and I will stick by what I said then--this needs to be voted down. This does not need to go forward.

We need to get to a certain time when we are back to, literally, doing the people's business. This is the third time, Madam Speaker, that I have been on the floor doing this--third time--more time than I have done on immigration, more time than I have done on any other bills, bills that could actually get signed into law.

As my whip said a few moments ago, there are things we could sit down and find common ground on, but it seems like common ground is gone.

There are some of us willing to reach our hands across the aisle and say, ``Let's find common ground because people are hurting. Why don't we solve those?'' Instead, we continue, seemingly, to want to continue to go to the press release or to the political statement, which is frustrating. I understand, but we have to get better.

We have to look at this and ask: What happens to the American people? What happens to the people who sent us here, who are looking at this and asking what they need to do to make their lives better, not the lives in this body?

When we understand that, that is when we come together. That is when we take the decorum of this House. That is when we find ways to speak to each other as friends who have been elected to serve a common purpose. That is our higher aim. When we denigrate that, we are not being honest with ourselves.

Let's get to the people's business. There are budget issues looming. There are caps looming. There is a debt ceiling looming. There are still problems at our border, which is a crisis. These need to be fixed.

Let's take up those bills. Let's have honest debate. I will put a bill up; you put a bill up. Let's do what we are supposed to do here, have markups, run things through committee. Let's take seriously what we said to do.

We both, at times, as parties, have been guilty of not doing that. Let's focus now--at least where we are now--and say this is not the way forward and this is not where we need to be because of the many problems inherent in the resolution itself but, also, the way it was brought to us. We have seen that play out on the floor today.

Is that really how we are going to leave it with the American people, that rules can be broken and then nothing is done about it? Is that really where we are going to be, that we are not going to bring issues to the floor that can be discussed, that have been brought through committee, that actually affect people's lives?

That is the frustration I have, Madam Speaker.

Time for debate on this needs to be done. We need to vote ``no.'' We need to move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Intelligence Authorization Act.

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

Along the wall in the upper lobby of the CIA headquarters building is a large picture of the head and torch of the Statue of Liberty accompanied by the following words: ``We are the Nation's first line of defense. We accomplish what others cannot accomplish and go where others cannot go.''

These two sentences distill the essence of America's intelligence community and the quiet sense of mission that tens of thousands of our fellow citizens bring to their jobs every day.

H.R. 3494, the Damon Paul Nelson and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020, is our contribution to the work of the IC.

This is a bipartisan bill, reported unanimously out of the Intelligence Committee and embodying the collective efforts of Democratic and Republican members.

Though H.R. 3494 contains many new initiatives authored during my chairmanship, it also preserves provisions developed during Ranking Member Nunes' tenure as chairman as well.

Despite disagreements over the Russia investigation, the committee has come together to support our intelligence community.

HPSCI oversees highly sensitive, highly classified activities, and we collaborate with the IC to ensure that it has the resources and authorities necessary to collect vital intelligence. That won't work, however, unless the committee trusts the IC elements it oversees, and those same elements trust the committee.

At the same time, HPSCI must ensure that legal and policy constraints are vigorously enforced. That requires us to maintain both a professional distance and a healthy skepticism about the activities we oversee. When warranted, the committee must impose additional checks and limitations, at times over intelligence community objections.

It is a delicate balance, which HPSCI strikes through use of many different oversight tools. The most important by far is our annual Intelligence Authorization Act.

H.R. 3494 gets the balance right. It authorizes funding for the IC at roughly 1.4 percent above the President's budget request for the coming year. It prioritizes the IC's collection and analytic capabilities against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, while sustaining critical intelligence capabilities that support counterterrorism and counterproliferation.

The bill also ensures that the men and women of the IC have what they need to collect and analyze the intelligence that policymakers require.

At the same time, H.R. 3494 ensures close oversight by Congress, rejecting the funding of legacy IC programs with overseas contingency operation resources, or OCO, funding; and requiring, for the first time, the submission to the intelligence committees of detailed information on unfunded IC programs.

Another provision authored by Representative Welch calls for more information in the IC's budget for counterterrorism matters to be released to the public consistent with the protection of national security. Still another authorizes the Public Interest Declassification Board, which plays a vital role in ensuring that historical documents about IC programs are declassified appropriately.

The legislation is especially strong in three other areas. The first has to do with foreign malign activities, including those by Russia. The bill calls for extensive IC reporting and creates new notification requirements regarding covert or overt efforts by foreign governments to undermine trusted institutions or to interfere in the democratic process, our own or those of other nations.

This bill also strongly supports the IC workforce. H.R. 3494 obliges the IC elements to offer their employees 12 weeks of paid parental leave on top of the unpaid leave already guaranteed to them by law. Other language ensures that the families of CIA personnel who are killed or injured as a result of wars, hostile acts, or other incidents can be appropriately compensated.

The bill also bolsters the IC's ability to recruit, hire, retain, and promote a workforce that represents the diversity of the Nation that it serves.

Lastly, technology. Many have sounded alarms about the rise of so- called ``deep fake'' algorithms and the transition in our country and elsewhere to a fifth-generation telecommunications network. To help the IC address both challenges, H.R. 3494 instructs the DNI to hold competitions and to award prizes for cutting-edge research into deep fake and 5G technologies.

H.R. 3494 is not perfect; it is the result of negotiation and compromise. I am pleased that, despite our public differences, we have once again been able to put those aside to focus on the important work of overseeing the intelligence community. The result is a strong, bipartisan bill, which I am proud to support.

Mr. Chair, let me conclude by thanking Ranking Member Nunes, my committee colleagues, and the entire HPSCI staff for their collaborative efforts.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members of the House to join me in voting for

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Chairman, it is now a pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to say only a few words of recognition before concluding my remarks on the Intelligence Authorization Act.

First, my HPSCI colleagues and I remember HPSCI's Damon Nelson and SSCI's Matthew Pollard, two dedicated staffers and public servants who passed away last year. The legislation is named in their honor.

I also express my tremendous thanks and support to the men and women of the intelligence community. They strive quietly and tirelessly every day, and their work helps keep the Nation safe.

I greatly appreciate the work of Ranking Member Nunes, as well as my other HPSCI colleagues.

And I would be remiss if I did not recognize these members of my staff who worked tirelessly together with their minority colleagues to produce this bipartisan legislation: Wells Bennett, Timothy Bergreen, Maher Bitar, Carly Blake, Patrick Boland, Kris Breaux, Linda Cohen, Thomas Eager, Will Evans, Patrick Fallon, Daniel Goldman, Abby Grace, Nicolas Mitchell, Daniel Noble, Diana Pilipenko, Lucian Sikorskyj, Conrad Stosz, Kathy Suber, Amanda Rogers Thorpe, Aaron Thurman, Rheanne Wirkkala, Raffaela Wakeman, and William Wu.

One more personnel note: I want to recognize the exemplary contributions of Brandon Smith, who has been a member of HPSCI's staff for 18 years. Brandon has announced that he will be leaving HPSCI soon. We are deeply grateful for his work and his longstanding and continuing service to the Nation.

Let me conclude by urging all Members of the House to join me in voting for H.R. 3494 and in supporting the measure as it proceeds to the Senate and, after that, to the President's desk.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Texas' proposal would allow the congressional committees with jurisdiction over public health matters the opportunity to receive a briefing about the effects of emerging and infectious diseases and pandemics on national security and the international political and economic system, along with the Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committee.

It is critical that Congress be well-informed on the posture of the United States and, indeed, the rest of the world to address a public health crisis that might arise in the face of a particularly rapidly spreading, devastating disease. It is crucial that committees that oversee public health responses understand how prepared we may be to address such a crisis.

I support this amendment, and I believe it will be helpful to our colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to receive this briefing and information from the DNI, along with the Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Appropriations Committees that are already included in the bill text.

For that reason, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I was going to request the chairman yield me 1 minute of time.

Madam Chair, this amendment clarifies section 602 of the bill dealing with domestic terrorism. This section would require the FBI, DHS, and the National Counterterrorism Center to produce an annual report and joint strategic intelligence assessment on domestic terrorism.

Chairman Thompson's amendment would add safeguards to protect the civil liberties and privacy of individuals whose information would be contained in the report and mandate compliance with the Data Quality Act.

It also would require DHS to disclose information on the allocation of personnel working domestic terrorism matters, enhancing oversight in this area.

I would like to recognize Chairman Thompson for his work that the House Homeland Security Committee has done on the issue of domestic terrorism. Together we will continue our lines of effort to address this significant threat.

Once again, Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his work, and I urge support for the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleagues from Maryland and Texas which mirrors language passed in the Senate's intelligence authorization bill last month. This provision would bring together government entities and the energy sector in a pilot program for purposes of evaluating and strengthening industrial control systems and related critical infrastructure elements against security vulnerabilities and exploits.

The cyber threats faced by our critical infrastructure remain a persistent national security concern, as the former ranking member of our committee, the distinguished Mr. Ruppersberger, knows all too well. DNI Coats likewise warned in the most recent unclassified Worldwide Threat Assessment about the capabilities of our adversaries to hold U.S. critical infrastructure at risk.

This measure is another line of effort toward securing that infrastructure against outside cyberattacks and disruptions, and I am very proud to support the work of my colleague and friend.