Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 6 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 12, 2019, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Chief Karen Comstock of the Chino Police Department. After almost 35 years of public service and dedication to the Chino community, she is finally retiring and will be sorely missed.

Chief Comstock honorably rose through the ranks of the Chino Police Department. Beginning her career in 1985, she served as a cadet and reserve officer for five years before being brought on as an official police officer. Comstock held many other positions including field training officer, patrol supervisor, and detective bureau supervisor, as well as serving at the Criminal Investigations Bureau as a detective and as a member of the Crisis Negotiations Team.

In recognition of her excellent leadership, Comstock was promoted to Chief in 2014. She served as Chino Police Department's first female police chief and is now retiring as one of only 22 female police chiefs in California. Chief Comstock not only established standards of excellence, but also carved out new pathways for future female leaders in the Chino Police Department.

Chief Comstock was not only a leader within the Chino Police Department, but also served a mentor in the community, committing more than 14 years to Chino Police Department's Explorer Program to assist young adults with entering law enforcement careers.

She has left a lasting mark on the Chino Police Department. As a lifelong citizen of Chino, she has demonstrated bravery, dedication and loyalty to her hometown and profession--earning her the esteem of the men and women of the Chino Police Department and the community at large.

For her remarkable accomplishments, it is my honor to recognize Chief Karen Comstock on the House floor today. Her decades of commitment and contributions to the City of Chino are worthy of admiration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise also in strong support of H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act.

I recently met with a young Dreamer from my district who asked me a simple question: Have you ever thought about doing something to change someone else's life?

Passing the American Dream and Promise Act is that moment in history. This is a historic day for the millions of hardworking young people who, like me, were brought to the U.S. as children. And not just me, but many other members of the new American caucus who are serving in Congress today. They built lives here. They own businesses, homes, and cars. Many have U.S. citizen children. They are not a national security concern. These are our neighbors and our friends who have done everything that they could possibly do to be on the right side of the law and on the right side of our communities.

Immigrants make America great. I urge passage.

Madam Speaker, while on a fact-finding mission to South America to conduct oversight of U.S. assistance and assess the situation at the Venezuelan border, I was unavoidably detained. As a result, I missed roll call votes No. 170 and No. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 170, and YEA on Roll Call No. 171.

Madam Speaker, while on a fact-finding mission to South America to conduct oversight of U.S. assistance and assess the situation at the Venezuelan border, I encountered unforeseen problems leaving the country. As a result, I missed roll call votes No. 171 and No. 172.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 171, and YEA on Roll Call No. 172.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.

My grandsons' generation will remember President Trump's decision to leave the Paris Agreement as the day that he condemned them to a world of manmade devastation.

Today, we have a chance to change that. Which side do we want to be on, the side of future generations or the side of those who would profit at their expense?

H.R. 9 mandates that the United States Government honor the commitments we made in the Paris Agreement.

We also need to protect the rights of cities and States to go above and beyond to meet the unique strains climate change puts on their regions.

For example, California has committed to source 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045. This is necessary, considering the toll climate change has taken on California, including historic droughts, deadly fires, and terrible flooding.

Despite this, President Trump has tried to make it harder for California to regulate its own greenhouse emissions. I have offered an amendment to H.R. 9 that would stop President Trump from using the plan mandated in this act to limit cities and States like California from taking more ambitious action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rouda).

Mr. Chair, if we don't take an aggressive step to deal with this problem, our grandchildren and their grandchildren will pay the price.

A United States Government report found that our economy will lose over $1 trillion dollars by the end of this century due to climate change. Clean energy is an investment, not only for our communities, but for future generations.

California has over 500,000 jobs created within the clean energy sector. That is about 10 times the number of coal jobs nationwide. This amendment ensures that California's progress and commitment will not be sabotaged.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for offering this critical legislation.

Mr. Chair, I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Deputy Chief Hector Rodriguez of the Pomona Police Department. After almost 30 years of dedicated public service to the people and communities of the City of Pomona, Deputy Chief Rodriguez is finally retiring and will be sorely missed.

Before officially working for the department, Rodriguez formed part of the Pomona Police Explorer program in 1982. His remarkable career with Pomona Police Department began on January 2, 1990 as a Patrol Officer. Four years later, Rodriguez was promoted to the rank of Police Investigator to the Gang Unit and the Homicide Unit. Then, in 2005, he was promoted to Sergeant.

During his time in law enforcement, Rodriguez joined the Neighborhood Enforcement Team and LA Impact Task Force. These teams focused on quality of life issues. LA Impact specifically focused on uniting federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County to investigate major crimes and the dismantling of major drug trafficking organizations. Additionally, Rodriguez served on the Pomona Police Department's SWAT Team for 18 years.

In recognition of his excellent service, Rodriguez was promoted to Lieutenant as he returned to the Investigative Services Division. Then, he was Captain for the Operations Division. Two years later, Rodriguez became the Deputy Police Chief, which he served as for the rest of his distinguished career.

His admirable character and confident approach left an indelible mark at the Pomona Police Department. His dedication to the profession, the community, the Department and the City of Pomona is highly commendable and has earned him the esteem of the men and women of the Pomona Police Department.

For his remarkable accomplishments, it is my honor to recognize Deputy Chief Hector Rodriguez. His decades of commitment and contributions to the City of Pomona are worthy of commending and admiration.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019.

Madam Chair, rape is a crisis in this country. In the United States, one in five women will be raped in their lifetime--one in five. Men can be rape victims, too. As a matter of fact, 1 in 71 men will be raped.

The LGBTQ community suffers from even higher rates of sexual violence and rape. Forty-six percent of bisexual women have been raped, and 47 percent of transgender individuals have been assaulted at some point in their lives. These statistics are more severe for people of color in the LGBTQ community. What is worse is that many LGBTQ victims are denied services simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Whether we know it or not, everyone in this room knows a rape survivor. Maybe she or he is the barista who makes your morning coffee.

Maybe she or he is a security officer who smiles at you on your way to work. Maybe he or she is your coworker, your sibling, your partner, or your child. Many people don't realize that they know a rape survivor.

Too often, rape isn't reported because victims fear the consequences. Often survivors fear that no one will believe them or that they will be blamed or stigmatized. In the #MeToo era, the pervasiveness of sexual assault has come to the forefront. However, the public is still grappling with our understanding of rape, the myth versus reality.

Many people still think that rape is only an act committed by a stranger in a dark alley. Instances like this do happen. In 2016, Brock Turner raped an unconscious young woman behind a dumpster. His punishment? Three months in jail. This sentencing alone reflects the failure to understand rape and a tendency to blame the victim.

Our comprehension of rape has changed dramatically in the past decade. Instances of rape being perpetrated by strangers do happen, but eight out of ten rape survivors knew their rapist. The majority of female survivors were raped by an intimate partner.

While there is plenty of data on VAWA grants administered by the Office of Violence Against Women, an analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that there is insufficient information on RPE formula grants run by the CDC.

To prevent rape and create innovative trauma-informed policies and programs, we need to improve our understanding of which initiatives are effective. My amendment will bridge this information gap and help better inform our rape prevention efforts. My amendment requires the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide a report to Congress on the activity of grant awardees funded through the Rape Prevention and Education Grant Program as well as on emerging and best practices relating to rape prevention and education.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), and Chairman Nadler for introducing H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, and I urge its swift passage.

Lastly, Madam Chair, I would ask that this amendment be made in order, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 252 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 252, providing for consideration of two bills: H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act; and H. Res. 124, expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor. It self-executes a manager's amendment. It also makes in order nine amendments.

The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 124 under a closed rule, and it provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Madam Speaker, 56 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act. He referred to this law as a ``structure basic to democracy''--equal pay for equal work, in essence, equality. But the sad reality is that, over 56 years later, women are still paid less than their male counterparts for the same work. I know, because it happened to me.

One of my first jobs was in a male-dominated industry selling steel. It didn't matter if I performed as well, if not better, than my male colleagues; I was still paid less. I had to leave that job, which I loved, because I wasn't getting my fair share. It was a shame then, and it is a shame now.

In the sixties, women made 60 cents on the dollar. Now the average woman makes 80 cents compared to her male counterpart--80 cents. For women of color, the gender wage gap is even more severe:

For every dollar made by her non-Hispanic White male counterpart, an African American woman makes 61 cents, a Native American woman makes 58 cents, and women who look like me, Latinas, make 53 cents on the dollar for similar work. That is less than the average woman made in the 1960s.

Do I not work just as hard as my male counterparts?

Do I deserve to make 53 cents on the dollar?

Do I not have to support my household as much as a man?

Latinas lose, on the average, $28,386 every year. That amounts to more than $1 million over her career.

What would an extra $1 million mean for the working woman or for her children? That she never has to chose between paying for childcare or buying groceries or not worrying about how to send her kids to college. Maybe she could even fulfill the American Dream of purchasing a home.

Some people brush this off by arguing that women choose different or easier jobs than men, like being a teacher or a nurse. To those people, I ask: Who sets those salaries? When was the last time you were underpaid to teach 40 children in a classroom setting?

Nursing assistants each suffer roughly three times--three times--the rate of back and other injuries as construction workers. Are you going to tell me that the nurse who spends 12 hours on her feet taking care of those most in need doesn't deserve higher pay, or the 911 dispatcher who is working the graveyard shift, fielding call after call after call, coordinating an effective emergency response so that they themselves can save lives or the first responders can save lives?

Don't tell me women's work is easier. We need equality--in practice, not just in law.

H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act will make equal pay a reality. It addresses the many complicated facets of sex-based discrimination.

Even when it is crystal clear, it is incredibly difficult to win a lawsuit to prove that employers are discriminating on the basis of sex. The Paycheck Fairness Act requires employers to demonstrate that wage disparity is based on a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.

In workplaces where women are empowered to know how much they are making compared to their male colleagues, the gender gap shrinks by 7 percent; however, some workplaces penalize employees for discussing their salaries. The Paycheck Fairness Act would prevent retaliation against employees for wage transparency.

Sex discrimination causes women to make 6.6 percent less than equally qualified male counterparts on their first job. Over time, as raises and bonuses are decided based on a women's prior salary history, this gap is made even worse. The Paycheck Fairness Act prevents employers from asking for a salary history.

Another factor that contributes to gender pay disparity is that women are less likely to negotiate for a higher salary. Studies show that men are expected to negotiate, but when women ask for more money, they are penalized and still paid less. The Paycheck Fairness Act creates a grant program to fund negotiation and skills training.

Currently, employees must opt in to class action lawsuits brought under the Equal Pay Act, running contrary to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This makes it more difficult for women to use the courts to correct equal pay disparities. The Paycheck Fairness Act allows them to opt out, removing barriers to participate in class action lawsuits and, therefore, addressing systematic gender-based inequality.

I have offered two amendments to the Paycheck Fairness Act bill to highlight the serious effects of the gender pay gap on women of color.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a step in the right direction. Women who look like me should not make 53 cents on the dollar for the same work as our White male colleagues, and even less than the average woman made 60 years ago. It is wrong, and it is unjust. That is why it is crucial we pass H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Now, I would like to turn your attention to H. Res. 124, expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly gay transgender individuals.

For me, this issue hits close to home. I am a proud mother of an Air Force veteran.

It wasn't a decision they made lightly. It was one made with great personal sacrifice, and the U.S. Government made a promise to them that they would be safe to be themselves.

Imagine how their mothers and fathers must feel knowing that our Nation has broken a promise to their children. This doesn't make us safer.

We should welcome every qualified person who is willing to stand up to deploy and enlist in our Armed Forces to serve alongside people like my son.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform my colleague from Texas that the women in Texas make $0.72 to their male counterparts. I think Texas women deserve to have equal pay.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

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

Madam Speaker, having more women enter the workforce does not mean that women are earning equal pay for equal work.

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

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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

The smart and innovative women of Arizona's Eighth Congressional District deserve to have a voice in this debate, and I am going to give it to them.

They earn 80 cents to every dollar that their male counterpart earns. They deserve to have fair wages for the equal work that they are performing.

Before I begin my closing statement, I would like to take a moment to honor a valuable member of my staff: Justin Vogt.

Justin has been my legislative director for 2 years. During that time, he has been a phenomenal member of my team, designing innovative legislative initiatives, providing wise counsel, and serving as a generous mentor to my junior staff.

Now he will move on to be an excellent staff director for the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We are sad to see our waffle maker, Justin, leave our office, but we are so proud of all that he has accomplished.

Madam Speaker, 60 years from now, I hope that we have moved forward as a Nation. I hope that our daughters and granddaughters grow up in an America that recognizes their value through the quality of their work and not their gender. Imagine that.

The Paycheck Fairness Act gets us closer to securing a future for them.

A recent McKinsey study found that, if women's full potential in the labor market was reached, $4.3 trillion would be added to the labor market in 2025. Our economy would benefit from that woman power.

There has been enough talk about lawyer fees. Women attorneys deserve equal pay for equal work, too. This argument is nothing more than an attempt to avoid talking about the pervasiveness of wage discrimination in this country.

The policies in the Paycheck Fairness Act work. Just look at California. In 2017, Californian women made a median of 89 cents to every dollar made by their male counterparts.

In just a few years, we decreased gender pay disparity by more than any other State.

I have heard it said that addressing wage equity is bad for moms. What is bad about getting fair pay? Equal pay for equal work.

Mothers make 71 cents for every dollar earned by fathers in similar jobs. If we paid women fairly, maybe they would get a chance to spend more time with their kids.

If my colleagues care about moms spending time with their kids, let's pass National Paid Family Leave Act standards. Let's create better working conditions for pregnant women. Let's fund programs for affordable childcare.

This is just the beginning. The cost for American women, their families, and our economy is much too high to wait any longer.

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

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and I strongly support H.R. 7 and any effort to address the gender wage gap in this country.

A terrible disparity exists in our country. Women on average make 80 cents to every dollar made by their White male counterpart. What is worse is that it is not getting any better.

Last year, the gender wage gap actually grew for women of color. For every dollar made by their non-Hispanic White male counterpart, an African American woman makes 61 cents, a Native American woman makes 58 cents, and women who look like me, Latinas, make 53 cents on the dollar for similar work. That is less than the average woman in the 1960s.

Do I not work just as hard as my male counterparts? Do I deserve to make 53 cents on the dollar? And do I not have to support my family just as much as any man?

Because of the gender pay gap, Latinas lose an average of $28,386. That amounts to more than $1 million over her career.

To earn the same amount as her White non-Hispanic male colleagues, a Black woman must work until she is 86 years old. You cannot get those hours back, those years back, or those decades back.

The gender wage gap contributes to a wealth of disparity that makes it harder for people of color to get ahead.

In 2013, the median White household had about $134,000 in total wealth. For the median Black household, it is $11,000. That is a 13-to- 1 ratio.

Addressing the gender wage gap is the first step to addressing larger issues of pay parity among historically underserved groups.

My first amendment changes the findings section of the Paycheck Fairness Act to recognize the devastating impacts the wage gap has on women of color. We must acknowledge that the wage gap is not color blind. By failing to recognize the specific effect the wage gap has on women and girls of color, these impacts might go unnoticed.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close.

Madam Chair, my amendment shines a light on the plight of women and girls of color and sets the tone to take their struggle into account throughout the rest of the bill.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle might have never heard about retaliation, about blacklisting. When women have the courage to come forward and report these wage thefts and abuses, they are treated differently under current law. That is why this bill is important. That is why this amendment is important.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for introducing this bill, for her dedication to fair pay.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a second amendment to H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

This amendment ensures that women and girls of color are included in the research, education, and outreach done by the Secretary of Labor.

The sad truth is that women, especially women of color, are still paid less than their male counterparts for the same type of work. I know this because it happened to me.

One of my very first jobs was in a male-dominated industry, selling steel. It didn't matter that I performed as well, if not better, than my male colleagues. It didn't matter that I sold steel in three languages while they sold in just one. I would do my own data entry to get the job done, while they relied on an assistant. And when I needed to rush a shipment, I was not afraid to walk into the warehouse, pick the material, pack it, and send it to my customer. I was still paid less.

I had to leave that job that I loved because I wasn't getting my fair share. It was a shame then and it is a shame today.

On average, Latinas still get paid 53 cents to every dollar made by their White male colleagues for the same type of work.

Today, we can act to change this. By passing the Paycheck Fairness Act with my amendment, maybe young Latinas and other women of color will not have to suffer and share my experience.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, my amendment will expand the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure the Secretary of Labor is paying attention to specific issues and researching the wage gap; educating employers, the media, and labor organizations on these findings, specifically highlighting the impact on underrepresented groups; ensuring minorities are included in informational and educational outreach programs; and celebrating the accomplishments of employers who are leading the way to specifically address the gender gap issue for women of color.

By paying specific attention to women of color in their research, maybe, one day, we can fill that gap to recognize that diversity of perspective can be an asset.

I wonder how different my experience would have been if the Paycheck Fairness Act would have been in place at the time. Would I still have become a homeowner? Maybe. Would I still have been a successful mother of three sons? Maybe. Would I have been able to afford to pay for childcare? Maybe. These are the things that women in business and the workforce are having to deal with every single day.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Congresswoman Slaughter's legacy and the impact she made throughout her decades of dedicated public service.

She was a friend and an invaluable mentor, especially during my first term in Congress.

She paved the way for every woman in the House by becoming the first Chairwoman of the Rules Committee--the same committee I now serve on.

She spearheaded the passage of the Affordable Care Act, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in recent history.

Congresswoman Slaughter was also a fierce and fearless champion for women.

She co-authored the Violence Against Women Act and founded and co- chaired the Pro-Choice Caucus--which to this day, continues to be on the frontlines of protecting women's reproductive rights.

As we near the anniversary of her passing, I can't help but to be reminded of her unparalleled leadership. She's left a void in the House that is hard to fill.

But her memory lives on inside these halls, and it inspires each of us to keep up the fight to better the lives of all Americans.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have served alongside her.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Police Service Representative III Ulric J. Pattillo, Jr. of Los Angeles. After 40 years of dedicated public service to the people and communities of the City of Los Angeles, Ulric is finally retiring and will be sorely missed.

Ulric's incredible career with the Los Angeles Police Department began on February 2, 1979 as a Station Officer. He was commended for conducting himself in a professional manner and doing an outstanding job. He served in this capacity until he transferred to Communications Division as a Police Service Representative on December 1, 1981.

Ulric received many commendations during his career, including but not limited to: his service during the Valley Bureau cutover to ECCCS and the 1992 Civil Unrest; recognition for National Dispatchers week; and outstanding support of field officers during emergency situations.

He was deeply involved in his community outside of the department by volunteering as a poll worker, serving as an AFSCME Union Shop Steward, being a member of the PSR Task Force, and being selected as Councilperson for the Employee Council and End of Watch Cadre.

His friendly character and positive approach left an indelible mark at Communications Division. His dedication to the profession, the community, the Department and the City of Los Angeles is highly commendable, and has earned him the esteem of the men and women of the Los Angeles Police Department, Communications Division.

For his remarkable accomplishments, it is my honor to recognize Police Service Representative III Ulric J. Pattillo, Jr. on the House floor today. His decades of commitment and contributions to the City of Los Angeles are worthy of commending and admiration.

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.

Madam Speaker, since the 116th Congress took office this January, I have voted five times to open up the Federal Government. And today I rise in support of the conference report. I want to congratulate the conferees, and specifically, Chairman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, and the other conferees for their hard work, for coming together, and spending so much time to ensure that we have a bill moving forward that opens up our government.

This is a bipartisan statement about who we are as a country. This was a fight to reclaim the country that welcomed me as a little girl from Guatemala, to make sure that this country welcomes other children who come here fleeing violence and poverty.

This bill will prevent another stupid, costly government shutdown, and it is time that we give our Federal workers some certainty, move past this crisis, and get down to the business of governing.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Black History Month and to honor countless African American leaders throughout our history who have pushed relentlessly to make our Union one that is more just and more equitable for all people.

We recognize the incredible progress that they made possible and the work that we still need to do to ensure that opportunity isn't something that is determined by the color of our skin.

We honor the courageous and determined everyday men and women, like Medgar Evers and Fannie Lou Hamer, who challenged every barrier in our society and set a path for the activists of today, like Patricia Nickols-Butler, the CEO of Community Action Partnership. She has dedicated her entire life to making sure that not one single family in San Bernardino County is left behind by providing them with the resources they need to succeed.

We honor educators like Maxine Smith, who fought discrimination in our classrooms to give every child an equal opportunity to learn, and leaders in the Inland Empire like Dr. Soraya M. Coley, the president of Cal Poly Pomona, who is committed to helping every student reach his and her full potential; trailblazers like San Bernardino County's first Black schoolteacher, Dorothy Inghram, who taught every child to reach for the stars and never give up, or Dr. Eric Bishop, the vice president of student services at Chaffey College, who has been a guiding force for every student when the going got tough.

We honor the countless Black veterans who fought for our freedoms in every war, from the Revolutionary War to our current conflicts in the Middle East, and law enforcement officers who put their own lives on the line every single day to keep our communities safe. We salute Chief Derek Williams of the Ontario Police Department, whose commitment to service began in the Air Force.

We honor the public servants like Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman elected to Congress, who showed us what it meant to be ``unbought and unbossed'' and made way for the historic number of women running for office today; and Wilmer Amina Carter, the first African American woman to represent San Bernardino County in the California State Assembly. Throughout her time in office, she worked to improve the lives of people in her community by passing laws to strengthen healthcare, safety, transportation, and help create jobs.

We honor the moral leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who made America listen--listen--to its conscience and sacrificed his life to advance civil rights for each and every one of us.

And we honor Pastor Chuck Singleton of Loveland Church in Ontario and Rialto, whose words provide comfort and healing here at home and abroad through his humanitarian work.

The successes of African American leaders reach far and wide and are deeply entrenched in each of our lives. May we all take the time to uplift the immeasurable contributions that African American leaders have made to our country this month and every single day of the year. May we renew our commitment and join them to pick up the fight for equality, opportunity, and justice for all Americans.