Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bill is historic because it buries the myth that the cause of childhood poverty is a lack of character, or a lack of hard work, or a lack of love. The bill affirms the simple truth that the cause of poverty is a lack of income to cover basic necessities.

No child in America should be deprived of food, of medicine, of clothing, or of education because of the accident of birth. That is what this bill stands for. It represents and marks an ideological revolution on behalf of justice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, in history, there are many generals who are celebrated for logistical feats to win a war. Rare is a general who is celebrated for logistical feats to end a war.

General Austin presided over the most significant withdrawal of troops and equipment, over 150,000 troops from Iraq, successfully. He helped bring that conflict to an end.

General Austin helped us prevent getting into a catastrophic conflict in Syria.

Now, I don't think the American people are concerned about process arguments, about whether someone wore a uniform or didn't wear a uniform. What they want to know is the outcome. Is the leader going to help start new wars or end wars? General Austin, with Secretary Blinken and Jake Sullivan, is going to help end the war in Yemen.

They want to know: Is a leader going to turn a blind eye to White supremacy, or are they going to stand up for equality? General Austin will stand up for equality in our military.

Most importantly, they want to know: Is a leader going to circumvent the President of the United States, as certain civilian leaders have, or is the leader going to defer to the duly elected President of the United States? General Austin deferred to President Obama, and he will absolutely defer to President Biden.

The last point I hear my colleagues say is, well, he doesn't have expertise in China or India. Well, first of all, no one has expertise in every region of the world. No one is going to have a Ph.D. thesis about every country.

The important thing is that we do not need another leader who is going to saber rattle and get us into another cold war with China. We need someone who is going to be tough but who is going to have the wisdom and the judgment to defer to the national security team and the President and help create a constructive relationship. General Austin will do that.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly support his nomination for Secretary of Defense.

Madam Speaker, I am voting to impeach because, as Lincoln said, no grievance is a fit object of redress by mob law.

But we must recognize that our hard work begins when we address the real grievances and despair in left-behind communities. To be worthy of this Capitol that we hold sacred, to fix our broken windows and broken communities, let's finally commit to investing trillions in creating good jobs in healthcare, in education, and in infrastructure for communities and places that are hurting.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment is an historic effort of bipartisan spirit to finally have peace with North Korea after over 69 years of conflict.

Regardless of whoever is President, diplomacy is the key to the region.

The Congressional Research Service tells us that, in the first few minutes of any war in North Korea, as many as 500,000 civilians could perish, many of them Americans. And, if the conflict went nuclear, millions would perish.

No one has done more for peace in the subcontinent, in North Korea, than President Carter. President Carter went and met with Kim Jong Un's grandfather in 1994 and came up with a framework for denuclearization. He recently had a constructive conversation with President Trump, and President Trump has taken efforts to seek dialogue there.

I believe that we can have a three-part framework to reaching such an agreement that President Carter had outlined with Kim Jong Un's grandfather.

First, we need to have a nonaggression pact to assure the North Koreans that we do not have any interest in regime change and have a permanent peace. I believe, if we do that, Kim Jong Un will engage in significant denuclearization.

And we should have no relaxation of any sanctions until there is at least 90 percent denuclearization, which is achievable. And, after the denuclearization, we can have flexible sanctions with clapback provisions.

The point is, this doesn't have to be partisan. It is in our Nation's interest to seek peace. I, for one, will support the administration's efforts to seek peace, and I appreciate that this House, in a bipartisan way, will go on record saying that we need a permanent peace agreement with North Korea.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this will be the most important foreign policy vote in the United States Congress. This bipartisan amendment makes it clear that the Congress appropriates zero funding for any offensive war in Iran or another war by choice.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that when Congress limits funding for a war, Congress' power, not the executive power, is at its peak. And when this amendment passes, it will be a clear statement for Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that this country is tired of endless wars; that we do not want another war in the Middle East.

I will make one final point before I yield to my colleagues. The other side, and people will argue, that this may limit our ability to respond to an attack on the United States or our allies. That is a patent lie.

Nothing in this amendment limits the President of the United States from doing anything that he needs to do to defend the United States of America or our allies as he is authorized under the War Powers Act.

What this will prevent is another trillion-dollar war in the Middle East. Frankly, what it will prevent is what this President promised the American people not to do, to get into another endless, costly war in the Middle East.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), the bipartisan cosponsor of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we are going to have eight more speakers because this was such a collaborative effort, so I hope the speakers will limit themselves to 1 minute or less so we can get everyone in.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), our distinguished chair, who did more to bring this amendment together than anyone.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown), who is a colonel in the Army, was a colonel in the Army, and was helpful from day one in crafting this.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), who led 100-plus Members in a letter opposing the war with Iran.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good friend who has led this bill in the House that prevents funding for a war with Iran.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a veteran who was in four tours of duty and fought against the Iranians in his second tour in Iraq.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), a leading veteran voice, who has been helpful in getting many veterans groups on board with this.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has an important bill clarifying the 2001- 2002 AUMF.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for her work on asserting Congress' authority over war and peace.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Haaland), one of the new leaders on HASC who has been very, very helpful on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a closing argument.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and esteemed chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship for moving this bill to the floor. Representative Lofgren has worked tirelessly for years to get us to this point.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. Put simply, this bill is good for American workers, and it is good for the American economy.

For too long, people in this country have been unable to get a green card simply based on where they were born. As a result, people have been stuck on H-1B visas, and we all know that foreign outsourcing firms have abused these H-1B visas. They are underpaying people stuck on these visas, and that is depressing American wages, and it is hurting American workers.

The solution is to stop corporations from abusing the H-1B visa system and to move people on to green cards. Once we do that, American wages will go up. These companies will no longer be able to hold people in indentured servitude and force American workers to have cuts in their wages.

So anyone who is for American workers, who believes that the H-1B visa program is being abused, and who wants to stand up for a path for American workers to get the wages they deserve should be for this bill. If you oppose this bill, you are actually supporting the abuse of the H-1B visa process.

I want to thank, again, Representative Lofgren for her leadership.

Madam Chair, I support Amendment No. 6 to H.R.2500, offered by my colleague from California, Ms. Speier. It provides our servicemembers with medically-accurate educational resources to help prevent unintended pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and a former board member of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, I've seen first-hand the importance of family planning education, especially in our military. The courageous Americans who put their lives on the line for our country deserve the best wellness education we can offer. Keeping them healthy helps maximize our military's readiness. This common-sense amendment is recommended by the Pentagon's nonpartisan Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Therefore, there should be broad bipartisan support, and I encourage my colleagues who support our troops to vote for it.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I have a bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Today's amendment adds $3 million to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, with the intent to support the Consortium of Food Allergy Research.

This consortium drives vital research necessary to fight innumerable conditions and diseases suffered by millions of Americans. It is foundational to so many of our medical breakthroughs and to our competitive advantage.

Key to one of their missions is food allergies. Food allergies affect 32 million Americans and almost 6 million children. That is nearly 10 percent of the country battling, at some point, with food allergies.

Food allergies do not just consist of sensitivity to certain kinds of food. That is a myth. Many times, they can be life-threatening.

In fact, 40 percent of children with food allergies have experienced a severe reaction, such as anaphylaxis. Each year, more than 200,000 Americans require emergency medical care. A glance through Facebook pages or support pages will detail many sad and scary stories.

This is equivalent to one trip to the emergency room every 3 minutes, and the problem continues to grow.

The prevalence of food allergies has increased by 80 percent in the last two decades, with peanut and tree nut allergies appearing to have more than tripled since the 1990s. We really don't know yet why that is happening.

In 2005, NIH established CoFAR within NIAID to focus on these efforts. In just 14 years, CoFAR has made terrific advances. It discovered genes associated with an increased risk for peanut allergy and identified promising cures for peanut allergy and egg allergy through immunotherapy.

I salute CoFAR's extraordinary staff.

CoFAR's 4-year egg treatment study actually allowed participants to safely reintroduce egg, one of the most common and dangerous allergens for children, into their diet after years of abstention.

CoFAR has achieved all of this on a budget of just $6.1 million. Increasing it $3 million is well worth the investment.

Just think of all the families who could be made better by this. Their fear of sending their children to school or to a neighbor's house or to daycare without knowing the consequences could be alleviated.

We are a long way away still, but I believe we can prevent life- threatening food allergies someday. This amendment brings us closer to that day.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez) for his leadership, his willingness in his very first term to work across the aisle on this, and his passion for this issue.

I appreciate the leadership of Representative DeLauro, as well, and the staff.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the sad story of Daniel Desnoyers, who took his own life because he did not have the money to buy the basic drugs that he needed for his mental health issues.

Daniel Desnoyers was a young man who struggled with depression and psychosis, mental health issues that show no physical symptoms but take a deep psychological toll on those whom they afflict.

Daniel did the right thing. He purchased health insurance through the New York health insurance marketplace from Fidelis, a subsidiary of massive international conglomerate Centene Corporation.

In March, Daniel went to the pharmacy to refill his prescription for risperidone, an antipsychotic medication that he needed. He was informed by the pharmacy that he no longer had health insurance and the 1-month refill would cost him $250.

Now, to some people, $250 may not seem like a lot of money, but to Daniel it was. According to a 2018 study by the Federal Reserve, 40 percent of Americans would not be able to cover an unexpected $400 expense. Daniel, unfortunately, was one of them.

So he did not buy the medicine, and he began to ration his antipsychotic medicine, taking it every other day until he could get his insurance back. He contacted his provider, Fidelis, at the beginning of April when he learned that they had canceled his plan because he missed a $20 payment.

Fidelis didn't immediately reinstate the plan. Instead, the company informed him that his coverage would not resume until May 1. This meant another month without a refill of his prescription, another month without the medicine Daniel needed to function. His ration of medicine had run out.

On April 9, filled with thoughts of suicide--a listed side effect for antipsychotic drug withdrawal--Daniel superglued his seatbelt shut, posted a farewell message on Facebook, and drove his truck into the river, ending his life.

Daniel Desnoyers died at the age of 29 because he was late paying $20 to a corporation that pulled in more than $60 billion in 2018.

Something is deeply wrong in this country where we let a young man die because he cannot afford medicine that he needs and when his insurance is taken away because of a $20 missed payment. Daniel died because we have a system that puts profits over patients.

A healthcare system that does not guarantee basic care for all people is a healthcare system that is broken. Medicare for All could have prevented Daniel's death, and it could prevent the death of so many others. Lloyd Doggett's pharmaceutical bill that would hold these pharmaceutical companies accountable could have prevented Daniel's death.

Twenty-eight million Americans are still uninsured, and millions more are saddled with high deductibles and high premium plans which lead them to forgo the care they need. Medicare for All is the plan that will guarantee every American the basic care that they have a right to.

Daniel Desnoyers wasn't a perfect man and he didn't lead a perfect life, but he tried, and our Nation owes it to him and others like him to make sure that they have the medicine they need to live with dignity.

I will continue to fight for Daniel, for his father, for his family, and for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce today's guest chaplain, the Reverend

Hardy Kim of Sunnyvale Presbyterian Church, which is in my district.

Since 1956, Sunnyvale Presbyterian Church has stood for peace and justice in Silicon Valley. Pastor Kim began his service there 2 years ago, hoping to unite our diverse community and delivering spiritual comfort to the least fortunate.

His work is important for those families struggling to find affordable housing and keep up with the rising cost of living often overlooked in Silicon Valley's soaring wealth.

He also is an immigrant success story. He came here with his parents from South Korea to Detroit and later received a bachelor's degree from Harvard and a law degree from the University of Michigan. After a year as a Presbyterian mission volunteer in Belfast, Northern Ireland, he felt called to church ministry.

I have been honored to participate in dialogues he has led in the community on immigration and gun control. I have learned a lot from him about history. He recently told me that our separation of powers--such an important concept today--is inspired in part by the Presbyterian Church, and that one of my favorite Presidents, Woodrow Wilson, apparently remarked that the highest honor of his life was not being President of the United States, but it was being an elder in the Presbyterian Church.

Pastor Kim has become a reliable and trusted voice in Silicon Valley. I am very proud to introduce him to the House and honored that he would grace us with the opening prayer.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his leadership and his entire staff's leadership for getting us to this point. Let me be very clear. If it weren't for Chairman Engel, we would not have this vote on the floor today.

My motivation for this bill is very simple. I don't want to see 14 million Yemenis starve to death. That is what Martin Griffith had said at the U.N., that if the Saudis don't stop their blockade and let food and medicine in, within 6 months we will see one of the greatest humanitarian crises in the world.

That should be a bipartisan issue, that this Congress speak with a moral voice that food and medicine should get to civilians.

Now, as Chairman Engel knows, and others know, I am not for the BDS movement. I have supported very strongly resolutions condemning anti- Semitism. But I also don't think that these tactics should be used as weapons to prevent efforts to stop the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world. That is insulting. It is insulting.

Those issues should be voted on separately, and I will proudly vote, when the time comes, against the BDS efforts.

Madam Speaker, I want to, with that, thank again Chairman Engel, Representative McGovern, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Hoyer and their teams for getting us to this point.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern for his leadership in finally bringing up for a vote this resolution on Yemen and for the terrific people on his team, Don Sisson; on Speaker Pelosi's team, Keith Stern, and Shuwanza Goff; and on Majority Leader Hoyer's team, who finally allowed for a vote, with the work of Keane Bhatt and Geo Saba.

Let me explain why this matters. As the chairman alluded to, there are 14 million people in Yemen who currently face the possibility of famine--14 million.

I was with Martin Griffiths, the Special Envoy to the United Nations, about 2 weeks ago, and he said, if we do not act in the next couple of months, that situation will become irreversible.

The explanation for this famine is pretty simple. The gentleman from Texas said we need to get more aid in there. I respect that, sir, but the problem is that the Saudis have a blockade on Yemen; they are not allowing the aid to get in. Every day we wait, it makes it harder for us to reverse the famine.

So the solution is very simple: We need to have the Saudis lift the blockade and let food and medicine get to the people who need it to prevent the largest humanitarian crisis and the largest famine the world has ever seen.

Now, the gentleman from Texas said that the administration has already stopped the refueling, and in that, he is actually correct. The administration has stopped the refueling. But the reason they stopped the refueling is precisely because Congress acted, because the Senate passed the War Powers Resolution.

All we are asking to happen now is to codify that policy so that the refueling doesn't begin again. That is why this shouldn't be a partisan issue. The President should want to sign this War Powers Resolution.

The gentleman from Texas said, well, what difference will it make if we have already stopped? The difference this will make is sending a clear, unambiguous message to the Saudis that they can no longer continue a policy of intentional cruelty, of trying to have a nation, through starvation, submit to their will. That is why this is a bipartisan issue. If we pass this, then that message will be heard by the Saudis, and that is why we had bipartisan support in the Senate and in the House for this resolution.

The gentleman from Texas said, well, this is going to hurt our relationships with Israel or other allies. That is just false. That is just false.

The amendment, the Buck amendment, that was in our resolution, or the amendment that is in the Senate resolution, makes it clear that we still can have intelligence sharing with any ally and does not touch any of our treaties.

People often say why am I so passionate that, of all the issues, I decided to take up Yemen in my first term. I will tell you why.

In 1943, there was a famine in West Bengal; 3 million people perished. My grandfather was in jail in 1943 in India when that famine took place. And there was indifference--indifference--by the British Government. They let 3 million people die.

As the United States, we should not allow for another famine, and we should do everything in our power, as a House, to stop it.

Madam Chair, I was late with my kids sick. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 115.

Stated against:

Madam Speaker, I want to echo Representative Cole's praise for Chairman McGovern for leading for years in this body in helping Congress reassert its role on matters of war and peace.

I want to just note the difference procedurally of what happened. Every time we introduced this in the last Congress, Speaker Ryan didn't allow a vote. He tied a vote on Yemen with a vote on endangered wolves.

In contrast, Chairman McGovern, not only is he allowing a vote on the resolution of Yemen, he is allowing a vote on an amendment that Representative Buck has offered that I oppose vehemently, that I went to him and I said, ``This is going to gut the entire resolution.''

What did Chairman McGovern do? Did he say, ``Oh, we will go behind closed doors. Don't worry. We won't allow a vote?'' No. He said, ``We are going to bring it to a vote on this floor.''

I said, ``Do we have the votes?''

He said, ``I don't know.''

Why are we bringing it to the floor? Because that is a democracy. That is what we are supposed to do in a democracy.

We will have the votes. You know how I know we are going to have the votes and it is going to be a bipartisan vote? Because when Lindsay Graham is quoted saying he may vote in support of the resolution, you know there is going to be an overwhelming vote.

I want to just address one point, because Representative Cole is one of the more thoughtful Members here and I take what he says very seriously, but on the War Powers Act, we just disagree. When you read the plain reading of the War Powers, it says that the United States Armed Forces cannot be assigned to coordinate, participate, or accompany any foreign government's military when they are in hostilities.

Madam Speaker, our forces are coordinating with the Saudi forces. I concede to Members we don't have troops there, but the War Powers Resolution was written broadly, precisely because we wanted Congress to have a say.

And, Representative Cole, I am convinced if one of our allies, like Israel or another country, were attacked; I have enough confidence in this body that we would make the right decision. This is a matter of the Congress' right to have a say on matters of war and peace, and I thank Chairman McGovern for bringing this for a vote.

Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Engel for his extraordinary leadership to help bring a war in Yemen to an end. I want to thank him and Chairman McGovern, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Hoyer, for finally speaking up for the millions of Yemenis who are on the brink of starvation.

This is not a complex issue. For the last 2 years, we have been assisting the Saudis in bombing Yemeni civilians; and the reports say there are 14 million Yemenis who face starvation; 14 million.

Let's put that in context: 800,000 people died in Rwanda; 100,000 in Bosnia, and 14 million face famine in Yemen. And it is not because the world doesn't have enough food or medicine to get in there. It is because there is a systematic bombing preventing the food and medicine to get in.

We want to send the food. We want to send medicine, but the Saudis aren't allowing that food and medicine to get in.

And what do we know about Saudi Arabia? We know that they were responsible for the murder of Khashoggi. We know recently, that MBS admitted that he wanted Khashoggi dead.

We know that they, the Saudis, are supplying arms to al-Qaida in Yemen who are fighting our troops. The Saudis are giving arms to the very people who are fighting our troops. This is why Senator Lindsey Graham has said he may support this resolution.

The only patriotic thing, if you care about our troops, if you care about American interests, if you care about the outrage that the Saudis are inflicting on Americans, and on the world, the only patriotic thing to do is to vote

for this resolution. I am convinced it will pass with a bipartisan majority.

Mr. Speaker, Americans around this country are wondering: What does a farm bill have to do with the war in Yemen? And the answer is absolutely nothing.

You wonder why people are frustrated with Congress, why they think Congress lacks common sense. It is because no one understands why you would have a vote on a farm bill and you would tie it to a vote on war and peace in Yemen.

The only reason the leadership is doing this is because they know that there are dozens of Republicans who will stand with Democrats to stop the killing in Yemen.

How do they know this? Because Senate Republicans are voting to stop the killing in Yemen.

I came to Congress because of my grandfather, who inspired me. He spent 4 years in jail in Gandhi's independence movement. I came to Congress to say that America should always stand for human rights.

I urge my Republican colleagues to look at the pictures in The New York Times and Huffington Post: 5-year-old kids, 7-year-old kids starving to death, a Yemeni child dying every 10 minutes.

They tell us to wait until January. That would mean thousands more Yemeni kids dead.

I don't think this is a partisan issue. This is an American issue. Let's stop the killing in Yemen. Let's end the famine. Let's have a vote in this House so we can stop the civil war in Yemen and save lives.