Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest at the outset that no party be too self-righteous on the issue of supporting prejudice and bigotry too often. This is a very serious matter. It is important to call out anti- Semitism in a way that is unmistakable and unambiguous.

We must do so because whenever some people begin to question the allegiance or patriotism of Americans, indeed, whether certain people fully belong as part of our country, it is critical to set the record straight.

Recent statements employing timeworn tropes of dual loyalty have deeply and correctly unsettled American Jewish communities because their allegation is, simply put, that American Jews who support Israel are not loyal to this country.

I stand as a very strong supporter of Israel and a very loyal American. Such allegations fall into--as has been said--a century-old and dark history of Jews being marginalized and set apart. They recall past evils that occurred in other countries and in our own when, according to the Anti-Defamation League, people accuse Jews of ``being disloyal neighbors or citizens'' because of their connection to Israel or Jewish communities elsewhere in the world.

That was false, and it was bigoted.

To be clear, the First Amendment protects the right of every American to criticize policies and leaders, whether our own country or others.

That is the glory of our democracy.

However, in these past few weeks, those who say they are only criticizing Israel's leaders or policies have, instead, been making claims about the allegiance and motivation of Israel's defenders.

I do not believe there is anyone in our Caucus, not one, who wishes to silence debate over policy. Rather, what is being called for is an end to the invocation of age-old, anti-Semitic tropes that demonize people instead of criticize policies.

Accusations that Jews bear dual allegiance because of support for Israel or concern for its safety are false and they are also hurtful canards that must be opposed and exposed for what they are: bigotry. They elicit legitimate fear and uncertainty in the individuals and communities they target.

In much the same way, we have also seen vile examples of hatred aimed at painting Muslim Americans as somehow disloyal to our Nation, or not fully belonging, causing similar feelings of insecurity and distress.

No Muslims could come to our country. Those feelings cannot be discounted either. One of our own colleagues was the target of an Islamophobic attack, impugning a Member of this House. That ought to be unacceptable to all of us.

We have seen this same form of exclusion, hatred in recent years whenever acts of bigotry have been directed towards African Americans, and when Latino and Latina citizens have been yelled at to ``go back'' to their country. This is their country.

This phenomenon is also a reminder of the horrific internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. None of us ought to be like Pontius Pilate and think that we have not fallen short of the principles enunciated in our Declaration.

In our multicultural Republic, sometimes it is incumbent upon the American people to speak as one Nation, indivisible, and make a clear affirmation that all Americans have an equal share

in our Republic, that no one's race, or creed, or origin can call into question one's love of country.

I will continue to urge unity in the face of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism against African American, Latino, Asian Americans, and other forms of prejudice and discrimination.

American Jews, including those who serve our Nation in Congress, need to be reassured that they are equal partners in the diverse coalition for justice, opportunity, tolerance, and equality, and that they have true allies who stand with them as firmly as they have stood with others.

I will continue to make that clear. America is rightfully respected for its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, as amended and perfected, both of which proclaim the dignity and rights of individuals endowed by our Creator.

But America has also seen, too often, the denial of that dignity and equality to millions of its citizens based upon the color of their skin, the land of their birth, or the faith of their forebearers.

My colleagues, if we are to be better than our past, we must reject all forms of bigotry and prejudice directed at any of our fellow human beings and fellow Americans. Let us all, in solidarity and in union with the principles of our country, support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Don Young, who the minority leader and the Speaker have both indicated loves this House. The minority leader then added apparently you haven't worked a day in your life, at least that is how I interpreted it, Don. That was a liberal interpretation, you know, this side of the aisle. What can I tell you?

We just lost the longest-serving Member of the House just a few weeks ago, and as I sat here, I thought, what a resemblance there is between the longest-serving Democrat of the House and the longest-serving Republican of the House: irascible comes to mind; caring about this institution comes to mind; faithful to principle comes to mind; blunt, speaks truth, not only to power, but to everybody else as well. Don Young has made a difference.

Don Young comes from Alaska, as all of us know, although the Speaker and the minority leader recognized that he came from California, but, Don, you have really made a difference, particularly for your State.

As chairman of Natural Resources, you were focused like a laser on making sure that your State was treated fairly. I know there are still some things you didn't accomplish that you would like to have accomplished, and you have much time left to do that, but the fact is all of us have benefited, I think, from your honesty, your recognition of how the House ought to work, and, yes, your regular order, which you demanded and didn't always get.

Of course, you took that with just very low-key responses, as I recall, walking by your seat from time to time.

But Don Young is an institution. Don Young is an institutionalist. Don Young is the kind of Member that makes this House, over the decades, work as constructively as it can, not as constructively as it should.

Hopefully, we will follow Don Young and John Dingell's example, because both of them are lions of partisanship, but both of them were not only willing but thought it appropriate to work across the aisle to reach objectives that they could hold in common.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Don for his service. Don and I have served together for 37 years. Between us, we have a little bit of time on us. I look forward to serving with him for some years to come. God bless him and Godspeed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for her leadership on this bill, H.R. 1, and I thank Mr. Sarbanes for being a principal sponsor and proponent of H.R. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, which responded to the lack of performance on our voting system in the 2000 election, hanging chads and all. This bill expands on that.

But let me, at the outset, remind those who would talk about what the Constitution says to read a portion of the Constitution.

Let me say before I do that, throughout my lifetime, early in my lifetime, I heard a lot about States' rights. People talk about the right to vote. I was in Alabama this past weekend, and we commemorated the march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, which was led by our colleague, John Lewis. There were State troopers meeting him on the other side of the bridge that beat and almost killed John Lewis. Why? Because he was marching from Selma to Montgomery to register to vote.

I remember, as a child--not a child; I was a young man--watching Lester Maddox on television with an ax handle saying that nobody was going to integrate his premises.

I have heard a lot about States' rights through the years. Now, what did our Founders say about States' rights as it relates to Members of Congress? ``The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof''--and apparently we didn't get to this phrase-- ``but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. . . . `'

Why did our Founders do that? Because they wanted one nation.

Now, that was not our pledge at that point in time, but they wanted the Colonies to come together as a nation. They had been a federation, and it didn't work so well. So they wanted one nation to come together, and at least for the Federal Congress, they reserved to the Federal Congress the right to set the rules in the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, last September, I delivered a speech outlining House Democrats' plans to renew faith in government by enacting a series of reforms to increase transparency, accountability, and ethics reform. This week, after extensive hearings and lots of witnesses, we bring to the floor a legislative package of reforms that made good on our promises to the American people last year.

We didn't make a secret of this. This was well-known to everybody, and they gave us the majority of this House. We are redeeming, today, that honor and that responsibility.

I want to thank, again, Representative Sarbanes and the cosponsors of this bill, every single Democratic Member. I want to thank John Lewis, a giant of a man, a giant of principle, a giant who risked his very life to make sure that the protections available in this bill would be available to every American and that we would promote--not prevent--accessibility to the voting booth and that we would not confront people going over a bridge in Selma, Alabama, who only wanted to register to vote, to be turned around by State troopers ordered by Governor Wallace to do so.

This bill was driven in large part by our dynamic freshman class who were elected on a platform of making government work once again for the people.

This For the People Act will open government up in several critical ways. First, it includes real national redistricting reform. I am for that. Mr. Chairman, it may cost Maryland a seat--I get that--but it is the right thing to do to have a level playing field.

Now, we have got a number of court cases that have turned around redistricting in North Carolina, in Pennsylvania, in Texas, and in some other States as well. But I have always said that, in order to be successful, redistricting reform cannot be done on a State-by-State basis; and the Constitution, of course, says that Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations so that we have fair--they don't have to do this for State elections. If they don't want to do it, that is fine. But we, under the Constitution, are the arbiters of Federal elections. It must be a uniform process across all States.

H.R. 1, the For the People Act, achieves this by requiring a nonpartisan redistricting commission to oversee the process in every State.

What does that mean? It means the politicians will not do it. Iowa, California, or Arizona will have a fair redistricting process.

Next, this bill includes a much-needed expansion of voting rights to protect our democracy. It would institute automatic voter registration.

In America, if you are an American citizen, you ought to have the right to vote, and government ought not make it difficult for you to exercise that right. No eligible voter should ever be turned away from his or her polling place.

It will also restore the vote to those who have paid their debt to society and should have a voice in their representative government.

This legislation builds on the important bipartisan work we did in 2002 when we passed, as I pointed out, the Help America Vote Act. It reauthorizes the Election Assistance Commission, which, very frankly, my Republican friends tried to eliminate on a number of occasions and transfer their authority to the finance commission, which oversees campaign finance--not election laws, campaign finance. It was a way to, in effect, undermine and kill, in many ways, the Election Assistance Commission designed to make sure that our elections are secure and fair. It reauthorizes the Election Assistance Commission, which is critically important to ensuring modern, accessible, and secure elections.

In addition, H.R. 1 will make campaign finance more transparent, requiring super-PACs to disclose their donors.

Again, I want to congratulate my colleague. We are very proud of John Sarbanes and his dad in Maryland. He has been indefatigable in his work in trying to make sure that it is the people's interest and not the financial interests that control our elections.

This bill will end the era of massive amounts of dark, unaccountable money funding ads and campaigns.

The For the People Act will also impose higher ethical standards on America's highest elected officials.

There is only one person in government who can do something on his own. It is not the Senate. It is not the House. It is not us. We need collectivity. But the President can make substantial decisions on his own and, in fact, has. He has done so over the wishes of the Congress of the United States just recently, so the people ought to know what his interests are and whether he is acting for his interests or the people's interests.

Among other new requirements, Presidents and Vice Presidents would

be required, therefore, to release 10 years' worth of tax returns.

In such ways, H.R. 1 will make strides, Mr. Chair, in restoring the trust in government that, unfortunately, has been lost in recent years. Americans need to know that their government works for them and can be a force for good for their families, their communities, and our country.

I rise in strong support of this legislation. I don't rise because I think it is perfect, but I rise because I think it is an excellent effort to redeem the promise of America and our democracy.

It is for the people. Let us vote for the people.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to our colleague Walter Jones, who passed away last month. Walter was my friend. Ever collegial and kind, he saw this institution for the good it could do for his constituents and for our country.

I admired Walter for his candor and for his patriotism. Over the years, I watched him make very difficult decisions, take very difficult votes. He did so out of principle. He stood up for what he believed.

It's no surprise that Walter had so many friends on both sides of the aisle. And it's no surprise either why the people of North Carolina's coastal communities sent him back to Congress election after election. Those of us who served with him could also see the extraordinary love he had for his wife Joe Anne and for their daughter Ashley.

We will miss Walter Jones in this House. I will miss my friend. We all are better off for having served with him, and this House and this country are better off for his service.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My friend, the gentleman from Georgia, just rose and said that this won't work. We have risen on this floor time after time after time after time and had a moment of silence followed by no action.

As I said time after time, we have had a moment of silence. I will tell my friend from Georgia that it hasn't worked. It has been appropriate, but it has not worked.

Can we guarantee that this will work to make every person safe?

It cannot. It will not. But I rise in strong support of doing something, and in this case doing something that 90 percent of America supports.

Mr. Chairman, this House is finally going to do its job and take action--not just a moment of silence, but action--to address the epidemic of gun violence in our country.

After the tragedies at Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas, Charleston, the Tree of Life synagogue, and Great Mills High School in my district, the House, under the previous leadership, did nothing. It didn't work.

After the shooting just down the street at the Washington Navy Yard, the Republican-controlled House did nothing. Three of the victims of that attack were constituents of mine living in southern Maryland. Dr. Wendy Edmonds and Wanda Wallace are in the gallery, Mr. Chairman. They are the sisters of Sylvia Fraser, a Navy Yard shooting victim.

Montana Geimer, daughter of Wendi Winters, a writer for the Capital Gazette of which my colleague, Mr. Brown, just spoke; and Mackenzie Boughey, a high school student who organized a March for Our Lives rally in Anne Arundel County, are here with us today not to have a moment of silence, but to have a moment of action.

Many of our districts have been painfully affected by gun violence. In St. Mary's County in Maryland, as I told you, Mr. Chairman, a student was killed by a shooter at Great Mills High School, and a courageous school resources officer there saved countless other lives. In Annapolis, five staff members of the Capital Gazette were gunned down in their newsroom.

For years, the American people have demanded action to address gun violence. After the Parkland shooting, just over a year ago, students marched in cities from coast to coast to demand that Congress protect them in the classroom, in the streets, in houses of worship, and in all public gathering places.

I, as I am sure many of you have, had the opportunity to meet with many of the students who participated in the March for Our Lives and heard the determination in their voices as they spoke about working to achieve a future where students would no longer have to practice active-shooter drills in their schools. I found their courage and persistence deeply inspiring.

Now, with a change in the majority control, we are bringing to the floor legislation supported by, as I said, nine out of ten Americans, including a majority of responsible gun owners to expand criminal background checks to make sure that those who have a criminal past, a past of violence--domestic or otherwise--a mental health problem, or are on the no-fly list because they are perceived as possibly terrorists, won't be able to buy a gun.

Does that mean they won't get a gun?

It does not. I understand that. But as I told my friend from Georgia, the moments of silence have not worked. They were appropriate, I understand, but they didn't work.

We will also be voting this week on legislation offered by our whip, Mr. Clyburn, to close the loophole that contributed to the horrific mass shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston in 2015.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass the legislation we advance, and I call on the President to sign it without delay.

Mr. Chairman, let us not have a moment of silence for this legislation. Do not let it die. Do not let the hope that it provides die. Do not let us stand by one more time to lament the death of a constituent, a friend, a neighbor, a fellow citizen, who dies at the hand of a gun purchased illegally or by someone who should not have a gun.

This is not about taking away guns. It is about preventing guns getting in the hands of people who do bad things, and we can predict that they are a danger to others. Let us not have a moment of silence for this bill. Let us pass it. Let the Senate pass it. Let the President sign it. Let's make an effort at least to stop the carnage.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, in order for the amendment that was just passed to be passed, am I correct that you would have to vote for this bill with that amendment now?

The vote now is to pass the bill as amended. Am I correct?

My parliamentary inquiry is, if that does not pass, am I correct that the amendment that was just voted for by so many in this House, it would be defeated if the bill is defeated?

Mr. Speaker, this issue is not about a wall. It is about the Constitution. It is about this institution. It is about the balance that we say is equal between the Article I institution and the Article II institution.

That is important to remember. That is why this argument is so very important.

It is not about just a single policy. It is about the kind of government that our Founding Fathers instituted, which has been the envy of the world and the example to many.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Congressman Castro of Texas, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for introducing this resolution.

I was at the border in California and in New Mexico just a few days ago. I was at the border in El Paso with my distinguished colleague, the former executive, called judge, of that area. She will speak shortly. Ms. Escobar will say there is no war at the border and there is no crisis at the border. She will explain that better than I can. She lives there.

At the border, I saw a lot of heartbreak and challenge, but I did not see a national emergency that would justify the President ignoring the Constitution and trying to make funding decisions without congressional approval. That is the issue.

For my colleagues to say this is a partisan issue, let me call your attention to the statements of approximately 20 Members of the United States Senate.

The President admitted on February 15 that this is not a true emergency when he said: ``I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.''

Not that he needed to do it much faster, but he would just rather do it much faster. Of course, if the Mexicans were paying for it, perhaps he could have.

Congress has a chance to answer the President and make it clear that he cannot make an end run around the Constitution and claim powers reserved for the taxpayers' representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress of the United States needs to have a spine and not lay at the feet of the President of the United States and say, ``Whatever you want, sir.'' That is not what the people elected us to do. We are their representatives, not the President's representative, whether it is President Obama, President Trump, President Clinton, President Bush, or President Reagan, all of whom I have served with-- two Bushes.

Our Founding Fathers had enough of King George, so they adopted a Constitution that said: We are not going to have a King George. We are not going to have an authoritarian regime. We are not going to have the executive setting policy. They said the Congress sets policy.

By the way, 300 of us in this body voted for the funding levels for border security. It didn't squeak by, by some partisan advantage--300 of us, which is to say well over 66 percent.

Now, Congress has a chance to answer the President and make it clear. He demanded that the American taxpayers give him billions for the wall that Democrats and Republicans alike say is expensive and ineffective.

Again, this is not about the wall. This is about our Constitution, our institution, and our self-respect.

He has chosen to ignore the will of the American people, as expressed by their representatives. He has opted to set aside the wisdom of our Founders for the expedience of getting his own way.

Constitutional law professor Roger Sloane of Boston University noted, last week: ``To my knowledge, no President has ever tried to use national emergency funding to appropriate funds Congress refused to appropriate.''

Overwhelming Senate vote; overwhelming vote in this body.

He went on to say: ``Politically, it would mean the President would be seeking . . . to override a bipartisan judgment of Congress.''

Have we no self-respect? Have we no sense of the balance between the executive and the legislative branches of government?

We are the Article I branch, the policymakers, the people who raise money and spend money, not the President--any President, Republican or Democrat. And a lot of Republican colleagues, including Senator McConnell, said: Mr. President, don't do this.

Right up until the time Senator McConnell said: I will support you, Mr. President.

First, he was against this, and now he is for it.

The respected Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe said of the President, on Thursday: ``He is simply trying to do what emperors and kings do, not what a President of the United States should do.''

In The Washington Post this weekend, columnist Max Boot noted why we are now at a pivotal moment for Members of the President's party in the Congress, who are being asked to choose between loyalty to the President and fidelity to the Constitution.

I am sorry the Chamber is not filled. I thought of asking for a quorum call. I didn't.

Fidelity to the President or fidelity to the Constitution, that is the choice we make today. That is why this is a pivotal moment. We choose between the Constitution and its principles, which have made our country the world's envied democracy for almost two and a half centuries.

Boot continued with this: ``Trump's action is an affront to all that Republicans stand for.''

The premise is you continue to stand for this institution and our Constitution.

``They claim to be pro-military, but Trump's action would take money away from the defense budget. They claim to be pro-property rights, but Trump's action would result in the taking of private property along the border. And they claim to be constitutional conservatives, but Trump's action is an obvious violation of Article I of the Constitution: `No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.' ''

I used to have people coming up here and taking out the Constitution and saying: Have you read this document? Do you know what it says?

Let me repeat it: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.''

Now, I have heard the scare rhetoric, and I suggest to my colleagues, with all due respect, that kind of rhetoric has preceded every despot's takeover of power in the world. There was a crisis. They had to declare military law. They had to suspend the constitution and suspend the laws.

That is how despots take power. We stand at the gate to ensure that doesn't happen. But we will say more with our votes.

If we vote yes, we will say that Congress is still the voice of the American people. We will say that we are still faithful to the oath we took to protect the Constitution and laws of our land. And we will say that America, as our Founders promised, has no sovereign but we, the people--``we,'' not me, not I. We, the people.

We must not allow the President to set a dangerous precedent stripping Congress of its power of the purse. This is the first time. You can say there are a lot of other emergencies. That is correct. But this is unique. We must not

allow him to set the precedent whereby any chief executive, Republican or Democrat, can declare an emergency any time he or she doesn't agree with Congress' funding.

This is not a partisan resolution. It is supported and encouraged by former and current Republican Members who recognize how dangerous it would be for the Congress not to act. A group of 23 former Republican Members of Congress, including former Senators Olympia Snowe, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and John Danforth have sent a letter to currently serving Republican Members yesterday. In it they wrote this: ``It has always been a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to Presidents or party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional Republic, we must act within the borders of the Constitution.''

Today, a conservative Senator from North Carolina, a Republican conservative Senator from North Carolina, said this: ``I have grave concerns when our institution looks the other way at the expense of weakening Congress' power.''

Senators Murkowski and Collins have already said they would support this resolution.

So let us act and do so in one powerful voice--not as Democrats, not as Republicans, as Americans; as representatives; as people who have put their faith in us to make a judgment to protect their country, their Constitution; as Americans who believe in our Constitution and the wisdom of our Founders who gave Congress alone the authority to appropriate funds and gave the representatives of the people and the States a powerful check on the executive.

I ask all my Republican colleagues: How would you vote if Barack Obama were President of the United States today? Think of that. Because if you cannot answer ``I would vote the same way,'' then you are not being true to your country, to our Constitution, and to your oath.

If any Member cares at all about the equal status of the Article I branch of the Constitution, he or she should vote for this resolution. Vote for conscience and Constitution, not party and politics.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank and congratulate Karen Haas, and say how very appreciative this House is for the extraordinary service that has been given to us for many years, and to the people of this country, by Karen Haas.

Karen, thank you so much.

She has been the Clerk of the House for a very long time. She was the Clerk of the House in the 109th and 110th Congresses as well.

Throughout her tenure, she served with distinction, working hard to ensure that the Office of the Clerk always acted in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way, which brought credit on this House and great service to every Member.

Thank you for that, Karen.

Many of us serving in the House have known her even longer, going back to her service on the staff of former Speaker Hastert and former Republican Leader Bob Michel.

I might say of the latter, Bob Michel was one of the finest human beings I have ever known and one of the best Members that I have ever served with. Karen was proud to serve with him, and he, I know, was so fond of Karen and her service to him and to the House.

Now, I may not be totally objective. Karen is a native Marylander. Karen is also a graduate of the University of Maryland, so Karen and I share a lot in common. We live in Maryland; we graduated from Maryland; and we love this House.

I offer her the thanks of the House, its Members, and our staff, as she steps down from this position. I am not sure where Karen is going, but I guarantee you, our loss will be somebody else's gain, because she has the kind of talent, commitment, energy, and faithfulness that will make a real difference wherever she goes.

I also congratulate Cheryl Johnson for becoming the 36th Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, Cheryl returns to the House where she served for 20 years with the Committee on Education and Labor, as well as the Committee on House Administration.

She will bring an extraordinary amount of experience to her job as the Clerk of the House. I know she will do an outstanding job, and I welcome her back to this House, which she has served so ably before.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the whip for his comments, and I certainly share his views. I am now pleased to yield to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield to the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 143) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that, with House and Senate passage of the fiscal year '19 conference report, votes are no longer expected in the House on Friday, February 15.

Next votes are expected on Monday, February 25, 2019, at 6:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow. There will be no votes expected.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Engel, Chairman Smith, Representative Khanna, and others for ensuring that the House expresses its views on the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.

After the Republican leader declined to allow this resolution to come to the floor in December, I promised to bring it to the floor.

Here we are, and now the House will have an opportunity to express its views to the President and to the country that he ought to end his administration's support of the Saudi coalition's military campaign in Yemen. It is a campaign that has led to tremendous human suffering, with minimal military gains. After 4 years, it is time for a change in policy.

Let me be clear: The Houthi rebels in Yemen are bad actors, engaging in brutal actions against civilians, and they are sponsored by Iran. The Houthis commit human rights abuses, prevent humanitarian assistance to starving civilians, and exercise a brute form of governance in the areas they control. We should have no illusion that there are two parties responsible for this humanitarian catastrophe; however, we are supporting one of them.

The result of the coalition campaign thus far has been an unmitigated humanitarian disaster as well as a military stalemate.

Using military force to pressure the Houthi rebels into accepting coalition demands has demonstrably not worked. It is time, therefore, for Congress to make clear to the Trump administration and to our country and to the international community that it cannot simply keep our Yemen policy on autopilot while the situation not only has not improved, but deteriorates.

With the United States supporting one party to this conflict, the best way we promote a peaceful and positive solution is by focusing our efforts on the variables that we can affect. It is time that we set a new course forward on Yemen and that the House and Senate need to demand that the administration uphold basic American values in its exercise of our foreign policy. That means ending our support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

Although not the focus of this resolution, I am mindful that this debate is taking place a day after the President disregarded the law and failed to report to Congress who was responsible for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The more the President tries to sweep this heinous incident under the rug, the more incumbent upon Congress it is to act.

This resolution is bipartisan. A similar resolution passed the United States Senate. It was not brought to this floor. I hope it will receive the strong support of both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 120, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House; and further, I ask unanimous consent that it be read in full.

Mr. Chairman, my fellow colleagues, I rise with great sadness to announce the passing of one of this House's great and good Members, former Representative John David Dingell, Jr., who served in this House for almost a full six decades. His father preceded him for 22 years, and his wife, our beloved colleague, Debbie Dingell, serves now.

At the request of his beloved wife, I have the sad task of informing the House that John died yesterday after a long, distinguished, and committed career of service to community, to this House, and to his country.

John served with honor in wartime and with distinction in this House. He worked for the advancement of his fellow veterans and their care and benefits in peacetime, and he fought all of his life for fairness and opportunity for all. He defended vigorously the working men and women of the auto industry and working families everywhere.

His wit, his humor brought smiles to our faces, and his fearless questions of witnesses in committee brought grimaces to those who believed they had undermined the safety and health of our citizens.

Much will be said. I know that each of you have your own memory of Chairman Dingell. I know that each of you will want to rise at some point in time over the next number of days to give your observations of this colleague with whom we were honored to serve.

Let us begin our remembrances of him, however, by celebrating the love that he had for this great institution about which he cared so deeply. He believed its powers to be: improving people's lives and delivering on the promises of those who came before us and to those who will come after us.

May John's legacy guide us forward as we seek to make this House all he believed it could be and all he did to make it so better than it might have been.

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chair, I thank the Speaker for her retelling, very briefly, the extraordinary record of our friend and colleague, John Dingell, who made America better, who made this House better, and who believed that in doing so, it was critically important to reach across the aisle, to have legislation that would enjoy the support of both sides of the aisle.

In that regard, I am blessed now to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader and my friend.

Mr. Chair, I thank the majority leader for his remarks.

Mr. Chair, the spirit of John Dingell was so present in that remark.

Now, John Dingell apparently was not always right. He wanted to repeal the Senate, but then he wanted to replace it.

Mr. Chair, John Dingell, I will tell you, I was with him Wednesday from approximately 4 p.m. on Wednesday until 6:30 p.m., and Debbie was there. Your dad was there, Andy, our dear colleague. Sandy Levin was there and John Orlando, who served with John on the Energy and Commerce Committee for such a great time. He remembered all of you. He asked me to give each of you his best, to wish you well, and to say that our country needs each of us to work together.

Would that we could leave just some of the legacy that John Dingell has left behind. We are so blessed that we have the opportunity to serve with his wife, his beloved wife, his lovely Deborah. What an extraordinary relationship, what an extraordinary man. How lucky we were and are to serve with them.

The Speaker will be shortly notifying us of when the funeral will be, opportunities to go to the funeral. There will be a memorial service as well, here, and probably a service in the Capitol as well. So there will be opportunities for each of us to stand and testify to the greatness and goodness of John David Dingell, Jr.

Mr. Chair, I ask all the Members of Congress and all the ladies and gentlemen in the gallery to join us in a moment of silence in remembrance of our friend John Dingell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with last votes expected no later than 3 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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