Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I would simply say, if we reach a consensus in the Congress--we are a coequal, separate branch of government--and whether Obama was President or whether Mr. Trump is President, I am for the Congress acting on that which it agrees. Is it helpful to have agreement with the President? It is. But if we can't reach agreement with the President, our responsibility as a Congress, the Senate and the House, is to move policies that we believe are advantageous for the people. If the President disagrees, then we have the option of overriding that veto. It is doubtful that we would do that, I understand. But that is the process that I think is most productive and most expected by the American people. I would again reiterate, on the bill that you keep saying could have unanimous support, in my opinion, what it would not have in terms of healthcare is support for doing what we so fervently believe needs to be done, and that is to make sure the ACA works as it was intended to do. If there is an alternative, we should consider that. But, very frankly, neither the President nor your side of the aisle has had agreement on an alternative. Senator McCain, as you know, was the deciding Republican vote on the last health bill that you sent to the Senate, and you sent that when you were in the majority. It didn't pass, notwithstanding the fact that you also had the majority in the Senate. Two weeks after you had the celebration at the White House, I was astounded to hear that the President effectively called that a mean bill. So we do have substantial disagreements. That does not mean that, given the fact that we have a Democratic House, that is, that we are in the majority, and a Republican Senate with the Republicans in the majority--now, I understand the gentleman's concern that it is necessary to get bipartisan agreement in the Senate in order to get that 60-vote threshold. And you and I may agree on the 60-vote threshold of getting bills on the floor. It is one thing to pass something or not. But, in any event, I would urge the gentleman to urge Mr. McConnell to pass their prescription bill. And if it is what you say and it can be done unanimously, send it over here and we will have a conference. Because both of us have articulated that we are for making sure that prescription drug costs do not price people out of being healthy. So I would urge you to do that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, starting a State of the Union with a shout of ``four more years'' reminds me more of a rally than a State of the Union. Clearly, neither the Speaker, nor any of us in any way diminished people that he introduced; some of whom I severely disagree with and thought that the actions taken with respect to that individual were totally inappropriate in a State of the Union because it served further to divide and to undermine any ability to work together. Having said that, ``four more years'' was disrespectful to this institution. The recitation in the gentleman's resolution of the honoring of individuals he just reflected had nothing to do with the State of the Union, but had everything to do with honoring people who had done great things, experienced great hardship, who ought to be empathized with; no one was saying those were a lie. One can interpret the speech for what each believed it was and can say something about it and reflect to the American people what they think of the substance of the representation of the State of the Union. It had nothing to do with the people who were honored, whether we agreed with them being honored or not. Certainly, I agreed with almost every one of them, save one.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, none of those individuals should take anything that was done personally. In fact, almost every one of those individuals was honored by people on this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle acknowledging them and honoring them with appropriate action.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on January 27, world leaders gathered at the site of Auschwitz, the notorious Nazi death camp, where 1.1 million innocent people--960,000 of them Jews--were systematically murdered during the Second World War. They joined survivors to mark the seventy- fifth anniversary of the camp's liberation by Allied forces on January 27, 1945. Among the survivors who spoke at that commemoration was Marian Turski, a Polish-Jewish journalist and historian who has been a global advocate for Holocaust remembrance and human rights--and who marched in 1965 with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. from Selma to Montgomery. His powerful words stirred the souls of those gathered on that solemn day. I have read them, and I want to share them with my colleagues so that they too will be moved. All Americans ought to read his account and his warning to future generations that we must heed the lessons of the Holocaust and the rise of the Nazi movement that brought it about. Therefore, I include in the Record his remarks. Remarks by Marian Turski, Auschwitz, January 27, 2020 Dear friends, I am one of the few still alive of those who remained in this place almost to the very last moment before liberation. My so-called evacuation from Auschwitz commenced on the 18th of January. Over the next six and a half days it proved a death march for more than half of my fellow inmates, with whom I marched in a column of six hundred. In all likelihood, I will not make it to the next commemoration. Such are the laws of nature. Please therefore forgive me the emotion in what I will now say. This is what I want to say above all to my daughter, my granddaughter, who I thank for being present here, to my grandson: it concerns those who are the peers of my daughter, of my grandchildren; a new generation, particularly the youngest, those who are younger even than them. When the Second World War broke out, I was a teenager. My father was a soldier who had received a serious gunshot wound to the lung. It was a dramatic situation for our family. My mother came from the Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian border, where armies had swept back and forth, plundering, looting, raping, burning villages so as to leave nothing for those who came after them. You might say I knew first-hand from my father and mother what war is. Yet despite everything, although only 20 or 25 years had passed, it seemed as distant as the Polish uprisings of the 19th century; as distant as the French Revolution. When I meet young people today, I realize that after 75 years they seem a little weary of this topic: war, the Holocaust, genocide. I understand them. That is why I promise you, young people, that I will not tell you about my suffering. I will not tell you about my experiences, my two death marches, how I ended the war weighing 32kg, exhausted, on the verge of death. I will not talk about the worst of it, that is, the tragedy of parting with loved ones after the selection, when you sensed what awaited them. No, I won't talk about these things. I would like to talk to you about my daughter's generation, and my grandchildren's generation. I see that President of Austria Alexander Van der Bellen is among us. You will remember, Mr. President, when you hosted me and the leaders of the International Auschwitz Committee and we talked about those times. At one point you used the phrase: `Auschwitz isl nicht vom Himmel gefallen.' Auschwitz did not descend from the sky. This is, to use a phrase of ours, an obvious obviousness. Of course it didn't descend from the sky. Yet while this may seem a banal enough statement, it contains a profound and extremely important cognitive shortcut. Let us shift our imagination for a moment to Berlin in the early 1930s. We are almost in the city center, in a district called Bayerisches Viertel, the Bavarian Quarter. Three stops from Ku'damm; from the zoo. Where the Bayerischer Platz metro is today. And here, one day in the early 1930s, a sign appears on the benches: `Jews may not sit here.' `Okay,' you might think, `this is unpleasant, it's unfair, it's not nice, but after all there are so many benches around here, you can sit somewhere else, it's fine.' This was a district inhabited by German intelligentsia of Jewish origin. Albert Einstein, Nobel laureate Nelly Sachs, the industrialist, politician and Foreign Minister Walter Altenau lived there. One day a sign appears at the swimming pool. `Jews are forbidden to enter this swimming pool.' `Okay,' you might say, `this is unpleasant, but Berlin has so many places to swim, so many lakes, canals--it's practically Venice--so you can go and swim somewhere else.' Then another sign appears. `Jews are not allowed to belong to German choral associations.' So what? They want to sing and make music? Let them gather together and sing by themselves. Then another sign. `Jewish, non-Aryan children are not allowed to play with German, Aryan children.' So they can play by themselves. And another. `We sell bread and other food products to Jews only after 5pm.' Okay, now this is a real hindrance because there's less choice, but in the end you can still shop after 5pm. And here we start to get used to the idea that you can exclude someone. That you can stigmatize someone. That you can turn someone into an alien. Slowly, gradually, day by day, people begin to get used to it--victims, perpetrators, witnesses, those we call bystanders--all begin to get used to the idea that a minority that gave the world Einstein, Nelly Sachs, Heinrich Heine and the Mendelssohns is different, that these people can be pushed to the edges of society, that they are strangers, that they spread germs and start epidemics. These terrible, dangerous thoughts are the beginning of what happens next. The regime of the time plays things cleverly, meeting the demands of workers. The first of May wasn't celebrated in Germany before? Never mind, here you go. On leisure days, they introduce Kraft durch Freude--Strength Through Joy. Organized holidays for the workers. They vanquish unemployment and play on the strings of national dignity: `Germany, rise from the shame of Versailles. Restore your pride.' At the same time, the regime sees that the people are gradually overwhelmed by the anesthesia of indifference. They stop reacting to evil. And so, the regime can afford to accelerate the process of evil. From there, things accelerate. A ban on employing Jews. A ban on emigration. Then the evil spreads to the ghettos: to Riga; to Kaunas; to my ghetto, the todz ghetto-- Litzmannstadt. Most of those there are sent to Kulmhof-- Chetmno--where they will be murdered in gas vans, and the rest are sent to Auschwitz, where they will be murdered with Zyklon B in modern gas chambers. And here we see the truth of what President Van der Bellen said: `Auschwitz didn't suddenly descend from the sky.' Auschwitz crept up, pattered with small steps, came closer and closer, until the things that happened here began. My daughter, my granddaughter, peers of my daughter, peers of my granddaughter--perhaps you do not know the name of Primo Levi. Primo Levi was one of the most well-known prisoners of this camp. He once coined the phrase: `It happened, therefore it can happen, it can happen everywhere.' I will share with you one personal memory. In 1965, I was in the United States of America on a scholarship during the fight for human rights, for civil rights, for rights for African Americans. I had the honor of taking part in the march from Selma to Montgomery with Martin Luther King. When my fellow marchers found that I had been in Auschwitz, they asked me `Do you think that such a thing could only happen in Germany? Or could it happen elsewhere?' I told them: `It could happen to you. If civil rights are violated, if minority rights are not respected and are abolished. If the law is violated, as happened in Selma, then such things could happen.' What to do? You must do what you can. If you can defend the constitution, defend your rights, defend your democratic order, defend the rights of minorities --then you can overcome this. Most of us Europeans come from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Believers and non-believers alike accept the Ten Commandments as the canon of our civilization. A friend of mine, Roman Kent, the president of the International Auschwitz Committee, who spoke here five years ago during the previous commemoration, could not be here today. He coined the `Eleventh Commandment,' which stems from the experience of the Shoah, the Holocaust, the terrible epoch of contempt. It runs thus: `Thou shalt not be indifferent.' And this is what I want to tell my daughter, what I want to tell my grandchildren. My daughter's peers, my grandchildren's peers, wherever they might live, in Poland, Israel, America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe. This is very important. Thou shalt not be indifferent in the face of lies about history. Thou shalt not be indifferent when the past is distorted for today's political needs. Thou shalt not be indifferent when any minority faces discrimination. Majority rule is the essence of democracy, but democracy also means that minority rights must be protected. Thou shalt not be indifferent when any authority violates the existing social contract. Be faithful to this commandment. To the Eleventh Commandment: thou shalt not be indifferent. Because if you are indifferent, you will not even notice it when upon your own heads, and upon the heads of your descendants, another Auschwitz descends from the sky.

Mr. HOYER

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

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have not been on the floor to hear all of the debate, but it is interesting to hear how proworker the debate is from a party that has been responsible for opposing workers' protections, workers' wages, minimum wages, and almost every other thing that lifted workers up. I will remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the best times for the middle class were when the unions had the largest number of members. Why? Because employers could not just tell them: You are going to get this. No, there had to be a bargaining saying: Look, we are making a lot of profits. We want to share in those profits because we enabled those profits. So, yes, we are for giving workers the right to organize. We are for everybody who benefits from that, paying part of the taxes for that. There are a lot of people who don't like the policies we pursue. But they have to pay taxes because the majority decides that that is what we are going to do. And that is the policy of the United States. And you can't say: Well, I don't like the policy, so I am not going to pay. I rise in very strong support of this bill. This is a bill about the middle class. This is a bill about working people. You talk a lot about working people. This is what lifts up working people, giving them some ability to negotiate on somewhat of an equal plane. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation which will protect workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively. That right is at the heart of American opportunity. Furthermore, I would suggest there is not a robust democracy in the world that does not have a trade union movement. It is what made prosperity possible for generations of working people and their families. This administration and Republicans in Congress have been working to undermine that right and erode the protections won by the workers' rights movement. Today, I am proud to bring this legislation to the floor to make it clear that Democrats will not allow that to happen. We stand with the men and women of organized labor, and all workers who benefit through their efforts, and we will fight on their behalf to protect workers' rights. I want to thank Chairman Bobby Scott of the Education and Labor Committee for introducing this legislation and shepherding it through the committee where Members helped strengthen it and ensure broad support across our caucus. In addition to banning employers from forcing workers to participate in anti-union activities--perhaps my friends in the House who believe in freedom think maybe that is wrong. I don't know. We will see--the PRO Act ends the practice of management misclassifying workers in order to deny them benefits and fair pay. I challenge anybody to get up and say that doesn't happen. It puts the National Labor Relations Board back on the side of workers, stopping the Trump administration's use of that board to subvert workers' rights. When they say ``deregulation,'' regulation is making sure workplaces are safe; making sure that products that are sold are safe--that is regulation--making sure that automobiles are safe to be on the road. That is regulation. By the way, we all know about regulations. We watch a football game. It is a regulation that you can't cross the line until the ball is hiked. That is regulation. It makes the game fair. This bill strengthens unions' hands in negotiations by prohibiting employers from hiring permanent replacements for striking workers. In other words, do it my way, kid, or get out. That is the way it used to be before the 1930s where some people died walking lines. They were trying to picket or trying to make the case for their employees. Yes, some people died, and some people bled so that other workers would have a fair shot, fair pay, safe workplace, and some long-term security. In short, the PRO Act is the workers' rights legislation our Nation has been waiting for. If we are for the middle class, we need to make sure that the middle class has some bargaining power. It is the legislation our country needs to confront the assault of unorganized labor that has been ramped up under this antiworker President. When we have strong unions, workers--even those not in unions--end up with higher wages, better healthcare, more secure retirement benefits, and safer workplaces. They had to fight for that, and as I said, some people died for that. That is why we need legislation like the PRO Act. When the Democratic-led House passes this bill, it will join other proworker legislation waiting for action in the Senate. These include the Raise the Wage Act to bring the Federal minimum wage up to $15. There is not one of us who could live on $15 an hour, but we have kept, over the 12 years that the Republicans were in the majority, $7.25 as the minimum wage. I challenge anybody in this House to live on $7.25 an hour for 40 hours. We ensured equal pay for women in the Equality Act, which bans discrimination against LGBT workers. Martin Luther King said to judge on the content of character and effort, not on some extraneous character trait that may have nothing to do with whether you can perform the job. We also passed the Butch Lewis Act to protect multiemployer pension funds, as well as the SECURE Act to help more workers save for a secure retirement. Let's not forget we passed legislation protecting coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions. The President said he was for preexisting conditions, but he wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They tried, and they had a big celebration down at the White House right after they passed it from the House to the Senate. Guess what happened 2 weeks later? The President said: That is a mean bill. Check the Record, Mr. Chairman. All of these bills are sitting on Senator Mitch McConnell's desk. I call on Senator McConnell to restore democracy and let Senators vote. I urge my colleagues to send the PRO Act to the Senate with strong support. This is proworker, pro-middle class, profamily, and pro- American. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, ``I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.'' That is the oath Senators swore on January 16. It is the oath created by Senators when they tried the first impeachment of a President in 1868. It is an oath rooted in the Revolution fought by their grandparents to create a republic of laws, not kings. It is an oath whose power derives from its common sense: that a juror must always be impartial for a trial to be fair. And it is an oath made necessary by the fact that Senators are not, as we are not, under normal circumstances, impartial in our work. The words chosen for this oath recognize that when our Constitution calls Senators to try impeachment, it calls them away from their role as partisans. When that oath is taken, Senators are supposed to step back from the affiliation of party or political kinship with or opposition to the President on trial. They are required, as the oath plainly states, to ``do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.'' Madam Speaker, this afternoon, Senators will be asked to vote on the two Articles of Impeachment the House presented on abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress. After voting to refuse to hear evidence and call witnesses with pertinent information, nearly all Republican Senators have already announced that they will vote against the articles. In doing so, many of them acknowledge that what President Trump did was wrong and inappropriate. They accept that it was wrong for him to withhold military aid to Ukraine until the President of that country promised to interfere in the American elections. The evidence of President Trump's abuse of power and attempt to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 elections is clear enough that Republican Senators cannot and have not denied the facts, yet they cannot bring themselves to confront this President and are choosing party over country. The Senator from Alaska, in explaining her decision to vote to block witnesses and evidence, tried to deflect responsibility from the consequences of her actions, writing: ``I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate.'' I agree with that. She further said: ``It is sad for me today to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.'' Madam Speaker, the Congress has not failed. The House did its job, whether you agree or not. In regular order, by a vote of this House, we impeached the President of the United States based upon our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The House did its job and did so with the solemnity required when undertaking the process of impeachment, which we did not seek but accepted as our responsibility under the Constitution. We held hearings, called witnesses, and subpoenaed documents. Many of the witnesses and documents, of course, were withheld by the White House. It is the Senate that will fail if Senators do not uphold their oaths to impartial justice. It is the Senate, Madam Speaker, that will fail if it does not hold this President accountable for using a hold on military aid to compel an ally to interfere in our election for his own personal gain. History will judge poorly those who choose fear of their party over the courage to do the right thing. Neither the Speaker nor myself, nor the whip, Jim Clyburn, urged any member in our party to vote any way on impeachment. There was no lobbying. There was no pressure. Our members voted consistent with their oath of office and the conviction that that vote was required by that oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Americans will judge. I am often asked why the House passed Articles of Impeachment even knowing that the odds were slim that Senate Republicans would set aside partisanship and hear the case as impartial jurors. It is because I know future generations will look back on this chapter in our history and ask: Who stood up for the Constitution and the laws? Who stood up for the values our Founders charged us to keep? Who refused to shrink from the heavy responsibilities of their oath? I can be proud that the House did its job, followed the law, defended our Constitution. We did not convict; that is not our role. Essentially, what we said was there was probable cause that powers had been abused and certainly cause to see that the President refused to cooperate with the constitutional responsibilities of the House of Representatives. I am also proud of the House managers, as all of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle are proud of our managers who made their case. They made their case with intellect. They made their case with evidence that had been adduced here in the House. They made their case and appealed to Senators to hold this President accountable, as our Founders intended. Almost everybody has watched a trial either in person or on television. A trial is not an opening argument and a closing argument with nothing in between. Seventy-five percent of our people wanted to have witnesses because that was their understanding of what a trial is, not just argument at the beginning and argument at the end, but evidence for jurors who have pledged to be impartial to consider. Any judge in this country would agree that opening and closing statements alone are not a trial. Nevertheless, the House managers proved their case. The truth is clear. The American people know what that truth is and know what this President has done. And they will remember who on this day abided by the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, obviously, each of us had our own reaction to the speech that was given by the President last night. He had every right under the First Amendment to say what he believed, what he was going to do, and what he wanted us to do. I suggest to you that if I took this card and tore it up because I didn't like what was on the card, I am protected by the First Amendment in doing that. That is a form of speech. If the effort is to shut one another up, perhaps we will go down that road. But, clearly, most of you in this House, or at least some of you in this House, have said an act of destroying things that the leader alleges are property of the House--I will ask for a ruling on that, Mr. Speaker, in just a minute--but is an act of disagreement. It is not an assertion, per se, that what was said was wrong, disagreed with, or anything else. It was not an outcry to the President of the United States that ``You lie'' that clearly undermined the decorum of this House. Frankly, I did not see the Speaker tear that up. I have seen it on television. It has been played, but I would suggest to you very seriously--well, whether anyone saw it or not, that is not my argument. My argument is, if each of us watches closely on the floor each of our actions and we deem those actions to be disrespectful, either to the Speaker, that is, the Speaker at the rostrum or from the microphones behind the desk, do we bring a resolution that that was disrespectful? Each of you who say ``yes,'' well, I will watch very closely, and we will go back and forth, and that will not be a good precedent because it will undermine the premise of the First Amendment that action is speech. Now, an action that is criminal, an action that defames, an action that brings the House into disrepute, that is another issue. But an action which says: ``I feel this way'' should be protected. Now, not necessarily agreed with, maybe even subject to criticism, but certainly, not subject to a resolution. This resolution will not go forward, of course, because I will move to table it if it is offered because I believe it undermines the First Amendment and the House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader asserted in his comments that the document in question was the property of the House. Was, in fact, the document that the Speaker had to read the property of the House?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, an additional question. Mr. Speaker, after the President had spoken the State of the Union and delivered that to the Congress of the United States, at the end of that session, I moved that that document be enrolled in the House proceedings of last evening. Am I to understand from the ruling that that document was specifically the document that would have been enrolled?

Mr. HOYER. Yes.

Mr. HOYER. That document did not exist according to the assertion of the Republican leader. It was destroyed.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that answered my question. My question was: Was the document that was destroyed or torn apart, the document that was to be enrolled by the House pursuant to my motion?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the resolution is not on the floor, I don't think.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask for clarification. Obviously, the Parliamentarian--I think we ought to clarify this issue. If the document has been torn apart as is alleged, and as we know it was, that document, presumably, is not the document that was enrolled by the House pursuant to my motion last night. I know it is not in the possession of the House. I know that for a fact. But there is, pursuant to my motion, a document that has been enrolled, the President's address in the State of the Union. So I simply want to make the point to the Parliamentarian and to the Speaker, that the document that--I have been here for a long period of time. Numerous times, numerous times, I have had in this drawer a copy of the President's speech that is delivered by the communication staff of the White House. Mr. Speaker, is that to be presumed----

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is not a resolution to go to war. My friend, the minority leader, wrote me a letter and implied that it was. These two bills are about the Constitution and about the awesome responsibility placed upon the Congress of the United States to determine whether or not we do go to war. It is not in Article II. It is in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States. With Democrats as President of the United States and Republicans as President of the United States, this Congress has too often ceded its constitutional responsibility to the President of the United States. The Founders would find that very dangerous. They wanted a cumulative voice of the American people to make this extraordinary decision to go to war. It has been said that the Congresswoman from California, Barbara Lee, stood as a lone and courageous voice in voting ``no'' when America was attacked, not because she did not want to defend America, but because she wanted to ensure that we did so in a thoughtful way and in a correct way. It has been said before that nothing in this resolution prevents America or members of our Armed Forces from defending themselves. This vote is about the Constitution of the United States. Both votes are about the Constitution of the United States. Americans have experienced a generation of war abroad to prevent terror at home. Madam Speaker, I was preceded by just a little bit by Mr. Gaetz from Florida. He and I don't agree on much. We have different perspectives on policy. But he and I agree on these two bills. In Afghanistan and Iraq, our troops have fought courageously. Their families have sacrificed. Their friends and neighbors have waited anxiously for news of their safe return home. Many, tragically, did not return. We hold them in our hearts today as we engage in this critical debate about the nature of Congress' role in making consequential decisions of war and peace. The Founders wanted those of us, particularly in this House, to every 2 years have to go back to our constituents to renew our contract to represent them. The Founders did that because they wanted us to be in close touch with the American people, and they wanted the people's views reflected before any one person took us to war. Now, the House has already voted on both of these propositions, on Ms. Lee's bill and on Mr. Khanna's bill. Now, they have presented us with two amendments. Last year, during the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, they were included and passed by this House. These are not new propositions. They were approved with bipartisan support. I don't mean one Republican or two Republicans, or three Republicans--as my Republican colleagues talk about, well, the impeachment opposition was bipartisan with one or two; one of whom, of course, is now a Republican. But the vote was 27 in one vote and 14 in the other. Fourteen Republicans voted for Congresswoman Lee's proposition, and they did so largely on the basis of what Mr. Gaetz from Florida had to say. In Representative Khanna's amendment, the tally was 251-170. Fourteen Republicans voted for Ms. Lee's amendment and 27 for Mr. Khanna's amendment. Now, Mr. Khanna's resolution is directly related to the Constitution and Ms. Lee's is directly related to what Mr. Gaetz said. Whether you agreed or not with what is happening in Iraq, it is over. The bipartisan votes are a testament to the very strong public sentiment that sending America's young men and women to war must not be the decision of the Commander in Chief. And from my perspective, frankly, certainly not this Commander in Chief who is so impulsive and so inclined to avoid and deny the advice of his Secretary of Defense and other intelligence-related personnel. That is why, as I said earlier, our Founders enshrined in the Constitution that only Congress can declare war. That is why we have the War Powers Act that we adopted in 1973. That is why we are having this debate on the floor today. I strongly support both the Lee amendment and the Khanna amendment. The former would repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq which was meant to enable, as Mr. Gaetz so powerfully said, the removal of Saddam Hussein. He is gone. We are not at war with Iraq. Sadly, that resolution is being used some 18 years later as rationale for doing something not against Iraq, not against Saddam Hussein--who we all know is dead--but for something else. The something else needs to be approved by this Congress unless it is a defensive action, again, which is provided for. The latter would prohibit the Trump administration from using Federal funds without congressional authorization to strike Iran in the absence of an imminent threat. ``In the absence of an imminent threat'' is the key language. This is not about retreat. This is not about exposing us to danger. It is carrying out the strictures of the Constitution of the United States. Let me make this point clear: Nowhere in this bill do we take funding away from the military or say that our forces cannot defend themselves. We include clear language to ensure that if an imminent threat presents itself, our forces can strike and respond to that threat. I am proud that so many Democratic Members of the House are veterans who know what it means to serve at the point of the spear. Mr. Brown, my colleague from Maryland, just spoke. He was one of those. Many of our freshmen served in the military during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts and are working hard to make sure that our Democratic House majority always keeps faith with those in uniform and our veterans. They have been instrumental in helping to shape our policies in a way that is smart, strategic and strengthens our national security. Let me also say that Iran remains a dangerous enemy. I doubt that there is a person on this floor who disagrees with that. No one is suggesting taking our eye off Iran and its malevolent behavior, and no one is mourning the loss of Soleimani. That is not the issue. The issue is, as I said at the beginning, the Constitution. That is why Congress needs to take action now to make it clear that the President does not have the unilateral authority to take America into another costly war in the Middle East or anywhere else. We passed the War Powers Resolution on a bipartisan basis earlier this month. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of standing up for the Article I branch of government, the Congress of the United States, who represent the people. We call this the people's House, and the Founders wanted the people to make this decision. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Representative Lee and Representative Khanna, as well as all of those who have been involved in this effort, for bringing these two propositions to the floor of the House. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote for these bills. I also hope that those who voted with the Khanna amendment, 27 Republicans, stick with their principles; stick with their commitment to the Constitution; stick with the separation of powers; stick with the awesome responsibility of this House, representing the people, to be the ones that make that terribly hard decision to send our people to war. I hope that the 14 who voted for the Lee amendment stick with their principles to rationally say: Iraq is over. It is gone. The resolution of authorization is 18 years old. It is time for us to look anew, think anew, and act anew as the circumstances require. I thank Ms. Lee and Mr. Khanna. Let us pass these two amendments. That is what our Founders would want us to do.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, there is no sham here. We have debated this proposition. This is the second time we have debated it, and it has passed twice. There is no sham here. I will talk about the MTR sham that you are arguing about at a later time. But this is on the merits of whether or not you believe the Congress of the United States ought to be making these decisions. Don't hide behind some sham argument about MTRs. We will get to that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, we have gone through and are going through a serious time in our country. The Senate is engaged, as was said the other day, in one of its most important duties and responsibilities. This weekend, a draft of the upcoming book by President Trump's former National Security Advisor, Ambassador John Bolton, was reported on by The New York Times. In that book, Ambassador Bolton, who was the National Security Advisor and foreign policy advisor for President Donald Trump, revealed additional evidence pertinent to the impeachment trial now underway in the Senate. There is strong and direct evidence that the President linked critical military aid to Ukraine. It is reported that so many of his advisers, including Mr. Bolton, could not understand that aid being withheld to our ally. He reveals that the President linked that critical military aid to Ukraine to the announcement of an investigation by President Zelensky, which was intended to benefit President Trump personally and politically.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.