Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the distinguished minority leader that in the last Congress my Republican friends used this exact same process 15 times, and it ended up denying us a motion to recommit. But I also want to say, I don't need any lectures about how this House should be run from the distinguished gentleman from California. I remind my friends on both sides of the aisle that in the last Congress when the Republicans were in charge, it was the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. No other Congress in our history had more closed rules where Members were denied the ability to offer anything on the House floor. And my friends somehow take that as a great sign of--I don't want to go back to those days. Madam Speaker, I will just say one other thing. The distinguished minority leader made the statement that somehow this bill that we are trying to bring forward somehow would make this country less safe. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in the New York Times, titled ``Trump's Travel Ban, Aimed at Terrorists, has Blocked Doctors.'' [From the New York Times, Feb. 6, 2017] Trump's Travel Ban, Aimed at Terrorists, Has Blocked Doctors (By Donald G. McNeil Jr.) The Trump administration has mounted a vigorous defense of its ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim nations, saying it is necessary to prevent terrorists from entering the United States. But the ban, now blocked by a federal judge, also ensnared travelers important to the well-being of many Americans: doctors. Foreign-born physicians have become crucial to the delivery of medical care in the United States. They work in small towns where there are no other doctors, in poor urban neighborhoods and in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Foreign-born physicians ``are the doctors in small towns in Maine and Iowa,'' said Dr. Patricia F. Walker, the associate director of the University of Minnesota's Global Health Pathway, which helps refugee doctors practice in the United States. ``They go to the places where graduates of Harvard Medical School don't want to go,'' she said. Across the United States, more than 15,000 doctors are from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by the travel ban, according to The Medicus Firm, a firm that recruits doctors for hard-to-fill jobs. That includes almost 9,000 from Iran, almost 3,500 from Syria and more than 1,500 from Iraq. Dr. Hooman Parsi, an oncologist so talented that he has an O-1 visa granted to individuals with ``extraordinary ability or achievement,'' was to start seeing patients on Wednesday in San Bernardino, Calif. A federal judge in Seattle lifted the administration's travel ban on Friday, and a federal appeals court has declined to restore it. Yet Dr. Parsi is still stuck in Iran, waiting for a delayed visa amid the confusion while his American employer fumes. ``We need him desperately,'' said Dr. Richy Agajanian, the managing partner of the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation, which had just hired him. ``We had an office completely constructed--we spent three months on it, and it was supposed to open Feb. 1. Now we can't open it. This is really sad and frustrating.'' The 30-doctor practice does a lot of work in the Inland Empire, in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, Dr. Agajanian noted. ``It's very sparse in doctors out there-- many miles between oncologists,'' he said. ``The patients he would be seeing have to travel another 25 miles now. Our doctors are already overworked, and now they'll have to be on call more often.'' The United States has a persistent doctor shortage, even though 31 new medical schools have opened since 2002 and many existing ones have increased class sizes, according to Merritt Hawkins, a Dallas-based medical recruiting firm. It also noted that there are 22 percent more residencies available each year than there are American graduates to take them. Graduates of foreign medical schools now fill that gap; the largest number come from India, followed by Pakistan, China, the Philippines, Iran and Israel. (Iran is on Mr. Trump's exclusion list; Pakistan, a Muslim- majority country with a history of internal and external terror attacks, is not.) Many foreign graduates have J-1 visas, which give them about three years to complete their residencies. ``They must pass licensing exams and they must do a residency to practice here, even if they're superstars where they come from,'' said Phillip Miller, a Merritt Hawkins spokesman. Foreign-born graduates have often worked at world-class institutions and have published academic papers, so they have higher average scores than American graduates on the medical knowledge portions of the licensing examinations, according to Merritt Hawkins research--though most initially score lower on the clinical skills portions, which include English and communication skills. ``I had to work my butt off to get here,'' said Dr. Abdelghani el Rafei, a first-year resident at the University of Minnesota. ``They only take the top graduates from schools in countries like mine.'' Such foreign-born graduates must return home when their visas expire, but they can get extensions if they agree to work in an area that the Department of Health and Human Services considers ``medically underserved,'' which is roughly defined as having less than one primary care doctor for every 3,000 people. Those who practice in an underserved area for several years can apply for green cards. ``After that, they can practice anywhere, but at least you've had three or four years of a physician in your town, and that's pretty significant,'' Mr. Miller said. Citing figures from the Iowa Board of Medicine, The Des Moines Register reported last week that 172 doctors practicing in Iowa were from the seven countries subject to Mr. Trump's travel ban, and that 23 percent of the state's 13,000 practicing doctors were born outside the United States. Andrea Clement, a spokeswoman for Medicus, said that 76 percent of the foreign doctors it placed last year had gone to areas with fewer than 25,000 people or to small to medium- size cities of 25,000 to 500,000. It placed more foreign doctors in Wisconsin than in any other state, she said, followed by California, Texas, Maryland, Oregon, Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio and Arizona. Some urban areas are medically underserved, too. While Manhattan's Upper East Side has five times the number of doctors it needs to be adequately served under federal guidelines, parts of the Bronx and Brooklyn have acute doctor shortages. More than 150,000 residents of Brooklyn's Bedford- Stuyvesant section, for example, are rated as medically underserved under federal guidelines. One of the doctors stranded overseas last week, according to Pro Publica, was Dr. Kamal Fadlalla, an internal medicine specialist from Sudan who is a second-year resident at Interfaith Medical Center, which serves Bedford-Stuyvesant and Crown Heights. Many foreign-born doctors, experts said, go into family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine, general surgery and other front-line specialties where they see thousands of patients a year, including many on Medicare and Medicaid, rather than pursuing lucrative urban specialties like plastic surgery. As an oncologist, Dr. Parsi was an exception. He moved to the United States in 2007 for postdoctoral work in molecular biology. Then, after passing his medical exam, he completed his residency at the University of Cincinnati and a fellowship in hematology and oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Because he had to leave the country to get his new visa stamped into his passport, he had flown to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. He cleared a security vetting there, he said, but had to wait a few days for the visa, so he flew to Tehran to see his father. But the new court ruling affects only those who had current visa stamps in their passport, so even though he is being issued a new visa, he still cannot return to the United States, he said on Saturday. ``Everyone, including me, would like to keep the bad people out,'' said Dr. Naeem Moulki, a Syrian citizen who is finishing his medical residency in Minneapolis and plans to begin a cardiology fellowship in Chicago in the fall. ``But this is not the best way to do it. If I have to leave, it affects my patients.'' Dr. El Rafei said that the ban, which means he cannot go home to see his family, had depressed him. ``I felt like I was back in Syria again,'' he said. ``You feel hunted there, as if you did something wrong, even if you didn't. Now I feel the same way here.'' He sees patients one day a week at the V.A. Hospital in Minneapolis, where he is sometimes asked where he is from. ``One of my patients, he was a veteran in his 60s, said to me, `Why do you people hate us?' '' he said. ``I told him about Syria. I said: `We don't hate you. The bad people you see on TV are the same people who make us suffer, too.' '' ``I love this country,'' he added. ``There's a time in our residency when we can work in Africa or someplace. I want to work in a small American town, to show people that we're not all bad. The U.S. gives us a lot, so we want to give back what we can.'' Correction: Feb. 6, 2017 An earlier version of this article misattributed a quotation about the preparation necessary for a foreign doctor to get work in the United States. It was said by Dr. Abdelghani el Rafei, a first-year resident at the University of Minnesota, not Dr. Naeem Moulki, a Syrian citizen who is finishing his medical residency in Minneapolis. Correction: Feb. 25, 2017 An article on Feb. 6 about the effect of the Trump administration's ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim nations on foreign-born doctors in the United States described incorrectly the physicians seeing patients in rural settings. Forty-two percent of doctor visits in these areas are handled by family physicians, not by foreign-born physicians. (The figure for foreign-born physicians is not known.)

Mr. McGOVERN. It says: ``Foreign-born physicians have become crucial to the delivery of medical care in the United States. They work in small towns where there are no other doctors, in poor urban neighborhoods and in Veterans' Affairs hospitals.'' It also says: ``Across the United States, more than 15,000 doctors are from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by the travel ban, according to The Medicus Firm, a firm that recruits doctors for hard- to-fill jobs. That includes almost 9,000 from Iran, almost 3,500 from Syria, and more than 1,500 from Iraq.'' I didn't hear a single word about that. I didn't hear a single word about how denying doctors the ability to come here is somehow in our national interest. Not a single word objecting to the hate-filled rhetoric coming out of this White House denigrating Muslims. We have a President who bragged about trying to put in place a Muslim ban. I mean, we have a lot of talk on this floor about the need for religious freedom and to speak out against discrimination against individuals based on their religion, and yet, not a word about that. So, what we are doing by bringing these bills to the floor, we are standing up for American values, we are rejecting bigotry, we are rejecting hate, we are rejecting intolerance. Madam Speaker, I hope all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support our effort. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished minority leader's question. I would just say to him that the letter that he referred to, I read about it in the press. I didn't receive it until last night. I will also say to him, again, this consultation that he talks about is something that none of us have any recollection of. In fact, I remember when the Republicans hijacked the Democratic bill to basically deny us a motion to recommit. We were never consulted about that. I would simply say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is about whether or not we are going to stand and tolerate a policy that I think by any measure is bigoted and, quite frankly, undermines our values. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In addition to the NO BAN bill, there is also a War Powers Resolution bill that will be made in order if this rule passes. I include in the Record a February 14 New York Times article, titled: ``White House Memo Justifying Suleimani Strike Cites No Imminent Threat.'' [From The New York Times, Feb. 14, 2020] White House Memo Justifying Suleimani Strike Cites No Imminent Threat (By Catie Edmondson) Washington.--The White House told Congress on Friday that President Trump authorized the strike last month that killed Iran's most important general to respond to attacks that had already taken place and deter future ones, contradicting the president's claim that he acted in response to an imminent threat. In a legally mandated, two-page unclassified memo to lawmakers, the White House asserted that the strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was ``in response to an escalating series of attacks in preceding months'' by Iran and Iran-backed militias. ``The purposes of this action were to protect United States personnel, to deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces and interests, to degrade Iran's and Quds Force-backed militias's ability to conduct attacks, and to end Iran's strategic escalation of attacks,'' said the report, which was transmitted on Friday to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The document confirmed what lawmakers had privately suspected as the Trump administration has offered a shifting set of justifications for the strike against General Suleimani in Baghdad--taken with no congressional consultation--which brought the United States and Iran to the brink of war. ``This official report directly contradicts the president's false assertion that he attacked Iran to prevent an imminent attack against United States personnel and embassies,'' Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement. ``The administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and simple.'' In the days after the strike that killed General Suleimani, administration officials gave a variety of rationales for the action as they confronted questions about why the president undertook such a provocative move that could incite an escalation with a dangerous rival. Mr. Trump and other top officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, said the strike was conducted in response to imminent threats to American lives, but they declined to provide any evidence, leaving lawmakers in both parties irate. Pressed over several days, Mr. Pompeo conceded that the United States did not have specific intelligence on where or when an attack would take place. Mr. Trump claimed that four American embassies had been targeted for attacks, but under questioning during a television interview, Mark T. Esper, the secretary of defense, said he had seen no evidence of that. Mr. Trump later insisted on Twitter that General Suleimani had, in fact, been planning an imminent attack on United States forces, but added, ``it doesn't really matter because of his horrible past!'' Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement that ``U.S. intelligence indicated Soleimani was plotting more attacks on Americans and he was an authorized target in Iraq because of the ongoing threat he posed to Americans there.'' ``The administration would have been `culpably negligent' if they hadn't acted,'' Mr. McCaul said, quoting Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ``It is unfortunate that Democrats continue to criticize the president for a successful U.S. military strike of this brutal terrorist with American blood on his hands.'' The report on Friday came a day after the Senate passed a resolution aimed at restraining Mr. Trump's war-making powers with Iran. The rare bipartisan vote illustrated the depth of the skepticism in both parties about the president's strategy, and lawmakers' frustration with the administration's refusal to consult Congress on military matters. The House is expected to pass the measure soon, sending it to the president's desk. Mr. Trump's advisers have said he will veto it. The White House infuriated lawmakers in early January when it sent Congress a formal notification of the drone strikes required under the War Powers Act. Lawmakers had expected it to lay out a legal justification for the strike, but the entire document was classified, and officials who read it said it contained no information on future threats or an imminent attack. Lawmakers were further angered by a series of briefings delivered by top administration officials that they described as insulting and demeaning, complaining that they were dismissed for questioning the administration's strategy. Friday's report also only discussed previous acts of aggression by Iran. It cited as a legal framework the president's constitutional powers as commander in chief and the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq that Congress passed in 2002, using two justifications the administration has previously mentioned. ``Iran's past and recent activities, coupled with intelligence at the time of the airstrike, indicated that Iran's Quds force posed a threat to the United States in Iraq,'' the report said. Congressional Democrats have coalesced behind a new push to repeal the 2002 law, which was passed to authorize a military response to Saddam Hussein and his government. They said Mr. Trump's broad reading of it illustrated how the statute has been stretched and distorted to accommodate missions that Congress never envisioned when it was debated. ``To suggest that 18 years later this authorization could justify killing an Iranian official stretches the law far beyond anything Congress ever intended,'' Mr. Engel said. The House last month voted to repeal the 2002 law, with lawmakers in both parties arguing that the authorization had become outdated and been abused by presidents as a blank check to circumvent Congress in taking military action. During negotiations on the annual defense policy bill, the White House, focused on creating the Space Force as the sixth branch of military and maintaining the ability to divert military construction funds to pay for the border wall, was initially open to repealing the 2002 law, but the Pentagon intervened.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, Congress has been clear, we did not authorize the President's, in my opinion, reckless actions, nor have we provided any authorization for the use of force against Iran. What we are hearing from the administration, on the other hand, has been about as clear as mud. Initially, President Trump and other administration officials claimed the January strike was in response to an imminent threat. Now we have confirmed through a legally mandated report to Congress from the administration that that was not the case. This report made no mention of imminent threat, confirming the fact that President Trump was legally required to come to Congress for approval before carrying out the strike. The President may not like it, but the Constitution is clear: The President must seek specific authorization from Congress for any use of force against Iran, period. And I would just simply say that this shouldn't be controversial because, whether you support the President extending military operations against Iran or not, we should all agree that Congress has a constitutional responsibility here. I want to commend my friends in the Senate for passing the Kaine resolution, and I thank the eight Republicans who stood up for the institution and for Congress' constitutional authorities. I point that out, as well, and I hope that my colleagues will support the rule and support the Kaine resolution when it comes up for a vote. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle want us to get lost on the process, but we can't lose sight of the policy. This is about whether Congress should repeal President Trump's Muslim ban, and we don't agree--I would say, respectfully, to my colleague--on the Rules Committee. This is about whether we should prevent this administration from putting in place more discriminatory travel bans in the future, whether individuals deserve access to legal advice during the screening process at ports of entry, and whether Congress should vote before any escalation in hostilities with Iran. That is what is before us in the rule today. These are incredibly important issues. They go to the heart of what America is supposed to be about. Now, some on the other side are upset that they can't use certain parliamentary procedures to debate all kinds of divisive issues. Instead, they want to make this debate about anything other than the President's reckless foreign policy. I get that, but we are not going to get distracted here. This President is already looking at expanding his cruel travel ban. His approach abroad is totally unpredictable, and either you are going to stand up for America and stand up for our values, or you are going to stand by the President. That is the choice before us. For us, the choice is clear. I have constituents who have been adversely impacted, whose lives have been ripped apart by this President's immigration policies. It is heartbreaking. It is not who we are. And, for whatever reason, the President continues down this road of dividing this country along racial lines, along religious lines, I mean, you name it--constant division. Enough. Enough. We are better than that. We are better than that. I hope that there is a strong bipartisan vote in support of the No Muslim Ban Act. This is not who we are. We can't let this be who we are. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 116-415) to accompany House Resolution 891, the Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of the H.R. 6172 included a waiver of Clause 9 of rule XXI, which requires a list of all earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits contained in the measure, or a certification that the measure does not contain any of those items. However, per Chairman Schiff's statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record on March 11, 2020, the provisions that warranted a referral to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in H.R. 6172 do not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in Clause 9 of rule XXI. The text of the material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 891 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 12. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6177) to require Members of Congress to disclose delinquent tax liabilities and wage garnishments, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 13. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 6177.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his leadership on programs that protect and address the needs of vulnerable children here at home and around the world. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be the author of this bipartisan resolution, along with Congressman Joe Wilson. And I am very proud of the 62 bipartisan cosponsors on this bill who represent the geographic and ideological diversity of this House. I also thank the broad coalition of organizations that have worked so long in support of this resolution, in particular, ChildFund, Save the Children, World Vision, Futures Without Violence, and UNICEF USA. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter supporting this resolution from these groups and others. January 31, 2020. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, even though we have made great strides in identifying and addressing much of the violence that affects children and young people around the world, the sad reality is that violence against children is still pandemic. Every 5 minutes, a child dies of violence. Half of all children--1 billion--are victims of violence. Homicide is among the top causes of death in adolescents. That is not just a shame, Mr. Speaker. That is absolutely unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of those homicide victims are boys, and nearly one in five girls is sexually abused at least once in her life. Mr. Speaker, sadly, violence can happen anywhere--in communities, in schools, in the home, in emergency and crisis situations, in churches, on the streets, online, and on the phone. It happens in the most idyllic-seeming neighborhood and in the midst of conflict and war. Violence takes many forms: human trafficking, child marriage, child labor, murder, assault, beatings, psychological abuse, and online exploitation. And too much of the violence is based on gender. We know that children who are exposed to violence at a very young age can be affected for life. Violence can impair brain development. It could damage the circulatory and immune systems. Such violence can cause lifelong risks of being vulnerable to disease, illness, and disabilities. It can harm the ability to reproduce and engage in a full sexual life. It can severely affect the ability of a child to live up to their full potential. Luckily, nations, healthcare providers, teachers, communities, and nongovernmental groups have come together to end violence against children. They have identified and agreed upon some solutions to ending violence against children. We in this House should be proud that the CDC, USAID, World Health Organization, and others have developed what is called the INSPIRE package, which is a set of strategies to reduce and end violence against children everywhere. So many of us in this Chamber are parents. I am the father of a son and a daughter. I know how we worry about our children's safety and well-being. This is true of all families everywhere. In many ways, each and every child is our child. We need to be concerned about their vulnerability, about their safety, about their care, and about their protection. This resolution announces to the world that we are aware; that we do care; and, more importantly, that we want our health and aid agencies to take action. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of the victims of pogroms against the Armenian population in then-Soviet Azerbaijan thirty years ago: These attacks against Armenian Christians happened between 1988 and 1990 in the cities of Sumgait (February 27 to 29, 1988), Kirovabad (November 21 to 27, 1988) and the city of Baku (January 13 to 29, 1990). It is clear that the pogrom of Armenians in Baku was not a spontaneous and one-time event, but the culmination sofa series of ethnic violence waged against Armenians. In 1988, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave forcibly separated from Armenia and incorporated into Soviet Azerbaijan, began to voice their demand for reunification with Armenia. Their peaceful protests were reinforced by the February 20, 1988 vote by the Soviet of People's Deputies in Karabakh requesting the transfer of the region to Armenia. These events were taking place in the context of Mikhail Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost. Unfortunately, Moscow and Azerbaijani authorities rejected these calls and strong anti-Armenian sentiment was whipped up, including calls for the death and ouster of the Armenian population. On February 27, 1988, a massive pogrom was carried out in Sumgait where the Armenian population was brutally slaughtered and expelled. The Sumgait pogrom was followed by a pogrom in Kirovabad, the second largest city in Azerbaijan, where all the Armenians were expelled. After these tragedies, a massive migration of Armenians from Azerbaijan began, along with the migration of approximately 200,000 Azerbaijanis and Muslim Kurds who exited Armenia. By 1989, Armenians remaining in Azerbaijan stayed only in those places where they had well-established communities, as in Baku. In January 1990, a series of Azerbaijan political rallies took place, and on January 13th, a crowd of about 50,000 divided into groups and began raiding and invading Armenian homes, brutalizing the inhabitants, including women and children, and destroying and burning houses, businesses and other community structures. The rallying cry was to cleanse the city of Armenians. The violence, killings, rapes, beatings, looting and forcible expulsion of Armenians persisted between January 13th and 20th. It is still unknown the exact number of people killed, but estimates place the death toll around 450 people. Throughout it all, local militia and Soviet troops stood by as the violence escalated over a week's time. Not until the evening of January 20th, after most of the Armenian population had fled or been expelled from Baku, did the Soviet Army intervene to stop the seven-day massacre. Garry Kasparov was born in Baku in 1963. His mother was Armenian. In 1985, he became the youngest ever World Chess Champion. In January 1990, he was excelling in his competitions, and ranked as the No. 1 chess player in the world. Yet in January 1990, he bravely returned to Baku, into the midst of massacre and carnage, to rescue and evacuate the families of his friends and relatives. Describing those events, he has testified that: ``No one would halt the Armenian pogroms in Baku, although there were eleven thousand soldiers of internal troops in the city. No one would intervene until the ethnic cleansing was carried out. The pogroms were happening not in a random place, but in the huge capital city with blocks of flats. In such a megapolis as Baku, the crowd simply cannot carry out targeted operations like that. When the pogrom-makers go purposefully from one district to another, from one apartment to another, this means that they had been given the addresses and that they had a coordinator.'' I don't mean to simplify the complex history and people of this region, but these pogroms set the stage for more than two decades of aggression by Azerbaijan against Armenians, during which Azerbaijan initiated and lost a war against Nagorno Karabakh. Azerbaijan's persecution of Armenians continues even today in attacks against Nagorno-Karabakh, now known as the Republic of Artsakh. There has yet to be an independent investigation of the events that occurred between 1988 and 1990 that emptied Azerbaijan of its Armenian population. No one has been held accountable for the violence and the deaths. Azerbaijan remains in turmoil because of the fanaticism and thirst to ethnically cleanse the entire region ofArmenian Christians. The U.S. Congress forcefully spoke out during the period of 1988 to 1990 against these massacres and expulsions of Armenians by Azerbaijan. We have rejected the Azeri war against Nagorno Karabakh and stood in solidarity with the Armenian people of Artsakh. We will continue to do so. Madam Speaker, today I remember all the victims and I honor all the survivors of these terrible acts of ethnic cleansing. May all the people of Armenia and Artsakh live in peace and freedom for which they have sacrificed and suffered so much.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Lynda Young, whose term as chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Federal Government Affairs wraps up later this month. I have had the honor and privilege of calling Dr. Young a friend and working with her for many years, and I know her to be a brilliant pediatrician and tireless advocate for the well-being of all children and families. For 34 years, Dr. Young has been a practicing pediatrician in Worcester, Massachusetts as well as serving as a Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Throughout her career, she's worked with numerous non-profits serving children in Central Massachusetts and devoted countless hours to advocating on behalf of children at the local, state and national levels. After serving as a member of the AAP's Committee on Federal Government Affairs for several years, it was no surprise that Dr. Young was elected chair in 2016. During her tenure, she's never shied away from a fight where the well-being of children was in question. Among her many accomplishments during her time as chair include serving as a plaintiff in a successful federal lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which resulted in a court order requiring the FDA to finalize graphic warning labels for cigarettes; fighting for a 10- year extension of the vitally important Children's Health Insurance Program; defeating attempts to repeal and replace the transformative Affordable Care Act; and co-chairing four national AAP Legislative Conferences in Washington, D.C. Dr. Young has also been an integral contributor to the AAP's Blueprint for Children: How the Next President Can Build a Foundation for a Healthy Future, which outlines federal policy priorities for the next presidential administration on improving children's health. Madam Speaker, for all of Dr. Young's accolades and accomplishments, none resonate more than the day-in and day-out care she provides for children and their families as a pediatrician. She is compassionate and reassuring during tough times. She takes the time to really listen to and take an interest in her patients. She is always there for them and she has made an extraordinary difference in the lives of thousands of children. And I speak from firsthand experience--Dr. Young was my children's pediatrician in Worcester. Madam Speaker, I am honored to warmly congratulate Dr. Young on her successful tenure as chair of the AAP's Committee on Federal Government Affairs. I look forward to continuing to work with her to improve the lives of all children and their families.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for yielding me the time and for his leadership on the Rules Committee. Madam Speaker, something has been happening over the last few decades. Power meant to be held in these Halls, granted to us by the Constitution, intentionally given to us by our Founders, has ended up instead in the hands of whoever sat in the Oval Office. It wasn't stolen by any particular President. No, Madam Speaker. We gave it away. Congresses run by both parties surrendered it to Democratic and Republican administrations alike year after year after year. Nowhere is this more pronounced than when it comes to matters of war and peace. Make no mistake, the Constitution is clear on this: The President may be Commander in Chief, but only Congress has the power to declare war. It is right there in Article I, Section 8. But we abdicated that responsibility. We have been too content to stand on the sidelines and watch as wars were crafted and carried out by the White House with virtually no input from the people's House. Our troops, the very people we represent, have received orders to deploy. Taxpayer dollars have been shoveled overseas. Policies have changed from one administration to the next. But too often, Congress remained silent, not because we were too engaged on other urgent matters, but because we feared the political risk of a vote. Many of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, have tried to force debates and votes. I have joined many of my colleagues, from Adam Smith and Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna to Tom Cole and Walter Jones and Matt Gaetz. In fact, I have stood here more than two dozen times and pleaded for the chance to vote on many conflicts, like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Too often, these simple calls for debate were ignored, but these are precisely the issues our constituents sent us here to debate, the hard ones, the ones where lives are at stake. Now, I don't care who is President. I don't care who controls the House. When our troops are ordered to engage, they do not do so casually. And once they are deployed, it is not easy for them to withdraw. We all know this. Wars are easy to start but are very, very hard to end. This is why how they begin is the most crucial decision. It cannot be left to one person. The Constitution enshrines that power in our hands, the people's representatives, the people's voice, and the people's House. Today, Madam Speaker, the process of reclaiming that authority begins. This rule contains two measures. The first is a resolution from Congresswoman Lee to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF. For nearly two decades, this AUMF has been used by multiple Presidents to unilaterally engage our troops in conflicts that Congress never imagined when it was first passed. It was used to justify the recent strike against Iranian General Soleimani. If you think the consequences are limited, bear in mind that 34 more of our troops now suffer from traumatic brain injuries from Iran's retaliatory strike. Pay attention to the words of Marine General Frank McKenzie, U.S. commander in the Middle East, who told our troops on Thursday that 20,000 newly deployed troops to the region could be there for ``quite a while.'' Repealing this AUMF isn't just about ensuring that this President cannot use it as justification for asserting military force without proper congressional authorization. This vote is about ensuring that no President can. The second item included in this rule is legislation from Congressman Khanna to prohibit funding for military action against Iran that is not authorized by Congress. The situation with Iran remains volatile. If tensions should escalate again and President Trump wants to use military force, he must come to Congress first, period. These measures passed overwhelmingly as bipartisan amendments to the House-passed NDAA bill last year. These are not new items or new ideas. Unfortunately, both were stripped out of the bill in final conference. It is my hope that this House will again approve these measures and that the Senate will recognize the urgency of their passage. Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk about what it means to support our troops. Let me just say this: We respect their service when we give them an honest, thoughtful debate about their sacrifice, about possible deployments that impact not only them but their families and their loved ones. Members of our military put their lives on the line for this country. The least we can do is have the guts to vote on their fate. Let's respect our troops. Let's respect this institution. Let's finally get back to respecting the Constitution, doing our jobs, and voting on issues of war and peace. I have to tell you, I am just sick and tired of hearing excuse after excuse, not only now, but over the last several years, from my colleagues as to why we can't have these debates, why we can't vote on these issues. Madam Speaker, it is time now for my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying measure.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his advocacy on behalf of this issue. And the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am delighted to be here with him, and I want to thank him for his work on this. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4331, the Tibetan Policy and Support Act. I am proud to have introduced this legislation with Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey and with Senators Rubio and Cardin in the Senate. I thank Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul for their strong support of this bill and, more importantly, for their tireless leadership in support of the human rights of the Tibetan people. Madam Speaker, our bill updates and strengthens the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 to address the challenges facing the Tibetan people. Perhaps as importantly, it reaffirms America's commitment to the idea that human rights matter, that we care about those who are oppressed, that we stand with those who are struggling for freedom, and that we have a moral obligation to do something when we see something that is not right. It should be clear that we support a positive and productive U.S.- China relationship, but it is essential that the human rights of all the people of China are respected by their government. Unfortunately, the human rights situation in Tibet has gotten much worse. The Chinese Government has refused to enter into genuine dialogue with Tibetan leaders. Restrictions on access to Tibet, both for Tibetans and foreigners, have been tightened. International journalists have stated that the isolation of Tibet is as bad as North Korea, allowing human rights abuses and environmental degradation to be concealed from the outside world. Last year, the Congress passed the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act to demand that American journalists, diplomats, and tourists be given the same freedom to travel to Tibet that Chinese officials have to travel freely in America. I hope to see a report from the State Department, which was due in December, describing the steps that the administration has taken to implement this policy over the last year. In addition, the Chinese Government has used advanced technology to intensify security and surveillance. It has ratcheted up its so-called anti-crime and vice campaign targeting Tibetans. Religious freedom continues to be severely curtailed, including through mandatory political education for religious leaders and arrests of Tibetans who display a photo of the Dalai Lama. The Panchen Lama turned 30 years old this year, but he and his family remain incommunicado since being kidnapped by Chinese authorities in 1995, making him the world's longest-serving prisoner of conscience. Finally, Chinese officials have intervened to select Tibetan Buddhist leaders and threatened to choose the successor to the 14th Dalai Lama. These actions are in clear violation of China's international obligations to protect religious freedom. It is essential that U.S. policy toward Tibet be updated and strengthened. The bill we are considering today would establish as U.S. policy that the succession or reincarnation of Tibetan Buddhist leaders, including a future 15th Dalai Lama, is an exclusively religious matter that should be decided solely by the Tibetan Buddhist community. Send a clear message that Chinese officials who interfere in the succession or reincarnation process will be subject to targeted financial, economic, and visa-related sanctions, including those contained in the Global Magnitsky Act. Strengthen the role of the State Department Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues by including a mandate to work multilaterally to promote a genuine dialogue. Mandate that no new Chinese consulates should be established in the United States until a U.S. consulate is established in Tibet's historical capital of Lhasa. Direct the State Department to begin collaborative, multinational efforts to protect the environment and water resources of the Tibetan Plateau. Support democratic governance in the Tibetan exile community. The Dalai Lama should be commended for his decision to devolve political authority to elected leaders. The Tibetan exile community is also to be commended for adopting a system of self-governance with democratic institutions to choose their own leaders, including holding multiple free and fair elections to select its parliament and chief executive. The adoption of democracy within the Tibetan exile community ensures that the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala, India, legitimately represents and reflects the aspirations of the Tibetan people around the world. Standing together, the American people will remain steadfast partners of the Tibetan people. For 60 years, His Holiness the Dalai Lama and so many Tibetans have remained separated from their land and their home, while the people in Tibet endure some of the harshest human rights abuses in the world. I am proud that today the House of Representatives is taking this important step to strengthen U.S. policy in support of the Tibetan people. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their support, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 116-353) to accompany House Resolution 765, the Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1158 included a waiver of Clause 10 of rule XXI, which prohibits consideration of a measure that has a net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the surplus over the five- or 10-year period.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 116-377) to accompany House Resolution 790, the Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of H.J. Res. 76 included a waiver of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation that would cause the level of total new budget authority for the first fiscal year to be exceeded, or would cause revenues to be less than the level of total revenues for the first fiscal year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years for which allocations are provided.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I am here to recognize the career of a colleague whose work has always been an inspiration, not just to me, but to countless healthcare providers, students, advocates, and patients alike, Dr. Deborah Frank. Dr. Frank is a woman of many talents and passions. Notably, she has served as a professor of pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine. One of Dr. Frank's most impactful community contributions began in 1984, when she founded the Grow Clinic for Children at Boston Medical Center. The Grow Clinic is an outpatient clinic that produces comprehensive specialty medical, nutritional, developmental, social services, and dietary assistance to children. She is also the founder and principal investigator of Children's Health Watch, the Grow Clinic's outreach and research arm, which is a network of pediatric and public health researchers who, like Dr. Frank, are committed to improving child health in America. The Grow Clinic serves a diverse patient population of mostly low- income families from some of Greater Boston's poorest communities. But what made the Grow Clinic an essential part of the community is not just its dedication to the underserved and underprivileged; it was Dr. Frank's commitment to gaining a deeper understanding about the social determinants of her patients' health. Her patients knew that they could go to her for their needs beyond physical health. She cared about whether they had housing or warm clothing. She cared about whether they had healthy and nutritious food to eat and whether they were getting enough of it. She even started a food pantry at Boston Medical Center to address her patients' needs. Dr. Frank knew that there is more to health than metrics and vitals. It is also your environment and support system. Part of what makes Dr. Frank's legacy remarkable is that she found a way to become part of that support system. She came into this line of work with a vision and purpose and, in the process, has changed countless lives in Massachusetts and beyond. Dr. Frank has testified many times before Congress on numerous occasions, raising awareness on the growing problem of national hunger and its effects on children. She has literally spoken truth to power. Her work will continue to shape the way that healthcare professionals and policymakers understand the correlation between children's nutrition and health. Whether she is teaching medical students about ``failure to thrive,'' making sure her patients have food, or advocating against the criminalization and stigmatization of addicted mothers, Dr. Frank is a true fighter. She may say she retired, but, honestly, I don't believe it. Her life's work of enriching the health and well-being of those around her will not only continue through the organizations that she has worked in her entire life and her entire career, but also through the lives of the children and the families for whom she has advocated. I am sure that she will continue to stand up for what she believes in, and I thank her for her service to her community and to our country. Finally, I also thank her for her friendship. She is one of my heroes. She is an inspiration to me and to so many other people, and she is a believer that we can change the world. With her leadership and her inspiration, I believe we can do great things like end hunger in this country once and for all. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Dr. Frank, on behalf of all my colleagues, thank you for the incredible work that you have done, and we look forward to continuing to work with you and to be guided by your values and your passion.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I speak today for Raif Badawi, a Saudi Arabian human rights blogger unjustly imprisoned since 2012 for exercising his right to freedom of expression. His supposed crime? Criticizing Islam and the religious police. His sentence? Ten years in prison, 1,000 lashes, and a huge fine. Monday, January 13, was Raif's 36th birthday--the eighth he spent in prison away from his wife and three children. January 9 was the fifth anniversary of the day that Raif endured the first 50 of those 1,000 lashes. That the flogging has not continued is a small mercy, but the prolonged imprisonment and harsh conditions is taking a terrible physical and mental toll. The Saudi authorities must end this egregious injustice. Madam Speaker, I again demand the immediate and unconditional release of prisoner of conscience, Raif Badawi. I renew my call for a halt to all weapons sales and military aid until the Saudi regime cleans up its human rights record which is appalling.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the United Way of Central Massachusetts as they celebrate their 100th birthday this month and to thank the incredible staff, interns, fellows, volunteers, and community partners who allow this amazing institution to make a difference for so many people. When I think of organizations that change lives, organizations that mobilize and unite our community to inspire change and create a better world, organizations that look out for the least among us by giving families the tools and stability they need to break the cycle of poverty and get back on their feet, I think of the United Way of Central Massachusetts. I am so proud and grateful for the work they do every day and the positive impact they have on the folks I am privileged to represent. On behalf of my constituents and with thanks from the entire United States Congress, congratulations to the United Way of Central Massachusetts for a century of awe-inspiring work, and here is to many more.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jim Weill, a dedicated advocate who has spent his 50-year career standing up for what's right, and fighting to end poverty and promote social justice in this country. As President of the Food Research & Action Center, also known as FRAC, Jim spent the last 22 years as a vital partner in the fight to eliminate hunger--my long-time priority here in Congress. During this time, he has worked hard to expand programs that are essential to reducing hunger for so many, including SNAP, school lunch and breakfast, after school and summer food programs, child care food, and WIC. He's also been a champion of poverty reduction measures like the refundable Child Tax Credit. Madam Speaker, Jim's commitment to ending the epidemic of hunger in this country cannot be understated, and is exemplified by his tireless efforts to strengthen the coalition to end it. He not only helped bolster FRAC's network of state and local partners, but he's also launched and nurtured strong new anti-hunger advocacy groups, including in Maryland and the District of Columbia--bringing more allies into this important fight. His lifetime of advocacy has led him to other prominent roles as well. Early in his career, Jim served as counsel at the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago as the Director of Federal Litigation and Social Impact Projects, where he worked on over 100 federal class action and impact cases. This important work helped protect people on Social Security, Medicaid, AFDC, Food Stamps, and other public benefits. He also worked to improve our immigration system and combat discrimination against racial minorities and women. As if all that weren't enough, Jim spent 16 years as Program Director and General Counsel at the Children's Defense Fund, where he helped safeguard and expand essential programs promoting youth health and well-being. Jim played a leading role in the fight to expand Medicaid and made major contributions to the enactment of several programs to promote youth health like the Children's Health Insurance Program. His leadership on children's rights helped spur child support enforcement reforms as well as the expansion of federal fair housing laws to include families with children. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress and all the people in whose lives Jim has made a positive difference, it is my great privilege and honor to thank and recognize Jim Weill for his tireless efforts to create a more just and equitable world. I'm truly grateful to call him a friend.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 781 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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