Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his leadership of the Rules Committee and for bringing us together so that we can present this FISA bill on the floor today. Madam Speaker, when we come to Congress, we all take an oath of office. We raise our right hand to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Protecting that, we are protecting the American people. Central to that defense is how we do protect and defend, it is about our values, which are part of our strength. It is about the health, education, and well-being of our people, our children, our future, which is part of our strength. Our military might is part of our strength. And our intelligence is very much a part of our strength in order to provide force protection for our men and women in uniform when they go out there to protect and defend our country. Force protection. When I first started on the Intelligence Committee in the early mid- 90s, a long time ago, I would soon then rise to be the ranking member, and I take great pride in that ex officio all these years since then. When I started way back when, it was about force protection; intelligence to protect our forces to anticipate any initiation of hostilities, and also, when engaged, to have the intelligence to protect them. Since then, the whole world has changed with technology, and all the rest, in that period of time. So our intelligence has had to change as well. And one of the ways it has, has necessitated us having a FISA bill, the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act. In the House some weeks ago we passed a bill, honchoed by our two distinguished chairs, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler from New York; and the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff from California, two committees of jurisdiction. It had strong bipartisan support. It went over to the Senate. In my view, it was vastly improved in the Senate, and it had 80 votes. Our bill was bipartisan. Their bill was bipartisan, too: 80 votes in the United States Senate for the Senate bill, which was amended by the Leahy/Lee Amendment--very, very protective of the balance that we have to have between security and privacy, security and civil liberties. This is the balance that we have to strike. In my years on Intelligence, I was focused a lot on the civil liberties part of it, establishing a board, et cetera, to ensure that whatever we did, that balance with our civil liberties was central and important to it. As Benjamin Franklin said: Security and liberties, you can't have one without the other. They go together, security and liberty. And so now today, this Rules Committee is presenting that bill, the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act coming back from the Senate. Again, our bill in the House originally was 278 to 136. It was strongly bipartisan, with 126 Republicans voting for it. This bill coming back from the Senate, as I said, had 80 votes over there. So with an intelligence bill, with a FISA bill, nobody is ever really that happy. I never was. And you always want more or less, as the case may be, but the fact is--and I say this in all humility, because I don't pretend to know more than my colleagues--but in all humility, we have to have a bill. If we don't have a bill, then our liberties, our civil liberties are less protected. Some people say: I don't care, just let them extend this and extend that. No. There is real value in both the House bill that we passed and then exceptionally so in what the Senate passed. There are those that would not like us to have a bill. Some of them in the judiciary, the Department of Justice, just say: Don't have a bill, just give us all the leeway in the world not to have to protect any liberties. But we can't have that. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and all the liberties contained therein as we protect the American people. So if anybody thinks, well, no, in order to have a bill, we have to have a rule. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this rule to the floor, which enables us to pass a bill. This legislation increases the power of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to pursue its mission to protect Americans' privacy. After 9/11 this Congress considered the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, establishing the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. That was one of my top priorities all those years ago. And the Board has done critical work in assessing the privacy and civil liberties impact of the government's collection activities, including under various provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So, again, this has to be a high priority for us. It was a higher priority in the act that was passed that could get passed in the Senate. So, again, I am going to submit my statement for the Record that I talk about here. But FISA is a critical pillar of America's national security, which Congress has updated and improved over the last years to ensure that America's privacies and civil liberties are expected. Are we ever satisfied? Of course not. Of course not. But legislation is just exactly that. Legislation. Our attempt to come together to protect and defend in a way that has already passed the Senate can go directly to the President for his signature, and I hope that that will be the case today. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for bringing this rule to the floor. I urge all of our colleagues to vote for this important rule that enables us to do important things for the American people. With that, I urge an ``aye'' vote. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act, a strong, bipartisan bill to reauthorize critical FISA provisions. In March, our Members worked day and night to craft legislation that strikes a strong, careful balance between security and privacy. We thank Chairman Nadler and Chairman Schiff for their leadership and the expertise they bring on this vital national security issue. We were proud to have passed that bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan 278-136 basis, including with the support of 126 of our Republican colleagues. Last week, the Senate considered the House-passed FISA bill and amended it to further expand the robust amicus curiae provisions in the original House bill. The bill then passed also on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, 80-16, supported by nearly every Republican Senator. Yet, now, some Members on the other side of the aisle are considering changing their minds and flipping their position, in order to score political points with the President. As should be clear, political gamesmanship has no place in our national security. Reauthorizing FISA--and doing so in a timely manner--is a matter of keeping the American people safe. Indeed, FISA is a critical pillar of America's national security, which Congress has updated and improved over the years to ensure that Americans' privacy and civil liberties are respected. After 9/11, as revelations emerged that the Bush Administration had engaged in warrant-less electronic surveillance of the public, Congress strengthened and updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Our action helped end this unacceptable practice and ensure that all electronic surveillance of Americans complies with the law. Since then, the law has been further updated, including through the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and the USA FREEDOM ACT of 2015. The bill that the House passed in March took additional steps to strengthen FISA, which are preserved in the Senate-amended bill: placing new limitations on surveillance authorities while ensuring that our intelligence and law enforcement have the tools necessary to keep Americans safe; ending the NSA's call detail records initiative, which the government has confirmed that it no longer uses; strengthening the integrity of the FISA process by increasing transparency and accountability; and expanding involvement of the court-appointed amicus curiae in FISA cases--which was expanded in the Senate bill. We are proud that this legislation increases the power of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) to pursue its mission to protect Americans' privacy. After 9/11, as Congress considered the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, establishing the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was one of my top priorities. The Board has done critical work in assessing the privacy and civil liberties impact of the government's collection activities, including under various provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As Members of Congress, we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and to protect the American people. This legislation honors that oath, as it also honors the patriotic contributions of the men and women of the intelligence and law enforcement communities and the privacy of the American people. I urge Members to remember their oath and to once again support this critical legislation to keep the American people safe.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair for yielding and thank her for her tremendous leadership. My colleagues, a horrible virus has made a vicious attack on the lives and the livelihood of the American people and, indeed, on the life of our democracy. We have been given a momentous opportunity and, therefore, a great opportunity to defeat the virus and to do so in a way that brings us together and takes us forward to a stronger America. Today, the House will consider the HEROES Act, to honor those who are on the front lines, our healthcare workers, our first responders, teachers, sanitation workers, food providers, transit workers, and other essential workers. Many of them have risked their lives to save lives, and now they may lose their jobs. For many of them, this is just what is happening right now as governors across the country are planning their budgets. As the coronavirus takes its vicious toll on the lives and livelihoods in our country, it has also taken a toll on the States to deliver services to the people. Governors are forced to either cut services or increase taxes or both. Congress must honor its responsibility to the American people, to lessen the blow of the coronavirus, by making the same serious investment of the HEROES Act to our State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments. The plan that we are voting on today will make a tremendous difference, not only in the budgets of the States, but in the lives of the American people: their public health, the education of our children, the sanitation that is so important in defeating the virus, with the support of so many essential workers. The distinguished gentleman on the other side of the aisle talked about the cost of the bill. The cost to the States, localities, territories, and Tribal governments is less than the cost of the Republican tax break, which gave 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent. We think this is a major investment in the lives of the American people and in the budgets of our States and localities. Setting aside how we got here, we must approach this tragedy with the deepest humanity, Mr. Speaker. All of our hearts are broken by the 87,000 Americans who have lost their lives and nearly 1.5 million who have been infected by the coronavirus. The number of 36-or-more-million Americans who have filed for unemployment insurance is almost unimaginable. This is a moment when our fellow Americans are in deep suffering. We must have empathy for our heroes, the healthcare workers, for how exhausted they must be and how stressed they are in doing their jobs. And, again, they are at risk of losing their jobs in this economy. We must also emphasize the pain of families who do not know where their next meal is coming from or how they are going to pay next month's rent. It is imperative that we address the needs of the American people with clarity as we proceed. It is always interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, to see how much patience some people have with the pain and suffering of other people, a tolerance level that is not acceptable in a great country like America, with a sense of community and concern for each other. We can all agree that we must open the economy, for sure, as quickly as we can. But we must do so based on science and data. The key to opening this door is testing, tracing, treating, and social distancing. Overwhelmingly, the scientific community agrees. The HEROES Act has a strategic plan, something that has been lacking thus far, a strategic plan with a vision to end this plague, a strategic vision, a goal, a timetable, milestones, benchmarks, put forth by the Energy and Commerce Committee. That is really important. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. You have to have a plan to succeed. As families are devastated by the loss of life, this legislation of putting money in the pockets of the American people, which is also a stimulus for the economy, is essential. They are suffering so much in so many ways. We want to lessen the pain for them. As Federal Reserve Chairman Powell said--this is very important, because it isn't one of us saying it to each other. The authority of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board said: ``Additional fiscal support could be costly, but worth it if it helps avoid long-term economic damage and leaves us with a stronger recovery. This tradeoff is one for our elected representatives, who wield powers of taxation and spending.'' As elected officials, we have the responsibility and the opportunity to think big, as he advised, and act now for the people. The distinguished gentleman said, oh, my goodness, we put this bill on the floor. Well, let me just do a little history of the last few months. I, too, am very proud of the fact that we were able to bring four bills to conclusion in a strong bipartisan way. The first one on March 4: Testing, testing, testing. Not really fulfilled, but nonetheless intended. Ten days later, on March 14: Mask, mask, mask, mask. Again, PPE, not fully realized, but nonetheless intended. March 28, the President of the United States signed the CARES Act, the first CARES Act. And that was a bill that was developed by the Republican leadership in the Senate. They put forth their proposal. We responded, acted upon it, and came forth with a bipartisan agreement. The next bill, the interim PPP bill, was also developed by the Republican leader in the Senate. He put forth their proposal; we put forth our suggestions; we negotiated; we came forth with a bipartisan bill. Don't you take pride in the House of Representatives having the same opportunity and privilege as the Republican leadership in the Senate for us to put forth legislation in this terrible fight? More than 80 percent of what is in this legislation has already been supported in a bipartisan way. We have agreed on State and local and other bills. We have agreed on testing in at least two other bills. We have agreed on supporting hospitals. We have agreed on unemployment insurance. We have agreed on direct payments. So much that is in this legislation has appeared in previous bipartisan legislation. So we are not asking people to do something they haven't done before. But there are some things that we want to add, the postal system, more for voting--but they did vote for the vote-by-mail legislation before--a very strong OSHA regulation that mandates certain conditions so that our workers will be protected and that our employers will know what the standards are clearly that they must honor and, therefore, they are protected as well. Now, some of the Members say: Let's take a pause. Let's take a pause? Do you think this virus is taking a pause? Do you think that the rent takes a pause? Do you think that putting food on the table, or the hunger that comes if you can't, takes a pause? The hardship of losing a job doesn't take a pause. Or tragically losing a loved one, it doesn't take a pause. So many lives may have been saved if we had testing, tracing, and treatment earlier on. Now, that is a lesson to us that that is what we must do so that we can end this. But we don't end it by pausing in the fight. This virus is relentless. It is possibly mutating, changing its nature. This is a very difficult fight. It gives us a moment that we must admit that the American people are suffering deeply. We must have empathy for the healthcare workers who, again and again, risk their lives to save lives and, again, are now at risk of losing jobs of their own, as I said before. We must have empathy for the families who are sick and the parents who are struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table. We must have empathy for families who have lost their loved ones. Can you just imagine losing a loved one so mysteriously, so out of the blue? Many people can't even embrace them or say good-bye because of the way the virus is communicated. We cannot abandon them in this time of need. To protect lives and livelihood, Members of Congress, House and Senate, must come together, as we have done, responding to the Republicans' bills that they constructed on their own in the Senate, and now we offer back something that contains much of what they offered, a little more, because the needs are greater. We must pass this bill to give the families the relief they need. These are the American people. This is our family. They are suffering. They need help. We have the resources and the opportunity to do so. It is interesting to me, and so sad for me, as a mother and grandmother of children who are younger and college age, that this is the time that they would have been enjoying graduation. I have spoken at many, many, many graduations, watching hundreds of thousands of students walk across that stage, to see the pride in their families, many of them the first in their families to graduate from college, to see the symbol of success, love, and joy that it is for those families. They will be missing that ritual, sadly, whether it is college, high school, or, in my case, grade school, and even going into middle school. President Kennedy said that children are our ``greatest resource'' and our ``best hope for the future.'' They are our hope, but we must also give them hope as they go forward by alleviating the challenge our country is facing and make the future better for them. It is always about the children and their future. I urge our colleagues to consider all of those children all over America, but also in their own States, in their own districts, as they make their decision today that is so important to our country. That is why I am so grateful, Mr. Speaker, to have a distinguished chairwoman, Chair Nita Lowey of New York, as chair of the Appropriations Committee. She and many of our chairs of committees have been dazzling, dazzling with a depth of knowledge of the subjects, the extent of legislative brilliance that they have brought to all of this, knowing the challenge, understanding the policy, strategically thinking about how we can best accomplish and use money. This is not a Christmas tree. There is nothing joyful about this. This is a very strategically planned piece of legislation that is tailored strictly to meet the needs of the American people regarding the coronavirus pandemic. To do anything less would not be responsible. There is more we could have done, but again, we wanted to keep the cost in line. When you talk about the cost, you have to think about the opportunity lost. The Chairman of the Fed has told us to think big. It is never going to be cheaper, he said, because the cost of interest is so low, the cost of credit is so low. And I say, not to act now is not only irresponsible in a humanitarian way, but it is irresponsible because it is only going to cost more, more in terms of lives and livelihood, cost to the budget, cost to our democracy, as Governors, city halls, and county executives struggle to make their budgets so depleted by this virus. This funding is to make sure that they have the funds to take care of some of the funding for the coronavirus expenses directly, but also a recognition of the loss of revenue to their budgets because of this assault on our economy by this vicious little virus that we must defeat. As we do that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairwoman for her extraordinary leadership. She has a few more bills to go, a lot of time left, a great contribution to make. I had the privilege of serving with her for decades, and I am sorry to see her leave the Congress, but she leaves a tremendous legacy. We all believe that a budget should be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a Nation should be reflected in our budgets and how we allocate our resources. Chairman Lowey has been just that messenger of values as she has put forth her budgets, and she does so with respect for the Republicans on her committee, in this Congress, and in this country. Bipartisanship is the order of the day. As a former member of the Appropriations Committee, where I was forged, and the Intelligence Committee, I recognize full well the product, as Mr. Cole said, of appropriators working together. I always say, left to their own devices, they can get the job done, and they will. I have no doubt that this legislation will have bipartisan support. I just want it to be soon because these Governors can't wait. Right now, as I said, they have many layoffs because they don't have the money. Are they going to raise property taxes? We can make that go away in large measure if we pass this legislation because it is not just about their budgets; it is about the services for the people of our country that will be lessened if we do not help. What are we here for, but for the American people? How are their services delivered? In many ways by the statehouses and the State legislatures, the city councils, mayors' offices, and the rest. We have a responsibility to make the strategic spending that we need to do. That is what this bill does. It is not for us to praise our heroes. Everybody praises them, thanks them, and honors them--words. We need deeds, and we need real support for them. We must always--this is the saddest part, all these people who have died. I know, on both sides of the aisle, hearing our colleagues speak, that all of us will always carry those people in our hearts, 87,000 now. Hopefully, we can curtail the growth of that number with our testing, but we must make a decision to do so. That is the decision that we have to make here today. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for their thoughtful and prayerful consideration of the HEROES Act. I thank all of you for your concern about the American people. Let us come together and give them a real signal that we care by allocating the resources to meet their needs. We pray for all of them, all of our constituents, and we pray and thank God for continuing to bless America. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the HEROES Act.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the beautiful life and legacy of a dear friend, Phyllis Lyon, who passed away peacefully on April 9, 2020 at the age of 95. Phyllis Lyon was an icon of San Francisco and a trailblazer in the fight for civil rights, who dedicated her entire life to advancing equality for the LGBTQ community. Her passing is a profound official loss for the countless San Franciscans whose lives she touched and a deep personal loss for her many friends and loved ones. Phyllis, along with her late wife Del Martin, was a pioneer in the fight for LGBTQ equality. In their kitchen, in 1955, they created the Daughters of Bilitis, the first national lesbian rights organization. Through their skillful advocacy and Phyllis's brilliant writing, they helped lesbians and all LGBTQ Americans unite in solidarity and, in the process, helped develop the foundation on which the entire LGBTQ equality movement was built. Phyllis was a tireless force for progress. As a journalist and community organizer, she fought relentlessly to decriminalize homosexuality, promote women's health and end employment discrimination in San Francisco. In all her endeavors, Phyllis's voice and expertise were instrumental in bringing our nation closer to its founding promise of justice and equality for all. In 1979, the Lyon-Martin Health Services, named in honor of Phyllis and Del, was created to provide LGBTQ women access to quality, comprehensive health care, free from fear, stigma or discrimination. In its four decades of service to the Bay Area community, the Lyon-Martin Health Services has become an essential lifeline for countless women and their families, regardless of who they are or whom they love. As a model for community-based care, it is a fitting tribute to Phyllis's legacy of service and commitment to lifting up all vulnerable communities. Phyllis and Del's passion, dedication and vision were an inspiration to me and to generations of leaders, activists and public servants. In 1995, I was honored to appoint Phyllis to the White House Conference on Aging where she advocated powerfully to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable were heard at the decision-making table. It was a privilege to speak of Phyllis and Del's beautiful commitment to each other on the Floor of the House during the debate of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and, again, last year, as the House passed the landmark Equality Act to finally end LGBTQ discrimination once and for all. All those who were blessed to know Phyllis and Del remember the extraordinary love that they had for each other and the great joy we felt watching them becoming the first same-sex marriage recognized in San Francisco. As we mourn the loss of our dear Phyllis, we find peace in knowing that she and Del are together again. May it be a comfort to their daughter Kendra, Phyllis's sister Patricia, grandchildren Lorri and Kevin and her entire family that so many mourn their loss and pray for them at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership as chair of the Rules Committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. I also acknowledge the bipartisan cooperation of the Republicans in this House and pay tribute to Mr. Cole, who is highly respected on both sides of the aisle. I am sorry that he doesn't see a pattern in this, as the Republicans have had these kinds of committees time and again. I never heard him question them then, but I do hear him questioning them today. But I am very pleased that the two of them will be working together with the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, and the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy, as well as with the leadership of Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member Davis in the days ahead to consider the proposal that we have for how we can act as a Congress when everybody cannot be present. I see in the paper that I pulled it. No, I didn't pull it. I said all along I wanted this to be bipartisan. As Speaker of the whole House, as we changed how we participate, I wanted it to be bipartisan. When we saw that that opportunity existed, in my conversation with the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy, I then said we have to give this a chance. I do think that there are many options that may be available. We want to give all the options to our Members, but consistent with the Constitution of the United States, the rules of the House of Representatives, the security of this body's information, as well as, again, the technology to make sure it works when we are depending on it. So I yield to the wisdom that they will bring to all of this to give Members as many options as possible and to do so in a way that, again, is respectful of this being the coronavirus--and not just for how we do business generally, but in this specific time--as, also, a template for any other kind of emergency that might arise. So I thank the chairman and I thank Ranking Member Cole for their comments about willingness to discuss that, and hopefully by the time we return, if that is May 4, we will have an opportunity to vote in a bipartisan way on how we can do that. By the way, when we are talking about proxy voting, we have to be sure that it is consistent with the wishes of the Member of Congress who is yielding a proxy, consistent with his or her representation of their district. It is not just a license to the proxy holder to work his or her well or the leadership to have a handful of proxies. It is about the actual representation of that person whose district, his or her district, wishes to vote on a matter, with not that much latitude except as spelled out by the granter of the proxy. As a new Member of Congress--some of you may have identified with this--I would go into a committee room and think I had the best argument in the world for my new, fresh idea as a Member of Congress, and the chairman would have a pocketful of proxies and there was no need to even have a discussion if he or she were not in agreement. So I have been a victim of that, and I don't want there to be any doubt in mind that it is a complete, accurate, guardrailed reflection of the wish of the person granting the proxy. Having said that, I want to salute our distinguished chairman for his championship. He has gone on starvation, this, that, and the other on behalf of solving the hunger crisis, the food insecurity crisis in our country, and his enthusiasm on SNAP and what we are doing as we go forward, the recognition that people are hungry in our country and that we have to do something about it. But hearing him as chair of the Rules Committee talk about that, recognizing his history, chair of the task force on hunger, so many times going on starvation diets and I would say, ``Why are you doing that? I am not sure the other side even cares if you are on a starvation diet,'' but, nonetheless, I salute the gentleman again and again for his leadership on that. So, Madam Speaker, here we are, and I thank Mr. McGovern, our distinguished chairman, for bringing this resolution to the floor, again for his great leadership trying to move us forward in a bipartisan way to continue the operations of Congress during this extraordinary time. I again acknowledge Mr. Cole's interest in doing that as well. Our Nation faces a deadly virus, a battered economy with tens of thousands of sick, some died, millions out of work. This is really a very, very, very sad day. We come to the floor with nearly 50,000 deaths, a huge number of people impacted, and the uncertainty of it all. We have to be very prayerful, and we have to be as bipartisan as we can possibly be, as united, working together. The bill we will vote on later today, which I will speak about later today, is the fourth bipartisan bill that we will be passing in the Congress of the United States. Starting March 4, we had our first bill: testing, testing, testing; shortly thereafter, the 14th: masks, masks, masks, in terms of the personal protective equipment that people needed; and, again, our big CARES Act, which was bipartisan, as is this bill today. That is why I hope, as we continue to talk about how Congress conducts itself, we can do so in a bipartisan way. Congress, again, has taken important steps in addressing this crisis, as I mentioned, by passing three bills, over $2 trillion in desperately needed emergency relief. We started: emergency, emergency, mitigation for the impact on the health and the economy of our country. We hope to soon get to a recovery phase. But right now, we are still in mitigation. Again, later today, as we pass this, the fourth bill and urgently needed interim bill, I am very pleased that it was transformed from a bill 2 weeks ago on the floor where the leader in the Senate said: This is it, 250. We are not doing anything else. That failed to get unanimous consent. At the same time, that other proposal was put forth. But I will talk about that later. Again, why we are here for this particular initiative is we need to ensure that the historic advancement of dollars in these bills and in future packages are spent carefully and effectively to save lives and rebuild our economy. As the distinguished chairman mentioned, at the dawn of World War II, then-Senator Harry Truman spearheaded the creation of a special committee to ensure that the dollars spent on the war effort had oversight and accountability. Now, there was a democratic President in the White House, President Roosevelt, so this was not partisan in any way, nor should this be considered partisan. The purpose was to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, profiteering, price-gouging, and the rest. As Truman said later, when he was President, he was interviewed about this and he said: I knew that after World War I there had been 116 committees set up to investigate the money spent in World War I. 116 committees, after the fact. He said: First of all, there had been 116 investigating committees after the fact, and I felt one committee before the fact would prevent a lot of waste and maybe even save some lives. And that, he said, is the way it worked out. The Truman committee turned into a tremendous investment for taxpayers. The total cost at the time was less than $1 million, and it saved lives and nearly $15 billion by preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. That is the equivalent of like $750 billion today. What made sense then makes even more sense now. That is why the House is forming a special bipartisan oversight panel, the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis. And by the way, Mr. Cole, I did inform the distinguished leader of my intention to announce such a thing before I did. The committee won't root out waste, fraud, and abuse. We keep saying it. It will be laser focused on ensuring that taxpayer money goes to workers' paychecks and benefits, and it will ensure that the Federal response is based on the best possible science and guided by health experts and that the money invested is not being exploited by profiteers and price-gougers. We already have been hearing of families facing scams. There are people out there creating scams to steal the direct payment checks. The Secretary of HHS told me of a scam, one entity was selling masks they didn't even have. That is why this is so important, and that timing is important, so people know we will be watching how these tax dollars are spent. I agree with Mr. Cole. There is plenty of time later for an after- action review of what went before. What we are talking about is how this money is spent as we go forward, to make sure, as President Truman--Senator Truman at the time--did, to put a spotlight on the factories that were doing the work that they were supposed to be doing. We have a tall order in terms of vaccines and therapies and the rest, and we want to be sure that if there is, God willing, a vaccine soon or a cure, even sooner than that, that we will be able to have the resources available in places where they need to be in real time, to be able to advance that. Led by Majority Whip Clyburn--and I am very proud of him, Mr. Clyburn. I had the privilege of naming him then to oversee what was happening in response to Katrina, and he just was magnificent in his precision of thought and objectivity. And again, this isn't about assigning blame. This is about taking responsibility and to be able to answer for what we have put forth, that it really did work. And so, the committee will exercise oversight to ensure that the historic investment of taxpayers' dollars, which is enormous, are being used wisely and efficiently and that nobody is ripping us off. Because where there is big money--we know this--people will come up with a scam of some kind. Mr. Clyburn's leadership, again, is essential to the work. His review of the response to Hurricane Katrina, which I mentioned, and so many issues critical to working families, I am proud that he has accepted the opportunity to serve our country in this role now. We urge our Republican colleagues and the administration to join us in respecting this oversight, that we can save lives, deliver relief, and protect our economy. And I say this with all the hope that I can muster, that we can do this in a very bipartisan way. So anyone who is thinking of a scam or a delay in terms of how the product we are looking out for is produced and how available it is to everyone in our country, they will know that we, again, are watching from both sides of the aisle how taxpayers' dollars are being spent. With that, I once again thank the distinguished chairman for bringing this important legislation to the floor. I hope that we may--on a different side of this vote, when the committee is formed--have much in common in how we put a very bright light on how the money is spent to make people healthier, to make our economy stronger, and to do so in a way that brings us all together.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for managing this important legislation on the floor of the House. I also commend him for the work that he did in the previous legislation that we have had. As has been acknowledged, this is the fourth bipartisan bill that we have brought to the floor to address the coronavirus pandemic, and this is a very important piece of legislation. So we come to the floor with such heartache, with such sorrow for those who have lost their lives and for their loved ones, for those who are suffering from the virus assault now, and for those who are in doubt about their economic situation. It is about the lives and the livelihood of the American people; that is what this is about. Nearly 900,000 Americans have been diagnosed and are sick. Nearly 50,000 have tragically died. Oh, my goodness. We have to be prayerful, prayerful about this assault again on the lives and livelihoods of the American people. Countless hospitals and healthcare systems remain swamped with cases, and far too many frontline workers still do not have the personal protective equipment that they need. And just this morning, we learned that more than 4 million workers filed for unemployment last week, with more than 26 million having lost their jobs during this pandemic so far. So, as we work to protect the American people, we have to make decisions. We recognize that the key to opening up our economy, the key to opening that door, the threshold we must cross, is a scientific one: testing, testing, testing, testing; contact tracing; isolation; of course, treatment; and, best of all, prevention. But the key is scientific, and we must make our decision in that way. So here we are, and I say this in terms of the overarching. The American people have told us, when we did our earlier bill, they do not want any taxpayer dollars going to enriching shareholders, dividends, bonuses, CEO pay, all of that. They want their taxpayer dollars to keep people in their jobs. The oversight of that is exactly what we passed, we will pass--we passed by voice vote earlier, we will vote on later. That is very important. It is very important to the American people to have confidence, as they make their sacrifices, that their taxpayer dollars that they pay are not being squandered. Our colleagues have said: Why do we need oversight? We have all these committees that do oversight--and I hope they will--but they have other work to do as well. And as the Republicans have put forth select committees themselves-- Benghazi; trying to destroy Planned Parenthood, which did not have any urgency for the American people--this has an urgency to the American people. We need a select committee whose focus, whose purpose is to address the challenge that the coronavirus places on us. That is one. Two, the American people want their checks. They want their checks, and that is what we are doing with the PPP and the direct payments and other initiatives that are there, and we need to do more. And third, and we haven't done enough in this regard, they want our heroes, our healthcare providers, our police and fire, our first responders, our emergency services folks, our transit people, everyone, our food service folks, they want everyone to have the equipment that they need to do their jobs. Our healthcare workers are on the front line, as are the others. Emergency services, police, and fire, some of them are the first people to respond to a 911 call. They are in the line of defense, and they do not have the PPE, the personal protective equipment, that they need, and we owe them. We are not worthy of thanking them, thanking them, praising them, unless we support them, and that is not being done sufficiently. That is what we have to do in the next bill--I call it the Heroes Act--when we will come together to support our heroes. Unfortunately, there was not enough interest in this bill right here on the part of others to join us in supporting our heroes, our healthcare workers, our police and fire, emergency services, in the form of supporting State and local government. When you hear State and local, it might sound bureaucratic, but it isn't. Those are the people who meet the needs of the American people and are on the front line of fighting this virus. So, when we finish this--and I am pleased to hear the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Neal, talk about the fact that we are already preparing for that. We have been for a while, because we just didn't really know that this interim bill would come up. But when it did, again, we had to meet the needs of the American people. I am so proud that all of the bills we are passing, as has been acknowledged, have been done in a bipartisan way, and the next bill will be as well. But let me just correct the Record, because the distinguished gentleman from Texas said we held up this bill, and I want to correct that Record because nothing could be further from the truth, and perhaps he isn't aware, but let me inform. Two weeks ago, the distinguished Secretary of the Treasury called me and said: I need a quarter of a trillion in 48 hours. Oh, really? Well, I don't know about that. Let's see what we can do. Let's see. Why do you need that? That was April 7. The next day, on April 8, Democrats came together, House and Senate Democrats, and made a proposal that went beyond the $250 billion for the PPP, a program that we helped shape and that we fully support, supporting our small businesses, the entrepreneurship of America, the optimism of America, the creators of jobs and wealth and community in our country. So we are there with that. But we saw some evidence that everything wasn't being done as we had hoped, and so we proposed, 1 day later, that we would have additional funding for small businesses, a $60 billion set-aside for the smallest of small businesses: women, minority-owned businesses, rural America, veterans, Native American communities, and the rest, who were not, shall we say, as bankable as some others, the underbanked, $60 billion. Another $60 billion, we said, for all of our small businesses: $50 billion of it for the EIDL, the disaster assistance loans, put $50 billion there. That $50 billion is leveraged to over $300 billion in lending, easier lending for some than PPP because it is just a loan; it is not about the bank deciding. And then the other $10 billion--we wanted 15, we got 10 for the grants. So there we got 60 and 60, 120, and then another $100 billion for the hospitals. That was on April 8, $100 billion for the hospitals, divided: hospitals, 75; testing, $25 billion. The Senate Republicans went to the floor the next day, on April 9, which was the 24 hours from the request of the quarter of a trillion dollars. Mitch McConnell went to the floor and said: This is it, 250, not one penny more. This is what it is. The Senate Democrats objected, offered an amendment that includes what we are voting on today. Mitch McConnell said: Absolutely not. That was it. So for 1 week, he kept saying: I am going to bring it up again on Monday. I am going to bring it up on Thursday. For 1 week there was that delay. Finally, that was Thursday of last week, there was interest in negotiation. And what we have on the floor today is the result of not time that we delayed the legislation, but the time that the Republicans refused to accept the fact that we needed $100 billion for our hospitals and our testing, that we needed more money for those who do not have sophisticated banking relationships, where we can have community development financial institutions reach into communities where they know the businesses, the neighborhood, the community, the people, the customers, the clients. So we should be very, very proud of the work that was done by Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez of the Small Business Committee and Chairwoman Maxine Waters, chair of the Financial Services Committee, banks, small business coming with an idea that was rejected out of hand by the leader of the Senate: Don't even bring that around. It is only this; that is it, or else you don't support small business. So when I hear, during the previous debate on the other bill and then this distinguished ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, whom I respect, and he knows that, say we delayed this, no, you delayed this because--now, this isn't about assignment. This is about taking responsibility. Without the discussion over this past weekend which resulted in the Senate passing the bill unanimously, Mitch McConnell, who wasn't going to do one more penny, unanimously passing the bill, and then saying it has all this additional help that we initiated, that he initiated. He resisted it, but he initiated it. So I think it is really important for people to understand what this fight is about. It is not about trickle-down. We were successful in turning the CARES Act from a corporate-oriented, trickle-down bill to a workers-first, bubble-up bill, and we were proud of that and that it passed and was signed by the President. Once again, they just had the 250. We fully support that. We helped create that. But that isn't the end of the day for what else we needed to do. And while I understand that they are resistant to helping those at the lower end of the scale, I can't understand why they resisted $100 billion for the hospitals and the testing, because that was central to meeting the needs, the health needs of the American people. I want more, of course. I want more than that. So now we go to the next bill. I call it the Heroes Act. We fully support that. We helped create that. But that isn't the end of the day for what else we needed to do. And while I understand that they are resistant to helping those at the lower end of the scale, I can't understand why they resisted $100 billion for the hospitals and the testing, because that was centra Unfortunately, they do not want to put the heroes into this bill today as fully as they should by supporting State and local. And what does the distinguished leader on the Senate side, Mr. McConnell, say? I am not doing any more bills. I think the States should go bankrupt. Oh, really? And not pay the healthcare workers and public hospitals, the first responders and the rest? Oh, really? What made you think that was a good idea? It is just more notion mongering to get attention, I guess. And so I came to this floor fully happy in terms of our bipartisanship, totally sad about what it is in terms of the lives of America's families and the uncertainty they face and the illness that some are suffering and the loss of life that many others, tens of thousands, have suffered. But to hear them say we held up this bill, when they are doing today, with great pride, exactly what the Senate Democrats asked them to do on April 9. So I just wanted to set the record straight on that. Again, I want to thank Maxine Waters and Nydia Velazquez and I want to thank Frank Pallone for the great work that he did and the staff of all of those committees. We are voting on the floor today with a strong agreement that sets a path that we had in the CARES Act, the issues that were addressed in the CARES Act. Of course, we had State and local in the CARES Act; they wouldn't go there here. So what we are doing is we are helping small businesses. We are strengthening the Paycheck Protection Program. It is $310 billion, including that critical $60 billion reserved for underserved rural, urban, and Tribal communities. By supporting small businesses that cannot access the PPP, we secured $50 billion for emergency assistance lending. That will be leveraged into over $300 billion in disaster assistance loans and $10 billion more for grants to small businesses. For hospitals, providers, and health workers: We secured $75 billion for health providers, which are losing revenue every day, and for physicians and health workers who are risking their lives because they don't have PPE. In one of the New York hospitals, I heard a nurse say on TV that when she went to meet the needs of the patients, she was given not the regular gown and mask and gloves and the rest. She was given a New York Yankees rain poncho. Others were wearing garbage bags. Some of them said they were wearing medical waste on their faces because they could not change the mask, and they would go to maybe four patients instead of the one and discard. So again, we thank them, we honor them, we revere them. But we have no right to do that unless we support them with what they need. They are risking their lives to save other lives, and now they may lose their jobs unless we do our Heroes Act, which I look forward to doing. For testing: We secured $25 billion for testing, which is key, central, to reopening our economy and resuming our lives. The administration has also agreed--and this is very positive--to a national testing strategy that will increase domestic testing capacity and address disparities, including across race, ethnicity, and geographic regions. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the administration was not ready to include funding for our heroes, our healthcare, fire, EMS, and other essential workers, for the postal system, which is essential to us now in getting information and materials where they need to be. And that is why CARES 2 must be about our Heroes Act, focusing on support for healthcare and essential workers. And I can't say it enough. And then with that overarching concern for them, OSHA, so they have safety in the workplace, family and medical leave, so that they can meet the needs of their families, COBRA for those who have lost their jobs. And we need full funding for COBRA, and I hope the administration will be receptive to that. Pension, additional UI, and more indirect payments and more. So let us be clear, the health and safety of our country will be endangered if we cannot pay the heroes who sacrifice to keep us safe. They are being fired as we speak. Mr. Schumer was referencing hospitals in his State where people were let go from public hospitals. But that is not unusual. Our teachers, the custodians of our children, are being let go. We have to face that, and we have to do it very soon and next. And it is unacceptable that Leader McConnell thinks that no further legislation is needed. That is what he said: No further legislation is needed. And he thinks our heroic workers can wait and our States who hire them should go bankrupt. As CARES 2 protects the lives and livelihoods of the American people, it must also protect the life of the American democracy: safeguarding the integrity of our elections and supporting voting by mail. So, again, it is the lives of the people, the livelihood of the people, the life of our democracy. Again, our prayers are with those who are suffering. His Holiness, Pope Francis--and I quote him all the time--he said weeks ago, his world prayer, that God would enlighten those who have responsibility to take responsibility for those in their care. Let us hope that we can all be prayerful, take responsibility, do the job for the American people. We have an extraordinary opportunity to do that. But we must do so in a way that keeps them safe, as we want to open our economy and do so--again, science, science, science, and science. Let us show the same courage and strength and move with great urgency to provide the support that they need, that they provide to others. And, again, we have our differences, there is no question. I heard the gentleman speak out against the $600 for people who are unemployed. I think that we have to do whatever we can to recognize that public policy has a role here, that governance carries with it responsibility and opportunity and results and progress for the American people and that science and governance are the answers to meeting the healthcare needs and meeting the needs of our economy as we go forward. So I thank our colleagues for their leadership, Maxine Waters, Nydia Velazquez, Frank Pallone, our distinguished chair of the Ways and Means Committee, for his work, and so many people. Again, right now, as we speak, the Agriculture Committee is meeting. And as some of our colleagues have said, we can't do SNAP? They turned down SNAP, food stamps, at a time when America is hungry? We have our differences, but we are coming together on this particular bill, and I am proud of that. It is bipartisan, it is urgent, and let us get on with it so that we can get on to supporting our heroes in a way that is worthy of their sacrifice.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following Dear Colleague letter I sent Members on April 6, 2020, in response to the current public health crisis: April 6, 2020. Dear Colleague: During this time of crisis, House leadership and institutional staff continue to examine all possible steps to protect the health and safety of Members and our staffs, so that we are best able to serve our constituents. In that spirit, in consultation with the Rules Committee, Committee on House Administration, Office of the Clerk and Office of the Parliamentarian and in accordance with current social distancing guidelines, the House will soon take additional action to reduce the physical presence of Members and staff in the Capitol, by formalizing a new system for submission of documents related to Floor action. Beginning Tuesday, staff must electronically submit all Floor documents--including bills, resolutions, co-sponsors and extensions of remarks--to a dedicated and secure email system, rather than deliver these materials by hand to staff in the Speaker's Lobby or Cloakrooms. At this time, Members may still drop off materials in person. Electronic submissions will be accepted when the House is in pro forma session, as well as 15 minutes immediately before and after. This upcoming week's pro forma sessions will be held Tuesday at 11:30 AM E.T. and Friday at 9:00 AM E.T. Pro forma sessions for the remainder of the month are expected to follow a similar schedule. Later today, the Clerk's Office will send out detailed guidance on where and how to submit materials. Please be advised that this policy will be effective through April 19 and may be extended if continued disruption of House operations remains necessary due to the pandemic. Normal practice for Floor submissions will resume once the House returns full-time to the Capitol for regular business. During this Holy Season for people of many faiths, let us pray for those families who have lost a loved one, those who are sick and those who are ministering to their needs. Take care, be well and stay strong. Sincerely, Nancy

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Hoyer, for yielding and for the manner in which he has enabled so many of our Members to participate in this debate today. I thank him for his leadership on the legislation and also for leading us today. I thank Mr. Brady for his leadership as well, for facilitating this conversation. I thank the Speaker pro tempore for keeping us reasonably on time as much as possible, for congressional Members, and for the strength of your authority as Speaker pro tempore today. I thank all of our Members for their participation on both sides of the aisle, for the seriousness with which we have all taken this important challenge. Mr. Speaker, last week, His Holiness, Pope Francis said, in his world prayer: ``Enlighten those responsible for the common good so that they might know how to care for those entrusted to their responsibility.'' That is His Holiness' quote, and that is the responsibility that we all have. Today, as we have all acknowledged, our Nation faces an economic and health emergency of historic proportions due to the coronavirus pandemic, the worst pandemic in over 100 years. As I proceed with my remarks, I want to say to our colleagues who are watching the proceedings from their chambers in the House to come forward and come to the gallery and listen from here so that, when the time comes, we will be prepared to proceed. The distinguished leader on the Republican side, Mr. McCarthy, and Mr. Hoyer have sent a communication to all of you to that effect, that it is very important that you come now. The sooner you come, the shorter my remarks will be. I want to thank the distinguished leader on the Republican side for his leadership throughout all of this to achieve bipartisan legislation, and to do so as expeditiously as possible in the House--in the House--so that the message will be clear to the American people that whatever concerns we may have and whatever we want to do next, right now we are going to pass this legislation, and that is because so many American families have been touched by this crisis. More than 82,000 Americans so far have fallen sick, a number certain to surge as testing goes forward and which is already the most in the world. We have gone past China and Italy. More than 1,200 Americans have tragically died. It gives you chills just to think of it. Millions of workers are losing their paychecks, including more than, as has been mentioned on both sides of the aisle, 3.2 million Americans who filed for unemployment last week alone, a staggering, record- shattering figure. Countless healthcare workers, first responders, and others fighting on the front lines in this crisis are at great personal risk. The American people deserve a governmentwide, visionary, evidence- based response to address these threats to their lives and their livelihoods, and they need it now. Again, I acknowledge the bipartisanship in which we bring this legislation to the floor. Late Wednesday night, as the leader acknowledged, the Senate unanimously passed legislation which transformed, in our view--since the gentleman acknowledged Leader McConnell, I will acknowledge our distinguished chairman on our side--which transformed a Republican, corporate-focused bill into a Democratic, workers-first focus. We salute our chairs for working in a bipartisan way and in a bicameral way, across the aisle, across the Capitol, and we are able to dramatically expand unemployment insurance and defeated attempts on the Senate side to claw back the $600-per-week added benefits that would provide essential relief to the record number of Americans losing their jobs. I salute Chairmen Richie Neal and Bobby Scott for the work that they did on this--I know this is the work of the Ways and Means Committee-- and successfully achieved full direct payments for workers, which is so important, ensuring that working-class American families will be eligible to receive as much as $3,400 for a family of four. I thank, again, Mr. Neal and Madam Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters, who, both of them, had bigger proposals but, nonetheless, advocated for all of this. By the way, I would suggest that, instead of saying it is going to take a few weeks for the checks to get there, that the administration electronically transfer those direct payments immediately. We ensured in the bill that any taxpayer dollars given to industry go, first and foremost, to workers, workers' paychecks and benefits, not used to pay CEO bonuses, stock fund buybacks, or dividends and the rest, and we have secured robust special oversight that will hold the administration accountable for this. I thank the distinguished chair of the and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. DeFazio, for his leadership in that regard. I will not try to find all of you because you may be in the gallery as we are encouraging Members to come. Again, I want to salute Congresswoman Waters for the work, having the oversight provisions in the bill for the account that is going to be spending money out. We are also proud to have secured a truly historic investment of hundreds of billions of dollars in hospitals, health systems, and State and local governments, ensuring that they have the tools they need to combat the virus. I salute Chairman Pallone, Chairwoman Lowey of the Appropriations Committee, and Chairwoman DeLauro for making so much of all of that possible. When we talk about State and local government, I want to express pride in my own Governor Gavin Newsom, who was on the front line of attacking this, as well as my own Mayor Breed, who has disciplined us to shelter in place. For small businesses, I thank Madam Chair Velazquez. Working in a bipartisan way, we won fast relief for those in need, including by securing $10 billion for SBA emergency grants of up to $10,000 and making payroll costs, rent, mortgage interest, and utility costs eligible for SBA loan forgiveness. For the first time, we have grants from the SBA. Thanks to Secretary Mnuchin, he is facilitating this by not just all of the loans going through the SBA, but going through banks with the SBA imprimatur, which makes this all go much faster. For our students, we have paused payments for Federal student loan borrowers and suspended wage garnishment and negative credit reporting during this time. For that, and for so many other things relating to our students, I thank Bobby Scott, our chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. You heard earlier, all of these chairmen make these presentations. For our veterans, we secured nearly $20 billion in funding to improve VA's readiness with equipment, tests, and additional care as, again, 571 veterans and 185 employees have now tested positive. I thank Chairman Takano and others on the committee for their leadership. For homeowners, renters, the homeless, creditors, and consumers, I thank Chairwoman Waters for her leadership there. Since the beginning of this crisis, we have fought to ensure that our Nation's response puts families first as we go through this. So the first two bills that we worked in a bipartisan way on were about addressing the emergency. The first bill was about testing, testing, testing, to ensure that everyone in the country would have access to free testing, among other things. It had in there issues that relate to research for vaccine, research for a cure, but many other things addressing the emergency. In the second bill, which also focused on the emergency, we had masks, masks, masks and many other provisions focused on the emergency, but taking us to this bill today, which is about mitigation. As our distinguished Mr. DeFazio would say, first, we had the emergency, then we had mitigation. It doesn't mean we are finished with emergency, but it is moving on to mitigating for some of the economic and health damage caused by this pandemic. Next, we will move to recovery; and, hopefully, that will be soon, always, though, addressing the emergency and the mitigation needed. How are we coming, Mr. Leader? How are we coming with our gallery? As we have all said universally, and we say it almost all the time that we come to the floor, no bill is perfect. No bill is perfect. But we want to make sure that it at least comes part of the way to being sufficient. I do think that we should, when we are considering a bill, appreciate what is in the bill rather than judge it for what is not in the bill. But we do know that we must do more. There has been a constant communication among all of our Members, I am sure, on both sides of the aisle, when we were at home or here, with doctors, healthcare providers, labor, small businesses, nonprofits, faith groups, and scientists, on the daily needs and developments in our communities. Their on-the-ground reports and clear-eyed thinking have been essential to crafting our approach to all of this. So, again, listening to Members on both sides of the aisle and the comments here today, as well as the input given in the legislative process, we know that this cannot be our final bill. Yet this bill, again, is, I think Bobby Scott called it, a down payment. We must advance a fourth bill to address the continued needs. For our fight against the coronavirus, our State and local governments will need vastly more support for preventing, preparing for, and responding to the crisis. Our hospitals and health systems still need vast infusions of funding so they can treat those in need. We must do more for our healthcare workers. And this has been a current theme on both sides of the aisle, our gratitude for our healthcare workers. They are our heroes. We are thankful and grateful to them. We pray for them, but we need to do more for them than just to say those words. Our frontline healthcare workers, whether emergency, our firefighters, our law enforcement, face a dire lack of medical and personal protective equipment, PPE. Personal protective equipment, that is the reference. When you see PPE, that is what it is. We must ensure that the President uses the Defense Production Act to its full extent to provide the tools that we need to combat this crisis. Our workers are risking their lives on the front lines of this fight and need stronger OSHA protections to keep them safe. This week, for example--and we probably all have examples. This week, we learned of the tragic death of Kious Kelly, a nurse manager in New York, who died in the line of duty from coronavirus. He and his fellow nurses risked their lives without protective equipment because the hospital supply simply did not have enough. Nurses were given a single plastic protective gown to use for an entire shift when protocol called for a change of gowns between interactions with patients. Other nurses were forced to resort to tying bandannas over their faces in place of proper equipment. And still others even began tying plastic garbage bags around disposable scrubs that they were given in place of proper scrubs for extra protection. As Mr. Kelly's sister said: ``His death could have been prevented. I'm angry. He was healthy.'' Now our nurses, doctors, healthcare workers, and first responders need action. We have to make sure they know that help is not only on the way, but it is a priority for all of us. These people risk their lives trying to save other people's lives, and then they take home what they interacted with in an infected environment. This is just asking far too much. Our families, our workers, our retirees still need more money in their pockets to protect their income security with increased SNAP. One thing we couldn't get in the bill was the increase, the 15 percent increase, in food stamps for our children, for our seniors, for those who qualify, bigger direct payments. I hope that we will be in agreement. I know that Richie and Maxine had the idea of ongoing direct payments. Pension protections, we had a protection in the legislation. It was supported by everyone. The President of the United States supported it, but Senator McConnell said he would save it for the next bill, so that is why I am mentioning it for the next bill. And then we need more expanded family medical leave. Let me give you an example. Come on, my colleagues, to the gallery. Let me give you an example. If your parent is sick but had an ongoing caregiver in the home or went to a senior health center on a daily basis and, because of the virus, that caregiver couldn't come or that health center was closed, you would be able to take family medical leave. However, as in the case of many Members here, if your mom or your dad are healthy and they contract the coronavirus, you would not be able to take family and medical leave. What we would like that to say is for those who cannot care for themselves. It just doesn't make any sense, in my view. So, in any case, we need that, and without exception. And all Americans need free coronavirus treatment so they don't have to fear the high cost of a hospital stay. When we said the tests were free, it didn't mean that the test is free but your visit to the doctor is not. So, in the days and weeks to come, Democrats will continue to advance legislation to meet the urgent needs of all affected by the coronavirus. I keep saying the coronavirus because, in this bill, people say, well, how come we didn't do this or that? Because this is specific to the coronavirus challenge that we have. I just want to say a word about our children as I close. So many of our children, I want them, if they are paying attention-- distinguished Congresswoman Brooks mentioned the children. We are so sad for them that they cannot be fully engaged in school as they were. Some have access to remote learning and the rest, and this has a deep impact on American life as it affects our children as well. I see that some graduations have been canceled and, hopefully, not so many more if we can get through this. As a mother of five, grandmother of nine, personally, but officially in my leadership role, I have seen hundreds of thousands of graduates, and what is exciting about it, personally and officially, is to see the excitement of the families when their child graduates. When that family happens to have someone on the stage who is the first in the family to graduate, the pride, the joy, the patriotism, all of it is so exuberant. Many of them will be deprived of that experience, of seeing that child walk across the stage. So let's try to get this. We have the best minds working 24/7, all hands on deck, to find a cure. Let's make sure that we give them the resources they need to do so but, at the same time, that obey the science that says shelter in place or whatever it happens to be. So, as we go forward, let us pray, let us remember what His Holiness told us. What he told us was that we have a responsibility for the common good. So let us prepare for all the loved ones who have lost family members and others who are struggling with the illness now. Let's pray for our heroic healthcare workers and first responders who are risking their lives to care for the sick every day; the men and women in our factories making more medical supplies and personal protective equipment; the farmers, producers, and grocery workers keeping food on the shelves; our truck drivers, postal workers, everybody who is contributing to the effort; and the scientists, as I say, all hands on deck 24/7 for a solution. Congress must show the same courage, the same resilience, and the same strength and with great unity and urgency put families and workers first. Let me again thank everyone who had anything to do with this, and that means almost everybody in this room. We thank the Senate Democrats, Leader Schumer, and Leader McConnell. Let us again return to the words of His Holiness, Pope Francis: May we enlighten those responsible for the common good so that they may know now to care for those entrusted to their responsibility. With that, I hope we have the biggest possible vote for the American people to show them that Congress' heart and the country's heart is full of love for the American people.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, for his kind words about calling me a mom, as that is the greatest thrill of my life, now grandmother as well. I very much thank the chairman, Mr. Pallone, for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. It is so important for our children. Madam Speaker, to Mr. Richard Neal, I thank him for the role that the Ways and Means Committee played in this as well. I want to acknowledge and thank Mr. Tom Suozzi for the work that he did on the tax piece in here, and also Donna Shalala, who knows so much about this subject in so many capacities that she has served our government and our children, as well as Karen Bass, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. When people ask me what are the three most important issues facing Congress, now for 30 years or so in Congress, I have always said the same thing: our children, our children, our children; their health; their education; the economic security of their families; a safe, clean environment in which they can thrive; a world at peace in which they can reach their fulfillment. It is all about the children. It is all about their future. Today, I rise to join my colleagues to take urgently needed action to confront the growing youth tobacco crisis, which is, in the words of the U.S. Surgeon General, an ``epidemic.'' This is legislation to protect our children, and I thank Mr. Pallone and Mr. Neal for their leadership here. Today, corporations are waging a brazen special interest campaign to addict our children to e-cigarettes. Last year, more than 5 million middle school and high school students were using e-cigarettes, up from 3.6 million just last year, and more than 3 million more than 2 years ago, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Nearly 1 million children are using e-cigarettes every day. Earlier today, we all met Abby, a high school student from Kentucky, and several other students, parents, and teachers who shared their stories. Abby spoke about how she was just a freshman--she is 15 now, but she was just a freshman when her friends offered her an e-cigarette at her first high school football game. She quickly became addicted and started spending birthday money and babysitting cash to pay for e-cigarettes that older friends in high school would buy. She tried to quit, but headaches and other painful symptoms of withdrawal prevented her. Only when her supply was cut off was she able to stop. Abby said that she never would have tried a traditional cigarette, which she and her peers considered ``harmful and disgusting,'' but they just did not know the facts about e-cigarettes, which Big Tobacco had designed to specifically target and addict millions of young people like her. Youth tobacco use is a serious public health crisis that is endangering young people like Abby. Today, I also met with the pediatrician Dr. Falusi, representing 67,000 pediatricians, members of the American Academy of Pediatrics. This is what Dr. Falusi said: ``The teenage brain is still developing, and symptoms of dependence can appear within days of first use. These products quickly deliver high levels of nicotine, so addiction can happen fast. Adolescents often have no idea how much nicotine they're getting from each hit. ``In the short term, we've seen compromised lung function and asthma exacerbations as well as seizures and respiratory distress, but we still don't know the long-term health effects of e-cigarette use. That should alarm us all.'' Dr. Falusi went on to say: ``Pediatricians have seen this addiction in our own patients. We receive frantic calls from parents whose children don't know how to stop using. We've even heard of teens who sleep with the e-cigarette under their pillow at night because they'' want to use them as soon as they wake up to vape. We also heard from our distinguished colleague, Mr. Ruiz, who will be speaking--so I won't quote him--and Dr. Schrier, the Congresswoman from Washington State, a pediatrician, speaking on this subject. With this bill, we are protecting the health of millions of young people who are at risk from Big Tobacco's deadly products. Most importantly, this bill blocks the manufacture and sale of all flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-cigarettes. Studies show that 7 out of 10 users of e-cigarettes do so because they come in flavors like gummy bear and mango. This ban also covers menthol cigarettes--which more than half of youth smokers and 7 in 10 African American youth smokers smoke. This bill, therefore, helps ensure justice and reduces health disparities. The National Medical Association, the association for African American doctors; NAACP; National Black Nurses Association; African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council; Association of Black Cardiologists; Black Women's Health Imperative; and many other associations have put out this call for action from this Congress. They said: ``Today, the tobacco industry is using e-cigarettes to hook a new generation with flavors like bubble gum, mint, mango--and menthol. It's a public health crisis affecting over 5.3 million kids.'' ``Congress,'' it says, ``End the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes and flavored e-cigarettes. Support H.R. 2339 to protect our kids.'' Again, that is from the NAACP, National Black Nurses Association, National Medical Association, Black Women's Health Imperative, Association of Black Cardiologists, and the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council. Madam Speaker, they joined scores of other organizations who are representing communities of color and otherwise. I include in the Record a flyer from the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund. Big Tobacco Has No Problem Targeting African American Communities but congress should have a problem with it For decades, Big Tobacco has targeted African Americans with menthol cigarettes, with devastating consequences. Menthol cigarettes have addicted generations of African Americans, resulting in high death rates from lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and other smoking-related illnesses. Seven out of ten African American youth smokers smoke menthol, making them more likely to become addicted smokers. Today, the tobacco industry is using e-cigarettes to hook a new generation with flavors like bubble gum, mint, mango--and menthol. It's a public health crisis affecting over 5.3 million kids. Congress: End the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes and flavored e-cigarettes. Support H.R. 2339 to protect out kids. Paid for by Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, the bill protects our communities with other strong steps, including prohibiting companies from marketing e- cigarettes to youth under age 21. Ninety-five percent of adult smokers start before age 21, and those who do not begin smoking by their early twenties are unlikely to start. Group after group is demanding action. More than 75 organizations-- from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Federation of Teachers, to the National Association of School Nurses, to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons--recently wrote: ``This legislation will address the current youth e-cigarette epidemic that is undermining the progress made in reducing youth tobacco use.'' We had all of the tobacco-free kids there lined up in their T-shirts. These little children know better than some of us in this Chamber how dangerous these e-cigarettes are to our young children, especially those in middle school who are so very young and that we see evidence of. Now, let me just say, in our own community in San Francisco, Juul came in with a proposal, and they were selling it as if this is the way we are going to stop young children from smoking. We are going to have them smoke e-cigarettes, and we are going to do this and that. It was a total fraudulent campaign. Some of us just stepped forward and said: This is wrong. But I wish some of you could see the ads that they sent to our homes, as if they were the saviors of children instead of the addictors of children, putting them on a path to tobacco use. So there is a lot of money involved here from the tobacco industry, and we have to weigh the equities in favor of children and not in favor of profits for the tobacco industry for a long time to come. Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote for this legislation. We cannot stand by while tobacco companies entice a new generation of young people into a lifetime of nicotine addiction and preventable death. Congress must act for young people like Abby and millions of others exposed to the scourge of tobacco. I urge a strong bipartisan vote. I thank so many of our Members who have taken the lead on protecting our children, our children, our children.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him and the ranking member for bringing this legislation to the floor. It is so appropriate that it is bipartisan because it is about American values. I rise to join you in passing H.R. 35, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, which finally explicitly designates lynching as a Federal hate crime. More than a century ago, the first antilynching legislation was introduced and later passed by this House ``to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of the laws and to punish the crime of lynching.'' But over 100 years and 200 attempts later at passage, it is still not law. I salute Congressman Bobby Scott--excuse me, Bobby Rush. I know Bobby Scott had something to do with this as well, but, in this case, the leadership of Bobby Rush--a lifelong civil rights champion in the Congress and in our country, for his leadership on H.R. 35, which will right this historic wrong. I thank Chairwoman Karen Bass of the Congressional Black Caucus for her commitment and that of the entire Congressional Black Caucus for bringing this legislation to the floor. I thank Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Collins for their leadership as well, and Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris for leading this legislation in the Senate. Today, Congress has an opportunity to acknowledge its responsibility for its historic failure to confront and end the horror of lynching in America. We must begin by acknowledging the heartbreaking truth that racially motivated acts of terror have long been a part of American history and that they remain a stain on our Nation's soul today. We must never forget: The massacre in Wilmington, North Carolina, 122 years ago in which 60 Black Americans were brutally murdered; The race massacre in the Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 100 years ago next year, called the single worst incident of racial violence in American history; The mutilation and murder of Emmett Till--for whom this legislation is named, a 14-year-old boy--65 years ago, one of the most appalling acts of racial violence in our history, forever seared in our collective memory; And we must remember the victims of more than 4,000 other lynchings and countless other acts of racial terror perpetrated throughout our Nation's history. As recent events remind us, racially motivated violence and other forms of violence and hate targeting vulnerable communities are not a relic of the past. When a white supremacist guns down nine parishioners in Charleston, South Carolina, at Mother Emanuel, one of America's oldest African American congregations; when neo-Nazis and white nationalist mobs carrying tiki torches march through Charlottesville in broad daylight, taking an innocent life; when a domestic terrorist murders 22 innocent souls in El Paso after penning a racist, anti-Latino screed on the internet; and when an anti-Semitic murderer kills 11 innocent men and women engaged in peaceful prayer at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh we cannot deny that racism, bigotry, and hate still exist in America. As Members of Congress and as Americans, we have a responsibility to acknowledge the horrors of the past so that we can never have them occur again. As Ida B. Wells, the crusading journalist, antilynching advocate, and founding member of the NAACP said: ``The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.'' This legislation will not erase the stain of lynching and racist violence, but it will help shine the light of truth on the injustices of the past so that we can heal our Nation and build a better, safer future for all of our children. In just over a week, many Members will travel to Selma, Alabama, to observe 55 years since the march for freedom. With the passage of this bill, we can make that pilgrimage--praying at the Brown Chapel AME Church and marching over the Edmund Pettus Bridge--with dignity, respect, and honor. Madam Speaker, I urge a unanimous vote for H.R. 35. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that the gentlewoman from Virginia is in the Chair and grateful to her for her leadership and our other colleagues, Elaine Luria and Abigail Spanberger, as new Members of Congress who give us the opportunity as the majority to bring this important legislation to the floor. I thank them for Virginia's leadership in all of this. It is so appropriate that the Congresswoman is in the Chair for this because she was a leader in the State legislature on the equal rights amendment when she served there. This is a historic day, a happy day, as the House takes action to move our Nation closer to our founding ideal that all are created equal. I salute Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her leadership on this resolution and for her lifetime of work to advance equality in America. The gentlewoman quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and I think it bears repetition. Justice Scalia said: ``Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.'' It does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. The lack of an ERA has allowed the Supreme Court Justice to have this interpretation. Here it is, we say it over and over again: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' How can you have a problem with that? Let me also salute Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, our longtime lead sponsor of the equal rights amendment in the House, for her great leadership, and Chairman Nadler, the members of the Judiciary Committee, and all the Members who came to Congress committed to finishing this fight for the equal rights amendment. I also want to acknowledge that yesterday, at our press presentation on this, in the audience was a Republican from Illinois who was responsible for Illinois passing the equal rights amendment, Steven Andersson. He was with us at the Capitol. We commend him for being a leader on the ERA, passing it through the Illinois statehouse. What an honor and how clear that this is not partisan, perhaps only in the House of Representatives, but not in the rest of the country. Let us acknowledge the millions of women in Nevada, Illinois, Virginia, and across America who have raised a drumbeat for ratification and reignited a nationwide movement for equality. Nearly 100 years ago, Alice Paul, a Republican, introduced the equal rights amendment, the first proposed amendment to the Constitution calling for women's equality in America. Fifty years ago, soon after becoming the first African American woman to serve in the Congress, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm stood on this House floor to urge passage of the ERA, calling it ``one of the most clear-cut opportunities we are likely to have to declare our faith in the principles that shaped our Constitution.'' But today, in this year that marks the centennial of women having the right to vote, it is a shameful reality that the equal rights amendment still has not been enshrined in the Constitution. As a result, millions of American women still face inequality under the law and injustice in their careers and lives. Without full equality under the Constitution, women face a devastating wage gap, and this has an impact not only on what families earn today but on women's pensions and retirement in the future. This is wrong. Women face discrimination as they raise families. Sixty-two percent of pregnant women and new moms are in the workforce, but current law allows pregnant workers to be placed on unpaid leave or forced out of their jobs. And sexual harassment and assault too often go unchecked, all leading to women's underrepresentation at the decisionmaking table. We know what the statistics are--what was it?--33 CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies are women. Really? Today, by passing this resolution, the House is paving the way to enshrining the equal rights amendment in the Constitution. It will achieve justice for women and achieve progress for families and for our children, lowering wage disparity and increasing paychecks so moms can pay for their family's needs, such as rent, groceries, childcare, and healthcare. We are able to strengthen America. It is not just about women. It is about America. The ERA will strengthen America, unleashing the full power of women in our economy and upholding the value of equality in our democracy. I have four daughters, one son, two granddaughters, and I can't even imagine how anyone could think of his or her daughter not having equality; his or her sister, mom, wife, not having equality. What is that about, that women should not have the same status of equality as men? This has nothing to do with the abortion issue. That is an excuse. That is not a reason. It has everything to do with a respect for women: your daughter, your sister, your wife, your mother. And you are saying, by voting against this, that your daughter, your sister, your mother, your spouse should not have equal protection under the law in the Constitution of the United States. To those who say that the ERA is not necessary, let me quote from a recent statement from the American Association of University Women. It states that many ``Americans mistakenly believe that the U.S. Constitution explicitly guarantees equality between men and women.'' Perhaps you think that. ``The equal rights amendment would, once and for all, guarantee constitutional equality between men and women. Its ratification would provide the constitutional guarantee that all men and women are truly equal under the law.'' I urge a strong bipartisan vote for this resolution. It will be bipartisan in the United States Senate when we send it over there shortly, to ensure that women are truly equal under the law in America. Because we know in America, when women succeed, America succeeds. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sister Margaret Claydon, who served as President of Trinity Washington University (then Trinity College), my alma mater. Sister Margaret was a beloved pillar of the Trinity community, a revolutionary who transformed women's education in America and a role model for thousands of young women and me. Sister Margaret dedicated her life to Trinity. She enrolled at Trinity as a freshman in the fall of 1941, entered the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur (SNDdeN) in 1946 and taught Latin at several SNDdeN high schools before returning to Trinity in the English Department in 1952. She served as Trinity's president from 1959 to 1975, becoming one of the youngest college presidents in the country, and then served as a professor of English until her retirement in 2004. She continued to live in the SNDdeN community at Trinity until moving to Mount Notre Dame in Cincinnati in 2015. Sister Margaret Claydon was an exemplar of the ideal Trinity Woman: a leader of penetrating intellect, firm faith and inquiring mind, whose keen sense of purpose and courage to question the status quo was an inspiration to all who walked through our school's halls. For the women in my class and me, Sister Margaret, with her youth, sophistication and success, was a symbol of strength and empowerment, whose leadership was a reminder that women could become not only a Secretary or Treasurer, but a President--or the Speaker of the House. Sister Margaret's leadership of Trinity was transformational. During an era of great upheaval on campuses and in communities across America, she boldly led Trinity into the future: revitalizing and modernizing the curriculum, leading the conversion of governance to the lay board and securing a Phi Beta Kappa Chapter for Trinity, all while holding firm to Trinity's proud heritage as an all women's Catholic institution. The excellence of her leadership was recognized in her being named to many of the great boards of higher education and her serving as the only woman on a significant delegation of presidents of Catholic colleges to the Vatican in the late 1960s. Speaking before the National Catholic Educational Association fifty years ago, Sister Margaret declared, ``We have to be willing to acquaint our students with controversy and problematic knowledge. The emphasis cannot be only on the assemblage and mastery of facts, but must be on how to make sense of them in relation to the whole human condition . . . For the times in which we live, rigidity or timidity have no place. These times, these problems cry out for courage, for openness.'' May Sister Margaret's lifetime of courageous leadership to educate and empower women to seek the truth and pursue progress for all continue to be a blessing to our community. And may it be a comfort to the Trinity community, the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, her family and all who knew and loved Sister Margaret that so many mourn their loss and pray for them during this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her and Mr. Crenshaw for this very wise amendment to this important legislation. I thank them for their leadership. The experience that they had in Texas is one that is shared in the rest of the country as well. I urge an ``aye'' vote on that important Crenshaw/Fletcher amendment. Madam Chair, many of us remember that nearly 2\1/2\ years ago, Hurricanes Maria and Irma tore through Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and left a trail of heartbreak and devastation in their wake. Thousands of Americans, all Americans citizens, tragically lost their lives. Following the hurricanes, many Members traveled to the islands. We saw firsthand the homes that were destroyed, the communities that were ravaged, and the businesses and schools left in ruin. And we saw that the incompetence and indifference of many from here compounded this terrible humanitarian crisis. It is unacceptable that the administration illegally withheld for a full year the assistance that Congress appropriated and that Puerto Rico needs, both to recover from Maria, and to prepare for future disasters in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In recent weeks, tragedy has once again hit Puerto Rico as more than 1,000 earthquakes--1,000 earthquakes have rocked the island since December 28. Schools have crumbled, hospitals are in disarray, and houses have been destroyed. Thousands of people are staying in shelters or sleeping outside out of fear that their homes could collapse as they sleep. And tragically, two Americans have lost their lives, including a 13- year-old girl in Vieques, where too many are still waiting for the Federal assistance needed to modernize hospitals and improve access to care. Madam Chair, as Members of Congress, our most important responsibility is to keep the American people safe. Two weeks after devastating earthquakes struck Puerto Rico, our fellow Americans on the island still face serious challenges to their safety, health, and well- being. Every family that is sleeping outside, every child who no longer has a school to go to because of seismic dangers, every person who dies because they can't access a hospital, each is a challenge to the conscience of our country. Today, with this strong supplemental assistance package, the Democratic House and, hopefully, with strong bipartisan support, is showing the people of Puerto Rico that we are there for them now, and throughout the road to recovery. I salute Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez, our fearless, persistent champion of Puerto Rico in the Congress, born there, family there. Thanks also to the members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for raising a relentless drumbeat on behalf of the families on the island. Today, I also salute the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee for working right away, as soon as we came back into session in January, to provide assistance to Puerto Rico, the best route there. That guidance was led by our distinguished chair of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, Mr. Price. So I thank Chairwoman Lowey and Chairman Price. Thank you for bringing us to the floor today on this important legislation. This supplemental assistance package provides the relief that is urgently needed to help Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands rebuild and recover today. And it invests billions in efforts to prevent damage and loss of life in the future. Although the earthquake was in Puerto Rico, the ramifications are in that region. The package, as has been noted, provides more than $3 billion for disaster relief and long-term recovery; $1.25 billion for highway emergency relief, which will also go to disaster-struck States on the mainland; hundreds of millions for critical investments in education, nutrition assistance, electric grid recovery, and strong tax relief for Puerto Rico and other territories, including permanent changes to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, and new investments to boost local economies and create good-paying jobs on the island. I thank our distinguished chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Richie Neal, for his leadership in having this part of the package. Sadly, there are some who have some obstacles to sending this emergency money to Puerto Rico following the earthquake. As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to act because our fellow Americans deserve to know that their government will be there for them without question or hesitation in this dark hour. Might I say, I am reminded, so many people in our country don't realize Puerto Ricans are American citizens. Many of them, if you visit there, you will visit veterans' centers where so many of them come together. They are American patriots who help our country. We are so proud of them, and we salute them; and in this time of need we want to help them. I urge a strong vote to provide help, healing, and hope for Puerto Rico.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this important amendment to the floor, and I rise in support of it. It clarifies that nothing in this act shall be construed to affect the jurisdictional standards of the National Labor Relations Board with respect to small businesses. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Rouda, for his leadership in that regard. I urge passage of the amendment. Madam Chair, I proudly rise on this historic day as the Democratic House takes bold action to restore fundamental fairness to America's workers by passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act. Madam Chair, I salute our distinguished chairman, Bobby Scott, for his lifetime of leadership to tilt back the playing field to the side of the American worker. I thank the members of the Education and Labor Committee and all who have worked to make this legislation go over the finish line. Some people always say to us: Your Caucus is so very diverse. What unifies them? I say it is diverse in every way. Sixty percent of our Caucus are women, people of color, LGBTQ. We have generational differences, geographical, gender, gender identity, ethnicity, opinion--the beautiful diversity of opinion. But what does unify us is our commitment to America's working families, and that is what brings us to the floor today. It is a commitment to salute working families, to raise paychecks, and to do so by enabling workers to bargain collectively. I always say that the middle class is the backbone of America's democracy. The middle class has a union label on it. So many things that have come into the workforce, whether it is the 40-hour workweek, safer working conditions, fair pay for family leave, collective bargaining for secure retirement--the list goes on and on-- the labor unions have been responsible for that. Yesterday, several Members and I were honored to meet with Jennifer Womack, a worker who had been prevented from joining a union, and I want to share her story with my colleagues. She told us about the unfair working conditions that she has faced: how she was illegally denied pay after missing work to undergo serious surgery, even after spending her entire recovery period on the phone with the benefits department to help her pay her bills; how one of her managers engaged in offensive and bigoted behavior but was never disciplined, in fact, was given a company award. When Jennifer and her coworkers tried to form a union to improve working conditions, she was subjected to humiliating retaliation and forced to attend antiunion trainings designed to scare her off. She told us: ``I believe that the decision of whether to join a union should be up to me and other workers without having to face threats and retaliation. And Democrats agree. Sadly, her story is shared every day by millions of Americans who face a grim reality of reprisal, of retaliation, of denial of their rights to join or trying to join a union. Democrats offered our Better Deal for Workers, pledging to tilt the playing field, with Mr. Chairman so much in the lead, to tilt the playing field back to the side of workers. Since day one, our majority has worked to build an economy that works for workers' interests, not the special interests: passing the $15 minimum wage, securing paycheck fairness for women. Madam Chair, I thank the unions for their leadership in our country for equal pay for equal work. No institution has done more in that regard. We are trying to make that the case for all workers that you would have equal pay for equal work. We are also protecting the pensions of millions and lowering healthcare costs and increasing paychecks, to name a few. Today, we are building on that progress by passing the cornerstone of our pro-worker agenda, the PRO Act. With this legislation, Democrats are holding companies that violate workers' rights accountable. We are strengthening workers' sacred collective bargaining rights, and we are protecting workers' access to fair union elections. The PRO Act secures justice for workers and advances progress for all. As Richard Trumka, the President of the AFL-CIO, which represents 12.5 million Americans and 55 unions, testified last year: ``A happier, healthier, more upwardly mobile workforce is good for our economy as consumers have additional money to spend. Local tax revenues increase, and education funding is bolstered. Inequality shrinks. It is a virtuous cycle. ``The union movement and all working people are hungry for pro-worker reforms to our existing labor laws. . . . It is time for our laws to catch up. It is time to make the PRO Act the law of the land.'' I quite agree. Democrats call on Republicans to join us to pass the PRO Act and to rebalance the scales toward workers. I always say, whether it is an election or a debate or a negotiation: Who has the leverage? Well, right now there is too much leverage used against America's workers, and that is harmful to America's working families. We want to again tilt that playing field back into the direction of workers so their leverage is increased, so their opportunities are improved, and then we can move closer to ending the inequality, the disparity in income in our country. Madam Chair, I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this important PRO Act. Madam Chair, I commend the chairman, the distinguished chairman, for his leadership again, Mr. Scott, and members of his committee. And I again thank Mr. Rouda for his amendment that clarifies that nothing in this act shall be construed to affect the jurisdictional standards of the NLRB with respect to small businesses. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Rouda, for his leadership. Madam Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote on both the underlying bill and this amendment.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, we rise to honor the legacy of Representative Fortney ``Pete'' Stark, who passed away on January 24. With his passing, the country, California, and the East Bay community lost a champion of the people and a leader of great courage and compassion who served in the House of Representatives for 40 years. Those of us who had the honor of serving with Pete in our California congressional delegation have all lost a dear friend. Pete was a relentless champion for universal healthcare. He had an unrivaled understanding of the challenges of America's health system. Whether it was fighting for COBRA to help working families maintain their coverage during times of financial insecurity or taking a leading role in writing the Affordable Care Act, Pete always seized opportunities to expand access to quality, affordable healthcare for all. Pete will rightly be remembered and celebrated for his commitment to fighting for those in need, particularly America's children. He fought relentlessly to improve our children's access to quality education, to protect clean air for them to breathe and clean water for them to drink, and to leave them a more peaceful world. Pete leaves behind a legacy that will inspire generations of future lawmakers, and he leaves behind a wonderful family, whom he adored, who are with us tonight. May it give comfort to his wife, Deborah; his children, Jeffrey, Beatrice, Thekla, Sarah, Fish, also known as Fortney, Hannah, and Andrew; his eight grandchildren; two great- grandchildren; and the entire Stark family that so many mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members and guests in the gallery to rise for a moment of silence.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his courageous leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I commend the two makers of the resolutions, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Ro Khanna for their exceptional leadership, and I urge a positive vote on this important legislation. Just to put it in some perspective, as Members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe, and that includes both our servicemembers abroad and our families at home. Three weeks ago, this House honored that duty by passing the War Powers Resolution to limit the President's military actions regarding Iran. We all salute Congresswoman Slotkin for her leadership in putting that forth. Now we are taking additional steps to protect American lives and values by passing two strong pieces of legislation: Congresswoman Barbara Lee's legislation to repeal the 2002 Iraq Authorization for the Use of Military Force, AUMF, and Congressman Ro Khanna's legislation to prohibit funding for military action against Iran not authorized by Congress. We thank them for their longstanding leadership to protect American lives, and we thank all Members who have worked tirelessly on this priority, including Congresswoman Eshoo who had similar legislation in this regard. Members of Congress continue to have serious, urgent concerns about the President's decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward. Let us just stipulate that we all agree that Iran is a bad actor; that they treat their people terribly; that they are a menace to the region; and that we have sanctions against them for their spreading of technologies and other resources to terrorists in the region. We don't want them to have a nuclear weapon, and I think that the President's decision to withdraw from the nuclear agreement was wrong, but that is not on the floor today. What is on the floor today is for us to, again, honor our constitutional responsibility to protect and defend--we take that oath--but also to honor our responsibilities, the power to declare war that is written into the Constitution for the Congress. Over time, that has been, shall we say, usurped by administrations, both Democratic and Republican, and now, to an extent that practically abrogates whatever is in the Constitution. This morning a YouGov poll said that 60 percent of the American people oppose war with Iran and 68 percent want to remove all troops from Iraq. There is no appetite for war in our country. I was stunned recently to be with a delegation in observance of the 75th anniversary of the end of the victory at the Battle of the Bulge, a very decisive battle in World War II. There were 19,000 Americans who died in that war. There were all of the heads of state present, but the VIPs for us were the veterans who were there; some of them now, 75 years later, in their 90s, but still vigorous. One of them who spoke for the veterans talked about the band of brothers and the allies, that there was multilateralism, and the horrors of war, and the glory of that victory. But at the end of his speech he said: ``Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I will. I urge all of you to pray for peace.'' I spoke to him afterward and thanked him for that and he said: ``It is so important.'' Even our President Kennedy who said that we will fight any foe, pay any price--what he said in his inaugural address--he has said that unless men end war, war will end men. So we have to be very careful about how we engage in protecting the American people and remove all doubt in anybody's mind that we will. Think of me as a lioness. If you come near our cubs, you are dead. So this is not about not understanding our responsibility and our strength. But as warriors, that gives us even more power to be peacekeepers. All we are saying is: Let's do this carefully and not in a way that escalates. I remember after that weekend I got the call from the administration confirming that we had made the attack on Soleimani--who was a terrible person, no doubt about that--and I said: ``Well, why did you not inform the Gang of Eight as you were required to do?'' That Gang of Eight are the four leaders, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans; and the four leaders of the Intelligence Committee, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans. ``Why did you not inform the Gang of Eight?'' And their response was: ``We really had to keep this close.'' You wanted to keep it ``close'' from not honoring your responsibility of notifying or consulting with the Congress of the United States? I didn't expect to hear that from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I did probably expect to hear it from the Secretary of Defense. But that cannot be the way we proceed. Congress has the constitutional responsibility. The administration has a responsibility, too, and we respect that. And that is why when we redid the War Powers Act it was respectful of the power of the President, but also the power of the Congress of the United States. They failed to appropriately notify the Congress. Then the President issued an insufficient War Powers Act notification that raised more questions than it answered, and it was classified in its entirety, leaving the public in the dark about our national security. When the President finally briefed Congress, their own party Members described the briefing as ``insulting and demeaning'' with one GOP Senator saying it was the ``worst briefing I have ever seen.'' When the President asked me if I agreed with that characterization, I said: ``There is stiff competition for the worst classified briefing we have ever seen from this administration.'' And now it appears that the President may have even misled Congress and the public about the threats facing our troops related to this conflict. For 2 weeks, the President insisted there were zero injuries or casualties from Iran's attack on our military bases, contradicting multiple news reports. But over the past week, the administration has admitted that there were injuries, first reporting 11 servicemembers who were diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, TBI, and then 34 and now 50 of our troops. TBI, as defined by the National Institutes of Health is: `` . . . damage to the brain, whether from impact, penetrating objects, blast waves or rapid movement of the brain within the skull'' and is a leading cause of death and disability for Americans. This serious injury is understood in both the military and medical communities to be the ``signature wound'' and the ``silent epidemic'' of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet the President minimizes our soldiers' wounds saying: I heard they had headaches and a couple of other things, but I can say and I can report it, not very serious. Not very serious? That is not what the Veterans of Foreign Wars says. The Veterans of Foreign Wars put out a statement saying they expect an apology from POTUS. TBI is a serious injury and not one that can be taken lightly. Madam Speaker, I include their statement for the Record. VFW Expects Apology From POTUS [January 24, 2020] Kansas City, MO.--``In light of today's announcement from the defense department that 34 U.S. service members suffered traumatic brain injuries as a result of Iran's retaliatory strike and President Trump's remarks which minimized these troops' injuries, the Veterans of Foreign Wars cannot stand idle on this matter. TBI is a serious injury and one that cannot be taken lightly. TBI is known to cause depression, memory loss, severe headaches, dizziness and fatigue--all injuries that come with both short- and long-term effects. The VFW expects an apology from the president to our service men and women for his misguided remarks. And, we ask that he and the White House join with us in our efforts to educate Americans of the dangers TBI has on these heroes as they protect our great nation in these trying times. Our warriors require our full support more than ever in this challenging environment.''--William ``Doc'' Schmitz, VFW National Commander

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, Americans have a choice: to keep the American people safe or to enable the administration's dangerous escalation which is happening again without the consent of Congress or the knowledge of the public. We want to see a strategy. What is the purpose? What is the mission? What is the strategy involved in this? Madam Speaker, I urge the President to work with Congress to advance an immediate and effective deescalatory strategy that prevents further violence. Our brave servicemen and -women, their families, and all Americans deserve smart, strong, and strategic action, not the administration's reckless and rash policies. Therefore, again, I urge our colleagues to support the Khanna amendment and the Barbara Lee amendment. I thank them for their leadership. I thank Chairman Engel for the moderation that he has brought to this, the experience that he has in terms of war, in terms of peace, and in terms of Congress' role in our foreign affairs.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man of vision and great intellect, whose life and legacy were marked by extraordinary achievements and a profound love for America: Ambassador Felix Rohatyn. From ushering New York City through economic crisis to proudly serving our nation as Ambassador to France to becoming a leading voice for building the infrastructure of America in a green way, Ambassador Rohatyn embodied the American spirit and helped build a brighter future for all Americans. His passing last December is a great official loss for our nation and a profound personal loss for all those privileged to call him a friend, counselor and loved one. Felix Rohatyn was born in Vienna, Austria in 1928 to a prominent Jewish family. By 1935, he and his parents were forced to flee their home to escape the rise of Nazism, embarking on a years-long journey that eventually brought them to safety in the United States in 1942. His early experience as a refugee instilled in him a love for our bedrock American values of freedom, justice and economic opportunity for all, an appreciation that he honored throughout his life. His professional success made him a sought-after economic expert and intellectual resource for countless public officials and leaders around the world. When New York City faced an unprecedented insolvency crisis in the 1970s, Felix Rohatyn's collaborative leadership skills brought together political and financial interests to make the difficult decisions needed to save the city. In the process, he made sure that the city invested in all its citizens, setting aside funding for schools, housing and public transportation to ensure a financially stable and prosperous future for millions of Americans. Felix Rohatyn brought that same successful leadership, in addition to his fluency in French, to representing the United States as Ambassador to France. During his ambassadorship, he worked to strengthen the economic and cultural bonds between our nations, reaffirming an unbreakable friendship and partnership that dates back to the founding of our country. It was always a privilege to have Ambassador Rohatyn meet with Members of Congress to discuss the most pressing issues facing our economy and our nation. His passionate advocacy for robust, climate change--resilient infrastructure made him a thoughtful advisor and effective Co-Chair of the bipartisan Commission on Public Infrastructure, helping Congress establish a framework to rebuild our nation and boost our economy in a sustainable, job-creating way. After Superstorm Sandy in 2012, his forward-looking vision was essential to his service as Co-Chair of the New York State 2100 Commission. The innovative strategies he helped develop have been critical in rebuilding devastated communities and will ensure the city is better prepared to meet the challenges posed by the worsening climate crisis. America was blessed by the life and leadership of Ambassador Felix Rohatyn. May it be a comfort to his children, Pierre, Nicolas and Michael, his many grandchildren and the entire Rohatyn family that so many mourn their loss and pray for them at this sad time.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing this legislation to the floor. I am pleased to follow the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. McCaul. One of the joys of my service in Congress is to work in a bipartisan way on issues that relate to respecting human rights and religious freedom throughout the world. I thank Mr. McCaul for his leadership and Chairman Eliot Engel for his leadership in facilitating this all through the committee. I thank Mr. Phillips for giving us access to the floor today. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2019, a strong, bipartisan and urgently needed legislation to strengthen America's commitment to the Tibetan people and their right to safeguard their distinct identity. I salute Chairman Jim McGovern, the chair of the Congressional- Executive Commission on China and chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. I thank Mr. McGovern for being a leading voice in Congress and in the country for human rights. I thank Congressman Chris Smith--the gentleman and I go back decades. He is the ranking member of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, and also the co-chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. I have worked with the gentleman for three decades to hold China accountable for its oppression, as well as for promoting human rights throughout the world. I thank Mr. Smith for his leadership. I also want to acknowledge Senator Marco Rubio for his leadership in the United States Senate. As we discussed, he has been on some of the issues we have talked about, supporting the people of Hong Kong, the Uighurs, and now this important legislation. I thank Senator Marco Rubio for his leadership and courage in facilitating some of this legislation through the Senate. For many of us, the fight to protect human rights in China has been a long-term commitment, as I acknowledged with Mr. Smith, as well as Frank Wolf, our former Member who worked with Chris Smith so closely. In 1987 when I first came to Congress, I heard Tom Lantos--we mentioned the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission--he invited me to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama to be in a small meeting with him. I heard His Holiness first describe his ``Middle Way Approach'' for Tibet. It was an approach about autonomy, not about independence. So, when the Chinese say that it is about independence, that is not what it ever has been about as far as His Holiness' presentation on Capitol Hill or to the world. Among other priorities, the Dalai Lama proposed that Tibet be allowed to be a zone of peace; that the Tibetan people's human rights be respected; and Tibet's natural environment be safeguarded. He said: ``The Tibetan people must once again be free to develop culturally, intellectually, economically and spiritually and to exercise basic democratic freedoms.'' I just wanted to acknowledge that because he talks about Tibet's natural environment. His Holiness was the first Nobel Laureate, the first winner of the Nobel Peace Prize to have presented in the testimonial his protection for the environment. It has been there for a long time. For many of us, the fight, again, has been a long time. Twenty years after that meeting, in 2007, and in 2008, as Speaker of the House, I had the privilege of visiting Dharamshala. Our delegation was blessed to be received by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and we had the opportunity to see the aspirations of the Tibetan people firsthand, especially in the eyes of the Tibetan schoolchildren we met. It was a bipartisan delegation. We spoke to big crowds waving American flags. It was a beautiful thing. But it is important to note the children, the beautiful Tibetan children. In order for their children to be raised in the tradition of the Tibetan language, culture, and religion, parents had to send them from Tibet to India because, sadly, Tibetan aspirations of observing their culture are under threat because of brutal repression in Beijing. That was in 2008. Then in 2015, along with Chairman McGovern, the gentleman and I led the first congressional delegation in decades to enter Tibet. In Jokhang Temple, Potala Palace, and Sera Monastery, we again witnessed the deep faith of the Tibetan people and the beauty of their culture. We also saw the Potemkin Village-like posturing of the Chinese regime. For example, they said: We are going to invite you to a family's home so you can see how Tibetan families thrive in their own culture, language, and religion. So we go to the home--and you probably have never seen this in anybody's home--but they had a gigantic picture of President Xi in the living room. And then they talked about their grandchildren and that the daughter had taken them to school, and that is why they weren't there. So, when the daughter then came back from so-called taking them to school, we said: Well, how are the children? And she said: Children? What children? They had these fake visits to homes to show us how they were respecting Tibetan culture. And then years later in 2017, I led another bipartisan delegation, this time to Nepal in India, where we were blessed to be received by His Holiness the Dalai Lama again. We saw once more the beautiful children again waving American flags, but no closer to an autonomous Tibet. Today, we are here to pass the Tibetan Policy and Support Act. In 2002, Congress passed the Tibetan Policy Act to support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safeguard their distinct identity, as His Holiness had suggested. But in the years since, China has cruelly accelerated its outrageous aggression against the Tibetan people. As the CECC, the Congressional- Executive Commission on China concluded in its most recent report, Beijing is increasing Sinicization efforts and restricting the religious freedom of Tibetan Buddhists, including with mandatory political education for religious leaders, large-scale evictions from Buddhist monasteries, and by replacing images of the His Holiness the Dalai Lama with past and current party leaders. The report also concludes that Beijing is expanding a massive surveillance regime to intimidate Tibetans and prevent them from practicing their culture or observing their religion. We could see the cameras every place we went, especially near the monasteries. Pursuing massive infrastructure projects--I have seen that over the years. And we fought some of this in the World Bank then with Chris Cox and others here then on the Republican side of the aisle, working together--pursuing massive infrastructure projects that violate the social, economic, and cultural rights of Tibetans, forcing scores of families from their homes and even detaining monks for peaceful protest. And tightening access to Tibet for international visitors. International journalists have stated that the isolation of Tibet is worse than North Korea, allowing the Chinese Government to conceal human rights abuses and environmentally damaging large-scale projects. Today, the House is taking action to update and strengthen the Tibetan Policy Act to address these growing threats. We are supporting the Tibetan people's right to religious freedom and genuine autonomy by formally establishing a U.S. policy that the Tibetan Buddhist community has exclusive right to choose its religious leaders, including a future 15th Dalai Lama. Imagine that the Chinese Government should think that they should be choosing the next Dalai Lama of the Tibetan Buddhists. We are sending Beijing a clear signal that they will be held accountable for interfering in Tibet's religious and cultural affairs, making it clear that Chinese officials who meddle in the process of recognizing the new Dalai Lama will be subject to targeted sanctions, including those in the Global Magnitsky Act. We are protecting Tibet's environmental and cultural rights, working with international governments and the business community to ensure the self-sufficiency of the Tibetan people and protect the environment and water resources of the Tibetan Plateau. This is really very important to the sustainability of our planet. This legislation also deploys America's diplomatic weight to encourage a genuine dialogue between Tibetan leaders and Beijing. It is unacceptable that the Chinese Government still refuses to enter into a dialogue with Tibetan leaders. Congress will--and must--continue to take action to hold China accountable for its many abuses which sadly target so many, including the Uighur community--which Mr. McCaul and Mr. Rubio in a bipartisan way had acted upon--which faces horrific human rights abuses, including forced sterilizations and the mass incarceration of millions. This is happening as we speak. Millions of people are subjected to this in China. And, as we know, the current party chairman of the Uighur Autonomous Region, Secretary Chen, previously served as the top party official of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. So oppressive was he, they rewarded him by sending him to the Uighur Autonomous Region. That is so sad. We also see human rights abuses, as we know, in Hong Kong, where millions are fighting for the democratic freedoms they were promised and, on the mainland, where journalists, human rights lawyers, Christians, and democracy advocates languish in jail cells. Today, in the face of rising oppression in China, Congress has an urgent responsibility to act. Sikyong Dr. Lobsang Sangay, the President of the Central Tibetan Administration, has said that, ``The very survival of Tibetan culture and identity is in peril.'' Madam Speaker, if we don't speak out for human rights in China because of commercial interests, then we lose all moral authority to speak out for human rights anyplace in the world. As I have said on this floor to those who take the repressive Chinese Government's side, we ask: What does it profit a man to have gained the whole world and suffers the loss of his soul? Madam Speaker, I urge a strong vote for this legislation and support the Tibetan people as they seek to defend their culture and their identity and to pursue a future of freedom of religion and dignity. I thank, again, the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for giving us the opportunity to talk about Tibet on the floor of the House today. Repression in Tibet by the Chinese Government is a challenge to the conscience of the world. Let's take this step to address that challenge.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this important bipartisan legislation to the floor. I thank Congresswoman Maloney for her relentless advocacy in this regard. Madam Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues on this International Holocaust Remembrance Day in support of the Never Again Education Act, strong, bipartisan legislation to ensure that ``never again'' are simply not words but a solemn, sacred pledge to be fulfilled with action. Madam Speaker, I salute Carolyn Maloney, a longstanding leader in this effort to educate the next generation about the Holocaust. I also thank Chairman Bobby Scott for his leadership in this regard and for his cooperation in bringing this to the floor. I thank all of our Members who have worked on this overwhelmingly bipartisan effort reflecting the strong bipartisan commitment of this entire Congress to standing with the Jewish community and allies to ensure Holocaust education remains front and center in our schools. Last week, I had the great and solemn honor of leading a bipartisan congressional delegation to Poland and Israel to mark the 75th anniversary since the liberation of Auschwitz. I see two of our colleagues who were on the trip, Mr. Deutch and Mr. Schneider, who brought so much to that delegation. Both of them serve on the board of the Holocaust Memorial Museum. At Auschwitz, we walked on grounds scarred by an almost unspeakable evil, where more than 1 million innocents were murdered. I was especially affected because--as my colleagues have heard me say--of what my father said on the House floor on March 2, 1943. Madam Speaker, I am quoting from the Congressional Record. On that day, my father said: ``Action not pity can save millions now--extinction or hope for the remnants of European Jewry?--it is for us to give the answer.'' He was pleading for Soviet Jews in the midst of the Holocaust. He said: ``Daily, hourly, the greatest crime of all time is being committed. A defenseless and innocent people is being slaughtered in a wholesale massacre of millions. What is more tragic--they are dying for no reason or purpose.'' He went on to say: ``It is a satanic program beyond the grasp of the decent human mind. Yet, it is being carried out. Already 2 million of the Jews in German-occupied Europe have been murdered. The evidence is in the files of our own State Department.'' He went on to say, toward the end of his remarks--by the way, my father is Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., a Member of Congress from Baltimore, Maryland, a strong advocate for calling to public attention the plight of Jews in Europe, as well as advocating for the State of Israel to be established in Palestine earlier on than our country had gone forth. He did say, though, that: ``We will spare no efforts and have no rest until the American public will be fully informed of the facts and aroused to its responsibilities.'' He then said: ``We believe in the overwhelming power of public opinion as the greatest, if not the only, power in democracy.'' He went on to say: ``If people knew, then something would be different.'' Madam Speaker, I ask that my father's full statement be included in the Record because this is what he said on the floor of the House all those many years ago. [Rep. Thomas D'Alesandro: Speech in Congressional Record on Israel, Tuesday, March 2, 1943] Establishment of a Jewish Army Hon. Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. of Maryland in the House of Representatives Mr. D'Alesandro: Mr. Speaker, on February 8, 1943, there appeared a full-page advertisement in the New York Times, placed by the Committee for a Jewish Army of Stateless and Palestinian Jews, of which I have the privilege of being a member. This ad calls for action, not pity, toward stopping the wholesale slaughter of the Jewish people in Europe. I am in total agreement with my fellow members of the committee that too much has been said and too little done. Under leave to extend my remarks in the Record, I include the text of the advertisement so that it may become part of the permanent record: Action, not pity, can save millions now--extinction or hope for the remnants of European Jewry?--it is for us to give the answer. Daily, hourly, the greatest crime of all time is being committed. A defenseless and innocent people is being slaughtered in a wholesale massacre of millions. What is more tragic--they are dying for no reason or purpose. The Jewish people in Europe is not just another victim in the array of other peoples that fell prey to Hitler's aggression. The Jews have been singled out not to be conquered, but to be exterminated. To them Hitler has promised--and is bringing--death. It is a satanic program beyond the grasp of the decent human mind. Yet it is being carried out. Already 2,000,000 of the Jews in German-occupied Europe have been murdered. The evidence is in the files of our own State Department. The Germans dared to undertake this process of annihilation because they know that the Jews are defenseless; that the Jews are forgotten and deserted even by the democratic powers. The Germans believe that the United Nations, indoctrinated by 20 years of anti-Jewish propaganda are to a great extent apathetic and indifferent to the sufferings of the Jews. They believe that for crimes committed against the Jews no retaliation on behalf of the governments or armed forces of the United Nations will be carried out. They know that there is no instrument of power and force on this earth with which the Jews can fight back to avenge their dead and save the remaining millions. Of what avail are the statements of sympathy and pity and promises of punishment after the war. Since the perpetrators of these slaughters are to be punished for the murders they have already committed then they can kill no more by further murder. Such mere statements of sympathy and pity are to the Germans proof that their judgement of democracy's attitude toward the Jews is justified and in their criminal minds they understand them as ``carte blanche'' to go on with the slaughter. What can be done? What is necessary is to impress the Germans that the governments of the United Nations have decided to change their present policy of passive sympathy and pity to one of stern and immediate action; that they consider the cessation of atrocities against the Jews are an immediate aim of their military and political operations. Under this premise vigorous United Nations' intervention to save European Jewry would become a matter of course. Exactly as it would be if it were American or British civilians who were being killed in a systematic campaign by the Nazis, the whole of the forces of these great democracies would be utilized to find an immediate and effective solution. The inauguration of such a new policy on behalf of the United Nations would logically result in enabling all those Jews who have managed to escape the European-German hell to fight back. The first dictate therefore, would be the immediate approval of the demand for a Jewish army of the stateless and Palestinian Jews--an army 200,000 strong. Suicide squads of the Jewish army would engage in desperate commando raids deep into the heart of Germany. Jewish pilots would bomb German cities in reprisal. A Jewish army would imply a call to arms of all stateless Jews living in North Africa so that they may participate in the imminent invasion of the European continent. A Jewish army would immediately give a decisive moral relief to the agonized Jews of Europe. Their psychology of despair and helplessness would be transformed into one of hope for revenge and survival. A Jewish army will give a meaning to their sufferings--to their death. They will then realize that they cease being helpless victims and become partners in the global struggle for a better world, in which their survivors will live in freedom and equality as all other human beings. The Jews of Palestine and the stateless Jews want to fight as Jews. They want to prove to Hitler and to the world that the Jews can be more than ``the persecuted people''--that Jews can die in other ways than through murder. They want the right to fight for the world's freedom, under their own banner. To die, if needs be, but to die fighting. Of course, these are not all the practical proposals which the human mind is capable of conceiving. It is unfair to ask for a single solution to such a disastrous problem. What we must realize is that it is our duty not to resign ourselves to the idea that our brains are powerless to find any solution; not to resign ourselves to the idea that the forces of democracy are too weak to enforce such a solution. Remember when a few thousand British soldiers were put in chains by the Germans? How swift the retaliation? And how practical. The Germans chained no more British soldiers. Remember when a tiny town in Czechoslovakia was horribly ``punished''? How swift the hurricane of world indignation that answered. There have been no more Lidices. Remember when small and encircled Sweden opposed vigorously and stubbornly the expulsion of Norwegian Jews. The Germans abandoned their plans. The Jews of Norway are still there. The American sense of justice and decency and American ingenuity must also find ways to overpower the diabolical plan to exterminate the Jewish people. It must find a way now, before millions more perish. It is, therefore, our primordial demand that an intergovernmental commission of military experts be appointed with the task of elaborating ways and means to stop the wholesale slaughter of the Jews in Europe. This must be done now, before the greatest homicidal maniac extends his policy of extermination to other peoples; before he dares introducing poison gas and bacteriological warfare. Remember that for years the Germans rehearsed on the Jews what they later practiced on other peoples. Therefore, we have decided to launch an all-out campaign to save European Jewry. We will spare no efforts and have no rest until the American public will be fully informed of the facts and aroused to its responsibilities. We believe in the overwhelming power of public opinion as the greatest, if not the only, power in democracy. Governments in democratic countries like the United States and Great Britain can act only when they feel sure that they are backed by a powerful movement of public opinion. We plead with everyone to help and to cooperate in this sacred campaign we have launched. Join in this fight, write to your Congressmen, contribute to our work, so that this message may be carried to every city and hamlet in the United States as is being done in Great Britain. You are part of the collective conscience of America; this conscience has never been found wanting.

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, after Auschwitz, our delegation then traveled to Yad Vashem where we mourned the loss of--believe this--1.5 million little children, killed in this most evil of atrocities. Before we left Washington, in Krakow, Poland, and throughout the time in Israel, we were blessed to meet with and hear the testimony of survivors. Their message to us was this: ``Never forget.'' As Elie Wiesel, one of the most important voices of conscience that has ever lived said: ``If we forget, the dead will be killed a second time. If forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices. The rejection of memory . . . would doom us to repeat past disasters, past wars.'' ``Remembering the Holocaust, Fighting Anti-Semitism,'' that was the theme of the Yad Vashem observance. It is the charge that we carry with us. We must always remember the horrors of the Holocaust, particularly now as the forces of evil that led to the Shoah, are reawakening, and, therefore, we must not only remember the Holocaust, but fight anti- Semitism. Today, around the world, an epidemic of anti-Semitism and bigotry is spreading with appalling hate crimes being perpetrated everywhere from supermarkets to synagogues. Disturbingly, we have seen a surge of anti- Semitic attacks here in America. 230 years ago, President George Washington, under whose gaze we stand today, our patriarch, wrote to the Jewish community that our Nation would ``give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution, no assistance.'' Yet, from New York, to California, to Pittsburgh innocents are being attacked and lives are being brutally threatened, and too often, bigotry and persecution have been allowed to fester. More needs to be done. Last spring, the House proudly passed H. Res. 183, which condemns anti-Semitism ``. . . as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.'' And soon after, we passed legislation to secure Jewish places of worship, which is now law. Today, with this legislation, the House is taking another step to fulfill our pledge of: ``Never again'' thanks to all of our Members. This legislation authorizes funding for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to support and strengthen their efforts to develop accurate, relevant, and accessible resources; to promote understanding about the Shoah, and the dangers of intolerance in our time. We must educate the world about the dangers of what can happen when hate goes unchallenged, and when oppression is met with indifference. Some of us were there the day the Holocaust Memorial Museum was dedicated. Elie Wiesel spoke so powerfully that rainy day, and years later, I was honored to return to the museum to speak at Elie's memorial service. Inside the Holocaust Memorial Museum in the Hall of Remembrance before the eternal flame, the words of Deuteronomy are inscribed in stone. It says: ``Only guard yourself and guard your soul carefully, lest you forget the things your eyes saw, and lest these things depart your heart all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children, and your children's children.'' With this legislation, we pledge to keep alive the memory of the Shoah so that we can fulfill the promise: ``Never again.'' I anticipate an overwhelming, unanimous vote in support of this bipartisan legislation, and I thank my colleagues for their leadership on both sides of the aisle for making that victory possible.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his exceptional custodianship of the Constitution of the United States, for 13 years the top Democrat on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Justice Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I thank you for your leadership in protecting and defending the Constitution, the oath that we take as Members of Congress. As I enter into the conversation, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for his apology for his ridiculous remarks about me and House Democrats. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Collins and accept his apology. Now, I want to go to the purpose of why we are on the floor today. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we are here today to cross a very important threshold in American history. On December 18, the House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment of Donald Trump, Articles of Impeachment for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. By his own admission, the President stated that, yes, he had had that conversation with the President of Ukraine, but he didn't see anything wrong with it. Well, we don't agree with that assessment. And, yes, it is a fact when someone is impeached, they are always impeached. It cannot be erased, so I stand by that comment, although I know you don't like hearing it. I stand by this picture of the American flag, as I did the day that we introduced the Articles of Impeachment onto the floor because every day all over America in classrooms as well as courtrooms and in this Congress of the United States when we meet, we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands--and to the republic for which it stands, that is what our Nation is. That is the genius, the beautiful, exquisite genius of the Constitution, that we are a republic. That was a decision of our Founders, their vision. They didn't want a monarchy, they wanted a republic. When Benjamin Franklin came out of Independence Hall and was asked what do we have, Mr. Franklin, a monarchy or a republic, he said: ``A republic, if we can keep it.'' I have often wondered why he said that, why that would be in doubt. But we see why it is in doubt right now when the President of the United States has said Article II says I can do whatever I want. That is a monarchy, that is not a republic that we pledge our allegiance to every single day. Here we are today with the Articles of Impeachment about to be transmitted to the United States Senate. I was thinking this morning and I mentioned it in a previous public event, the midnight ride of Paul Revere: ``Listen, my children, and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere.'' Listen, my children, and you will hear about an assault on the Constitution of the United States, undermining the Republic for which our flag stands by the President of the United States in using appropriated funds enacted in a bipartisan way by this Congress, funds that were meant to help Ukraine fight the Russians. The President considered that his private ATM machine, I guess, and thought he could say to the President, ``Do me a favor.'' Do me a favor? Do you paint houses, too? What is this? Do me a favor. So we have a situation that is very sad. Don't talk to me about my timing. For a long time I resisted the calls from across the country for impeachment of the President for obvious violations of the Constitution that he committed. But recognizing the divisiveness of impeachment, I held back. Frankly, I said this President isn't worth it. But when he acted the way he did in relationship to withholding funds from Ukraine in return for a benefit to him that was personal and political, he crossed a threshold. He gave us no choice. So, children, our Constitution is the vision of our Founders. They were so brave they declared independence. They did it in a timeframe when in the course of human events it becomes necessary. They declared independence. They fought a war of independence and bravely succeeded. They wrote documents, our founding documents, the Constitution. Thank God they made it amendable so we could ever be expanding freedom in our country. And that, my children, is what you pledge allegiance to, the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic contained in that Constitution of the United States. We take that oath. When we become Members of Congress or other public office, we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The President of the United States takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, an oath that he has blatantly violated. For this reason, he was impeached by the House of Representatives. For this reason, we thought it would be helpful to have not only the strong case for impeachment and removal that was put forth in this House, but to know that more was to come. We didn't make it come because we said that we were going to wait until after Christmas to send this over. They would like to have had us send it over on Christmas Eve so they could dismiss it. Perhaps they don't realize that dismissal is coverup, but that has been one of their trains of thought. Dismissal is coverup. I was so disappointed the other day, last Friday, I guess, or last Thursday, when the leader of the United States Senate, rather than strengthening the institution in which he serves, became subservient and signed on to a resolution that would dismiss charges. Dismissal is coverup. In the course of the time since we passed the resolution, and not because of the time--we passed it on December 18--on December 20, new emails showed that 91 minutes after Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian President, a top Office of Management and Budget aide asked the Department of Defense to ``hold off'' on sending military aid to Ukraine. On December 29, revelations emerged about OMB Director and Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney's role in the delay of aid; the effort by lawyers in the administration to justify the delay; and, most importantly, the alarm that the delay caused within the administration. On January 2, newly unredacted Pentagon emails, which the House subpoenaed and the President blocked, raised serious concerns by Trump administration officials about the legality of the President's hold on the aid to Ukraine. On January 6, former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton said he would comply with a subpoena compelling his testimony. His lawyer stated he has new relevant information. On January 13, reports emerged that the Russian Government hacked the Ukrainian gas company Burisma as part of their ongoing effort to influence the U.S. election in support of Trump. Yesterday, House committees--Mr. Nadler, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Engel, and Madam Chair Maloney--released new evidence, pursuant to a House subpoena, from Lev Parnas--recently photographed with the Republican leader--an associate of Rudy Giuliani, that further proves that the President was a central player in the scheme to pressure Ukraine for his own benefit in the 2020 election. The Senate leader and the President are afraid of more facts coming to light. That is why the leader signed that dismissal resolution. A dismissal, again, is a coverup. The American people will fully understand the Senate's move to begin the trial without witnesses and documents as a pure political coverup. Whatever the outcome, the American people want a fair trial, fair to the President, fair to the American people. The American people deserve the truth. The Constitution requires a trial, a fair trial. The House is now moving forward with a vote to transmit the articles and appoint managers. As Speaker, I am proud to appoint outstanding American patriots to serve on the impeachment panel: Chairman Schiff; Chairman Nadler; Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren--this is her third impeachment, as a staffer to a House Judiciary Committee member in the Nixon impeachment, as a member of the Judiciary Committee on the Clinton impeachment, and now as a House manager; Hakeem Jeffries, the chair of our Caucus, a serious, respected litigator; Val Demings, a member of the police force in Orlando for 27 years and, for part of that time, the first woman and African American police chief of Orlando, so she knows her way around the courtroom; Jason Crow from Colorado, an Army Ranger who served our country in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and now in the Congress of the United States, and he too is a respected litigator; and, Sylvia Garcia from Texas, a judge in a number of capacities in Texas and a member of the Judiciary Committee. We are very honored that you have taken the responsibility, all of you, to bring the Articles of Impeachment over to the United States Senate with a case for the Constitution. So, back to the children. We don't want this President or any President to ever violate the Constitution. It is very, very important that we see that that Constitution is central to who we are as a country, our system of government, our Constitution, so valued, so respected, hopefully, so honored by everyone who takes an oath of office to support and defend it. We see the Russians now hacking in Ukraine. It just came out yesterday or the day before. It just reminds me that I think most Americans would think that voters in America should decide who our President is, not Vladimir Putin and Russia deciding who our President is. I am very concerned that in all of this, whether it is withholding funds for the Ukrainian Government to fight the Russians, whether it is undermining our commitment to NATO, whether it is, again, making decisions of what happens in Syria vis-a-vis Turkey favoring the Russians, that all roads lead to Russia, all roads lead to Putin. While some in the administration may think that is okay, I don't, but we do insist and wonder why this President and some in this Congress will not come to the defense of our electoral system by allowing that to happen, denying that it is happening, placing the blame elsewhere. This is as serious as it gets for any of us. Only the vote to declare war would be something more serious than this. We take it very seriously. It is not personal. It is not political. It is not partisan. It is patriotic. Again, I thank our distinguished managers for their courage and their dedication, for being willing to spend the time to do the job to honor the oath that we take and honor the pledge that our children take of allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and congratulate him on his important amendment. I hope this important study will be part of that legislation. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to come to the floor to join our colleagues, the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the former chair, Mr. Upton, in their bipartisan support of this legislation. I salute Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, a crusader in this urgent mission to protect our communities from PFAS chemicals. I also thank Mr. Tonko, the chair of the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The list goes on and on, and I will name some more. Last year, our Members worked relentlessly to pass bold legislation to tackle the PFAS crisis. We salute the Members whose bills were included in the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act agreement reached by the House. Unfortunately, at the end of the year, the Senate GOP refused to join the House to secure full, robust protections against PFAS chemicals, and key provisions were cut from the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate GOP obstruction is why we are here today. We are also here today because our distinguished chairman, Mr. Pallone, promised that we would have a chance to vote on robust legislation after the first of the year. I thank the chairman. PFAS chemicals are a serious public health threat, contaminating the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. These forever chemicals--which do not break down easily--are exposing millions of Americans to liver disease, asthma, thyroid dysfunction, multiple forms of cancer, and further health threats. Today, nearly all Americans, including newborn babies, expectant mothers, and children, have PFAS in their blood; and up to 110 million people may be drinking tainted water, including, as our colleagues from Michigan have indicated, the challenge in their State indicated by the leadership and demonstrated on the floor in a bipartisan way on this issue. Our colleague from Hoosick Falls, New York, Mr. Delgado, has been a champion on this issue. Their contamination from a plastics factory raised the level of PFAS chemicals in residents' blood to 100 times the national average, Mr. Shimkus. In Chincoteague, Virginia, near Maryland, where I grew up, contamination from NASA Wallops Flight Center forced the local community to find an entirely new drinking water supply. And we thank Congresswoman Luria for her leadership in all of this. And Mr. Pappas, also with Annie Kuster, has a situation in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where contamination from Pease Air Force Base poisoned the drinking water of thousands of residents, including children and infants. Mr. Chair, before we won the majority, we had a hearing. It really was about a number of issues, environmental justice being one of them. Reverend Barbera brought people from all over the country to talk about this. I particularly remember our conversations in the testimony of Peggy Price. She came and told the story of her family and how they were affected by what was happening at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. It was a very sad story. Their families suffered, the parents, the children--just a horrible situation. They were serving our country at Camp Lejeune, and they were victimized by the water supply there. Particularly egregious, is the epidemic of contamination on military sites, as I mentioned just now, and more than 400 sites across the United States are affected. It is unacceptable that our men and women who sacrifice to keep us safe around the world face this danger in their health at home. Sadly, some big corporations and the EPA have known about the risks from PFAS chemicals for decades, but they have failed to prevent the spread of contamination. The Trump administration's EPA is breaking its own promises every day that it delays and puts polluters ahead of the American people. In stark contrast, the House is taking action. We are cleaning up communities by designating PFAS as a hazardous substance by the EPA, which is the key barrier to cleaning up military and industrial sites. We are also creating new, robustly funded grants, in partnership with States, to help with cleanup and remediation efforts. Hopefully, we will be adding this important study that Mr. Levin is proposing to this legislation. And we are helping stem the tide of further contamination with tough, new testing reporting and monitoring requirements, strict limits on the introduction of new PFAS chemicals, limits on air emissions, and banning unsafe incineration--strong measures to hold contaminating companies accountable. Last month, the Senate GOP fought to prevent many of these lifesaving measures from becoming law in the NDAA. Now, Senator McConnell will have to explain once again to the American people why he is blocking our bipartisan action to clean up contaminated communities. I urge a strong vote on this legislation to keep the American people healthy and safe and, again, salute all of those who have worked so hard to bring this legislation to the floor in a bipartisan way.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, since 1983, the U.S. Congress House and Senate and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and interact on issues of mutual interest. A staff delegation from the U.S. Congress will be selected to visit Germany from Friday, May 22-Sunday, May 31, 2020. During this exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag/Bundesrat party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic and media agencies. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States from Saturday, June 20-Sunday, June 27, 2020. They will attend similar meetings in Washington. The Congress-Bundestag/Bundesrat Exchange is highly regarded in Germany and the United States and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. This exchange is funded by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag reciprocates by sending senior staff professionals to the United States. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern to the United States and Germany such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. This year's delegation should be familiar with transatlantic relations within the context of recent world events. Please note that there is a significant time commitment aspect for those selected for the program. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to plan and implement the meetings and programs for the Bundestag/Bundesrat staff members when they visit the United States. Members of the House and Senate who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state their qualifications, the contributions they can make to a successful program and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications should be sent to the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs, HC-4, the Capitol, by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, February 26. Questions may be directed to Ms. Kate Knudson at 202-226-1766.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership in bringing this important opportunity for us to express our concern about the President's actions. I salute him and the support on the other side of the aisle for this legislation. As we know, last week, the Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high- level Iranian military officials, and he did so without consulting Congress. When I first heard from the administration, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I said: Why did you not consult Congress in this change in approach? They said: Because we had to keep this close. We had to keep this close. You had to keep it close from the Gang of 8, the leadership of the Congress? We had to keep it close because we didn't want the word get out. Well, we deserve the respect from the administration, and the Congress deserves, by dint of the Constitution, the requirement of the administration to consult with Congress. We know full well, better than many in the administration, the importance of classified information. We know that we are supposed to support sources and methods. We also know that the consultation that they would give to us does not enable us to divulge any information. So who are they keeping it close from? They admitted, this administration, they were keeping it close from the Congress of the United States, and they did so. Now, they did a classified presentation yesterday, which their own party members, Republican Senators, said it was the most demeaning and worst classified briefing that they had had. I, myself, think there is stiff competition for that designation of ``worst presentation'' by this administration in a classified briefing. But all that is to say that the Constitution of the United States calls for there to be cooperation when we decide about initiating hostilities. Congress has the right to declare war. When do you decide that it is war? When do you decide it is just hostilities? When does that end? What line do you cross? But, with the President's actions last week, he endangered our servicemen and -women, our diplomats and others by taking a serious risk of escalation of tensions with Iran. This does not come with any respect for Iran. We know what bad actors they are in the world. I, from my intelligence background, know that Soleimani was somebody whom we do not mourn the loss of. He did very evil things in the world. But we also know that when we take an action, we have to understand the ramifications of it. Others could have taken Soleimani out. Israel could have taken Soleimani out, but they didn't. They didn't. So, that has happened. That is where it is. As we go forward, it is really important for us to address the parameters of the War Powers Act, and that is what we are doing here today. The Members of Congress have serious and urgent concerns about the administration's decision to engage--I use the term ``decision'' loosely--to engage in hostilities against Iran, and it is about a lack of strategy. What is the strategy to move forward? Again, they did not consult with Congress. They gave a presentation that, by their own side of the aisle, has been described as demeaning and the worst. And then they tell Members to go read the classified documents. Classified? Why are these documents classified? Why can't the American people know? We understand redactions of sources and methods and the rest, but, if you read that document, you would know there is no reason for it to be classified; and without going into any substantive matters of what happened yesterday in the classified briefing, it is fair to say that Members were told to go read other documents which are redacted and, in many cases, classified unnecessarily. Our concerns were not addressed by the President's insufficient War Powers authorization, which was classified in its entirety, leaving the Congress and the public in the dark about our national security, and our concerns were not addressed by the administration's briefing yesterday. Today, to honor our duty to keep the American people safe--that is our first responsibility, to protect and defend; we must keep the American people safe--the House will pass a War Powers Resolution to limit the President's military actions regarding Iran. Congress is reasserting our long-established oversight responsibilities as we mandate that, if no further Congressional action is taken, the administration's military hostilities with regard to Iran must end. We salute Congresswoman Slotkin for her leadership in this resolution. She is a former CIA and Department of Defense analyst specializing in Shiite militias, who served multiple tours in the region under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. It is important to know, because I heard the distinguished whip on the other side of the aisle ask: How come it is just a concurrent resolution? It is because, under the War Powers Act, that is one of the options that is provided. You can do a joint resolution, House resolution, or you can do a concurrent resolution. The value and the beauty and the exquisite nature of a concurrent resolution is that it does not have to be signed by the President of the United States. The Congress of the United States, in its full power and full voice, can speak in a united way about what the War Powers Act should look like, and that should count for something to our colleagues who serve in the Congress of the United States. So, under the authority of the War Powers Act that gives us this option, we take this opportunity to do so. I implore the administration to work with Congress to advance immediate, effective, deescalatory strategy that prevents further violence. I also salute this resolution because it does give opportunity for the administration to act under certain circumstances which are part of the War Powers Act. Madam Speaker, in December, a group of us, in a bipartisan way, traveled to Belgium and Luxembourg to observe the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge and who served in that battle. One of our Members, Annie Kuster, her father served in that, and she has letters from him at that time. Other Members, on both sides of the aisle--Mr. Seth Moulton, his grandfather served in the Battle of the Bulge--also on the Republican side of the aisle, the House and in the Senate. And why I bring it up is this. That Battle of the Bulge was a decisive battle in World War II. It was a surprise attack, really, by the Germans. It was a bloody battle. We lost 19,000 Americans--19,000 Americans--in that Battle of the Bulge. On the days that we were there, when I was listening to the description of it from the veterans who served, it sounded almost like Washington crossing the Delaware, because it was December, as it was in the United States in the beginning of our fight for independence. Supplies were insufficient. The camouflage for snow was not adequate. Our veterans, our then men in uniform were exposed--nurses, too. And it was a triumph that was very decisive in World War II. And why I bring it up is because, when there was the observance of it--it was parts of 3 days we were there for it. But at the close of it, there was a ceremony that included a speech by the King of Belgium, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg--two of the places where this all took place--and the President of Germany, who spoke beautifully about Germany now, saying: When you freed Luxembourg and Belgium, you also freed the Germans. What a beautiful statement. But the close of it was from a veteran who served in the Battle of the Bulge, in his nineties. He was a teenager in the war. We saw the foxholes in which they fought, they lost their comrades in arms. He talked about the brotherhood, and he talked about allies, and he talked about the fight. At the end of the speech, the veteran said: I don't know if I should say this, but I will. My message to all of you is pray for peace. Pray for peace. That is what we should be doing is moving toward peace, not escalation of hostilities where that can be avoided. Not because we believe that the other side has good motivations or that Soleimani was not a bad person. It is not because of what they are; it is because of who we are as Americans: a country that is committed to peace and security and prepared to protect and defend, as President Kennedy said, fight any fight, fight any foe, pay any price to keep the American people safe, but to not be frivolous and cavalier about how we decide to show strength when it really is more of an escalation than a deescalation. So it is sad because you would think that, any time we would engage in such an important change in approach, we would be working together, consulting together, respecting the approach that each side takes to all of this and, hopefully, just be on one side of it all. So I think this is very important. It doesn't do everything, and it is said: Well, it doesn't do this; it doesn't do that. We should never be judging legislation, necessarily, for what it doesn't do, but respecting it for what it does do, and what this does is very important for the security of our country. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.