Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time. I am thrilled to be able to assure the gentleman that we are taking up the exact Senate bill in its exact verbatim text.

Mr. RASKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank my good friend from Georgia for our robust and active exchange today. We came to debate matters of war and peace and the reassertion of Congress' essential constitutional powers over the declaration of war and the commitment of our troops and our funds to foreign wars. These are critical issues that our friends, when they were in charge of the Chamber, routinely ignored; but we are confronting them, and we invite them in enthusiastically to be part of this process of reasserting Congress' war powers. But the minority's previous question is obviously unnecessary and an irrelevant distraction from the important issues that we have come to address. And I want to be clear about this: It is an unnecessary distraction because the House majority leader committed this morning to bringing up S. 3201, which extends the ban on all fentanyl-based substances. It took place this morning. Check docs.house.gov, which has the complete running explanation of what is taking place. This morning, he scheduled it for the very first item of business tomorrow. So the bill that my friends are valiantly promising to bring to the floor if we defeat the previous question is already scheduled to be considered as the first item of business tomorrow morning under suspension of the House rules. And I will remind my colleagues of what defeating the previous question means. It gives control of the floor to the minority. We are not going to do that because we are here to prevent unauthorized war with Iran; to repeal the obsolete and unnecessary 2002 AUMF, which addressed the situation with Saddam Hussein; and to modernize the credit reporting system, which is failing millions of Americans, our constituents. For all of the reasons that we have discussed during this robust debate, we need to ensure that the whole House gets the chance to vote on all of these things: on the repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF and on reforming the credit reporting system so our people have better access to credit and we have real transparency and fairness in people's credit reports and credit scores. I hope that all of our colleagues, both in the majority and the minority, will join us in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on this rule so we can move on to serious, thoughtful, deliberate consideration of all of these critical measures that we bring before the Congress and the American people. I also hope that all of our colleagues will join me in supporting S. 3201, the fentanyl legislation, which our colleague discussed, on suspension tomorrow.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rarely fail to be moved by my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) with his directness, his charm, and his legislative prowess. But I have to say I fail to be moved by this last jack-in-the-box procedural maneuver of people getting up and asking for unanimous consent to do something that my friends failed to do for the last 8 years when they could have had a hearing at any point on the War Powers Act, yet they didn't do it. Now, I believe that all of my friends who got up in the line were operating under a misapprehension because there was a hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 14--that is about 2 weeks ago--called ``From Sanctions to the Soleimani Strike to Escalation: Evaluating the Administration's Iran Policy'' and all the implications in terms of Congress' war powers. For the life of me, I can't understand why my good friend is not joining us today. I understand that it is always possible to summon up a procedural objection when the substantive task at hand is too difficult to do politically. I understand this would require people to make the President of the United States mad because, like every President before him--and this is a bipartisan issue, as Chairman McGovern said--this President wants to be able to decide for himself whether or not the United States of America is going to be plunged into war. The very simple proposition that we bring before the House that everybody in the Chamber can speak to right now, and everybody in the Chamber can vote on, is the repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. That was 18 years ago. We have kids who could die in a war against Iran in Iraq, or a war in Iran, based on this resolution, and they weren't even born when this Authorization of Use of Military Force was adopted by Congress. The real question is: Are we going to have the courage to stand up for the Constitution and to stand up for our constituents and say that we will not go to war unless there is a specific statutory authorization by Congress or a declaration of war or there is an actual attack on the United States such that the President is really acting in self-defense? Both Democratic and Republican Members of Congress were bewildered and frustrated by the presentation of this administration as to why the United States of America needed to commit that strike when they did. There were changing stories. About every 20 minutes, we got a new story about why it was necessary. I have not heard a single word on the other side--to their credit--defending any of the justifications or rationalizations or pretexts that were offered by the administration. So, we come back to a constitutional point that is not difficult, and that is one that came up at that Foreign Affairs Committee hearing a couple of weeks ago. It is one that we talked about in the Rules Committee last night in debate. It is one that every one of us is invited to join in right now on the floor of the House to discuss, which is the one that was made by the chairman of the Rules Committee. I have to say a word in honor of our great chair on the Rules Committee. He has been invoking the Constitution and the exclusive power of Congress to declare war for two decades, through Democratic Presidents, Republican Presidents, Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, and now Trump. He has been saying the same thing, which is that we should not be committing American troops to wars abroad without a vote of Congress, which was the explicit design of the Framers of the Constitution. Go back to the Preamble of the Constitution: We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and preserve to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty do hereby ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America. The very next sentence in Article I states that the legislative power is vested in a Congress of the United States, a House of Representatives and a Senate. Then, it sets forth all of our powers, including the power to declare war, the power of taxes, the power to appropriate money, the power to raise armies, the power to maintain a navy, and so on. All of that is with Congress. You go all the way through Article I, Madam Speaker, and then you get to Article II, where the President is denominated the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy in times of actual conflict and insurrection, and the President's core job is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That includes the Constitution itself, of course, and it includes the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This is a very clear principle. It is a constitutional axiom we are advancing today. We had a hearing on it a couple of weeks ago, but we don't need weeks and months of hearings. Obviously, our good friends didn't think it required any hearings over the 8 years that they were in control of the House of Representatives. It is a simple proposition, which is that the war power belongs to Congress. We have to declare war. We can't run away from it any more than our brave troops can run away from battle when they have been committed to battle. All we are saying is that if there is going to be war against Iran, if there is going to be a war against the new government in Iraq--not Saddam Hussein, who is gone and dead--then we have to declare the war; we have to authorize the war; and we have to debate and deliberate over it as contemplated by the Founders of our country. That is our job. We had a bipartisan vote invoking the War Powers Resolution on January 9. It ended up 224-194, but we had Democrats and Republicans invoking the War Powers Resolution with respect to the situation in Iran. Again, I am not quite sure why our colleagues don't want to do this with us. I understand it is easier to do it when the opposing party is in the White House, but we have many Members on both sides of the aisle who have demonstrated their courage by invoking the War Powers Resolution and by standing up for the Constitution. That is what we have to do today, and we have the perfect opportunity and legislative vehicle to do it right now. I reserve the remainder of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. RASKIN. No, I do not. I have yielded for the purpose of debate only, and I would love to have a real debate about the resolution that is before us.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, no, I do not yield for that purpose. All time is yielded for the purpose of debate.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 811, providing for consideration of two measures: H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive CREDIT Act; and the Senate amendment to H.R. 550. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3621 under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services. It self- executes Chairwoman Waters' manager's amendment, which updates definitions, amends requirements for issuance of final rules, includes protections for workers affected by a Federal shutdown, and makes other technical changes. It also makes in order 14 amendments. The rule also provides for consideration of two House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 550. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for each House amendment. Finally, the rule provides for separate votes on each House amendment. Madam Speaker, on H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020, credit scores and credit reports play a critical role in determining which of our constituents across America will be able to pay for college, rent an apartment, buy a car or a house, start a business, meet major unexpected expenses, or even, increasingly, get a particular job. Most Americans do not have the wealth to pay out of pocket for major expenditures, so credit is essential; and credit scores and credit reports have become the key screening and sorting mechanism, the key gatekeeper that makes the difference for millions of Americans between having the money to pay for college or not, being able to buy a house or rent an apartment or not, and, increasingly, qualifying as an employee for a specific position or not, because so many employers are increasingly using credit scores and credit reports as part of the qualifying process for appointing and hiring new employees. The system of credit scores and credit reports is deeply flawed today, and we have done nothing to reform it in 17 years. The Federal Trade Commission tells us that one in five Americans has an error on at least one of their credit reports, and 5 percent of the people have errors grave enough to result in their being denied credit or having to pay substantially more for their mortgages or their auto loans or to obtain insurance policies. The three big CRAs, consumer reporting agencies--Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian--have files on more than 200 million American consumers, which means that there are errors in the credit reports of at least 40 million of our constituents and serious, potentially life-changing errors in the credit reports of 10 million Americans across the country. Correcting these errors often takes considerable time and procedural effort, as well as knowledge on how to communicate with the credit reporting companies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, determined that, in 2018, credit reports were the single most complained-about financial product in our country, and the three big CRAs were the most complained-about financial companies in America. Many vulnerable populations like seniors, stressed and busy working- class Americans, and less financially literate young Americans describe immense frustration in trying to solve problems with credit scoring and reporting companies. Even beyond the errors and mistakes, the credit system takes advantage of the financially insecure and precarious, converting transitory lapses of poverty into a lifetime of financial stigma and hardship. It is very expensive to be poor in America. Consumers lack the right to a free annual credit score. Many consumers who try to get a free annual credit report or to obtain their scores get tricked into purchasing high-priced credit monitoring or subscription services. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020, comprehensively addresses these abuses and combines six bills carefully constructed by our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee to improve transparency, fairness, and accuracy in America's credit reporting system. It reforms and upgrades the process for consumers seeking to resolve errors in their credit reports, and it seeks to ensure that consumer financial information held by the CRAs will be accurate, complete, and verifiable. This bill will: Prohibit reporting on consumers' debt relating to medically necessary procedures and delay reporting by 1 year for other forms of medical debt; Remove adverse credit file information relating to defaulted or delinquent private education loans for borrowers who demonstrate a history of essentially timely and faithful loan repayments for these loans; Permit reasonable interruptions in the consecutive repayment periods for student borrowers facing unique and extenuating life events; Prohibit most current and prospective employers from using credit reports to make employment decisions unless required by a local, State, or Federal law or government; Shorten the time period adverse credit information stays on consumer reports from 7 years to 4 years and from 10 to 7 years for bankruptcy information; Give consumers a new right to appeal the results of disputes with the CRAs; and Improve the oversight capabilities of the CFPB on credit reporting agencies and their scoring modules and require these agencies to better train their personnel on addressing consumer concerns. It has been more than 15 years since we enacted comprehensive reform of the credit reporting system. The House can be proud of the significant progress this credit reform package will bring to hardworking people across America for whom credit and credit reports are the lifeline to education, housing, and, in many cases, good employment and financial stability. Madam Speaker, on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550, the House also considers the rule on two important amendments to the Senate amendment of H.R. 550. The first amendment, based on Representative Ro Khanna's No War with Iran Act, clarifies that Congress has not authorized military force against Iran and asserts Congress' funding power to enforce the congressional authorization requirements under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It, thus, prohibits funds for any military force in or against Iran unless Congress declares war or enacts specific statutory authorization for the use of military force against Iran or there is a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States or our Armed Forces consistent with the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. The second amendment, based on Representative Barbara Lee's bill, will repeal the 2002 AUMF for the Iraq war against Saddam Hussein, which authorized the President to use the Armed Forces to the extent ``he determines to be necessary and appropriate'' to ``defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and ``enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' The commanding premise of the 2002 authorization was the need to counter the threat of weapons of mass destruction putatively possessed by Saddam Hussein. But Saddam Hussein actually never had nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and was driven from office in 2003 and was killed in 2006. The current government in Iraq is a strategic partner of the United States in the struggle against nonstate terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaida and poses no threat to our national security. The 2002 AUMF does not authorize, and has never authorized, the use of force against Iran; yet it was invoked by National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien as a primary source of the administration's authority to engage in military hostilities against Iran, including the strike against Qasem Soleimani. This is one problem with obsolete AUMFs hanging around decades after they were approved. Presidents can treat them like a loaded gun sitting on a table which can be picked up at will and used in a completely different context for a completely different reason. The 2002 authorization must be repealed to ensure that no President now or in the future can use it as a pretextual justification for deploying military force without congressional authorization or a formal declaration of war as called for by the Constitution of the United States. Madam Speaker, the Framers gave Congress the power to declare war because they had just had a revolution against the kings and the monarchs who, for centuries, plunged their populations into wars of vanity, intrigue, political advantage, and distraction of the population. The Framers understood that the power over life and death, over war and peace, was far too awesome to vest in one person, much less a political actor motivated by the desire for fame, prestige, and power. By giving Congress the exclusive power to declare war and to appropriate funds for war, the Framers made certain that the momentous decision to go to war, to send our troops into battle, would belong primarily to the representatives of the people, both the people who fight and die in our wars, their parents, and their families, and the communities that they are drawn from. Over the last month, the President initiated a dramatic escalation of tensions with Iran without the consent of Congress and without consulting Congress pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. In the case of the strike against Qasem Soleimani, Congress was never consulted by President Trump, although he apparently spoke with several people who were guests of his at Mar-a-Lago, where the decisions were apparently being made. On January 7, Iran retaliated for the killing of General Soleimani by launching ballistic missiles against our military and coalition forces in Iraq. We now know that at least 34 troops have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries from these strikes, injuries the President has dismissed as headaches. We have still yet to receive any legitimate explanation for the justification for the strike in Iraq, and the administration's subsequent briefing on these actions left far more questions than answers and troubled even many Republican Senators to the point of extreme frustration. On January 8, when administration officials briefed Members of Congress on the President's actions, both Democrats and Republicans, alike, expressed grave concerns about the briefing, with one Member highlighting the administration had given no time, place, or method justifying the attacks. The President later said there were four threats to United States Embassies, an explanation which apparently was withdrawn in the aftermath. So we still don't know. In any event, Madam Speaker, we need to return to the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law. The grave decision to go to war is one that belongs properly with Congress. If we can send our sons and daughters into battle and ask them to exercise the most powerful courage in the world to do that, certainly, we can exercise and summon up the moral and political courage needed just to properly exercise our constitutional powers. We have the power and we have the duty to declare war when we engage in military hostilities abroad, and that is what we are doing with these two amendments. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have been a professor of constitutional law for 29 years, so I know the relationship between universities and students is sacred. We pledge to teach young people everything we know in order to propel them to become engaged citizens, educated human beings, and effective actors in the economy and society. When I hear about for-profit colleges and universities ripping off young people and their families and plunging them into debt for unconscionable get-rich-quick schemes, it infuriates me as a professor, as a father, and as a Member of the House of Representatives representing the people of Maryland. These rip-off institutions like Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical Institute, which collapsed last year, leaves students with crushing debt, degrees that are not worth the paper they are printed on, and broken promises for the future. The Obama administration adopted the borrower defense rule to authorize the Department of Education to provide debt relief to student borrowers who have been defrauded by these predatory, low-rent higher ed rip-off academies. In Maryland, we have 3,754 students waiting for the Department of Education to review their borrower defense claims and relieve them of millions of dollars in loans that the American government disbursed to predatory colleges. Secretary Betsy DeVos, who is to education what Attorney General Barr is to justice, is not only keeping the Department of Education from processing 240,000 defrauded borrower claims nationwide, but she has drafted a new rule to make it nearly impossible for students to obtain relief from fraudulent colleges as of June 2020. Secretary DeVos wants to replace a system of higher ed with a new system of higher debt. Under the old rule, groups of students defrauded by a predatory college would have received an automatic loan discharge of the debt from the rip-off institution. Under the new rule, defrauded students would have to submit individualized evidence to the satisfaction of the department that rip-off colleges intentionally misrepresented degree program outcomes, quality of instruction, or job placement opportunities. So even where these Bonnie-and-Clyde schools clearly violated the law en masse, students can still be denied relief if they can't prove that they were individually and intentionally deceived, if they can't file their claim fast enough, or if they can't document how much financial harm they have personally suffered. Billionaire Secretary DeVos, the patron saint of the rip-off academies, is basically telling working class kids across America that life isn't fair, and now she is making that the law. Most victims of the higher debt industry will never fully recover from the lost time and opportunity, but by allowing these miseducation hucksters to rip them off, we are implicated as a Nation, and we must not fail them again. We must fully forgive every penny that the students were taken on a ride for. We must overrule the DeVos rule.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war. The Constitution gave Congress the power appropriate money for war. The Constitution gave us the power to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a Navy. Why? Why didn't the Framers just give the President the power to declare and wage war? After all, the President is made Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and militias when called into the actual service of the United States. It would have been a lot simpler to say let the President go to war whenever he wants. Why didn't they do that? Well, the Framers acted against a background of kings and princes plunging their populations into wars of vanity and political advantage to distract their people at home from the political problems of the kingdom, of the monarchy. And our Framers were emphatic that the awesome power of war, the power over life and death of our sons and daughters, the power over our national treasure not be vested in one man alone but, rather, in American democracy itself. The representatives of the people, the people of Maryland and Virginia and Florida and California and Idaho and Pennsylvania and Michigan and Alaska and Hawaii, that is who the Framers vested the power of war in: the Congress of the United States. Now, the structural problem is that, if the Nation is actually attacked or there is an imminent attack coming, the President may need to respond in self-defense. Madison anticipated that, and Madison said that might happen. The Supreme Court, in 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, in the Prize Cases, said that the President can act in those situations. Lincoln embargoed and blockaded the Southern States, and that was attacked as unconstitutional. They said, well, he was acting against a real, imminent threat to the land and the people of the country. Now, after the Vietnam war, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, providing the President may engage our forces in hostilities only with a declaration of war, a statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack upon our people or our Armed Forces. Now, under the War Powers Act, the President must consult Congress if he thinks that he is acting in imminent self-defense of the country. The President didn't do that. He talked to some other people at Mar-a- Lago. He never talked to the Congress of the United States officially, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats. He didn't contact the so- called Gang of Eight of our top leadership in the intelligence and security field. He did notify us, in fairness to the President, within 48 hours of his targeted killing, which many see, under international law, as an act of war. At this point, though, whether you think there was truly an imminent crisis and this was something like Pearl Harbor or you think that the President still has not given us a single compelling justification for why he did it in acting under imminent self-defense, you think it is more like Gulf of Tonkin, it doesn't make any difference.

Mr. RASKIN. All of us, everybody in this Chamber at this point should say that whatever imminent threat existed, whatever emergency there was is gone, and now this country should not go to war without a declaration of war by this Congress or statutory authorization, unless we are attacked in the meantime. That is the whole point of the War Powers Resolution, to enforce the powers of Congress. We represent the people. We should not be going to war in the name of the United States based on the word of one man. That is not the constitutional design. It must be the Congress itself.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exemplary career of a very special constituent of mine named Tina Panetta who lives in Silver Spring and has been a public servant here on Capitol Hill for many decades. She is popularly known as ``Mother on the Hill.'' Born in the small town of Ovindoli, Italy, Ms. Panetta came to the U.S. in 1955 with her two sons and husband, Ettore, to seek a better life. Five years later, Tina became a citizen, and in January of 1961, she gave birth to her youngest child, Maria Teresa. In 1968, despite being unable to read, write, or speak English, she began serving as a waitress in the U.S. Senate cafeteria. Over the course of her decades-long career on Capitol Hill, Tina touched the lives of Senators, Representatives, Vice Presidents, Presidents, and their families. When Tina sprained her ankle, then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey accompanied her to the nursing bay. When Tina was bedridden, she received bouquets of flowers and get-well cards from many Senators and Representatives. Former Senator Paul Simon once said that Tina's story is ``the story of America.'' On her 90th birthday, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier said that she is ``an inspiration to the Nation.'' On her 93rd birthday, Senator Durbin wrote that the Senate has ``deep respect and admiration for her.'' I am here today to remind my colleagues and my constituents of Tina's wonderful legacy here on Capitol Hill. At a time of polarization, Tina's story reminds us of our common bonds, both in Congress and in the country. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our sincere thanks to Tina for her many years of service to our country.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, American elections belong to the American people, not the American President and not foreign powers. No President may cheat the people by working with foreign governments to steal from us a free and fair election. And no President who attempts it may cover up that cheating by systematically obstructing Congress in our work. Article II of the Constitution does not authorize a President to do whatever he wants. The reason we have a Constitution is to keep government officials from doing whatever they want. If we the people lose the certainty of free and fair elections to Presidential corruption and foreign manipulation, then we lose our democracy itself, the most precious inheritance we have received from prior generations who pledged their sacred honor and gave everything they had to defend it. The struggle for democracy is the meaning of America. That is why we remain the last best hope of a world ravaged by authoritarianism, violence, and corruption. We must act now to protect our elections and safeguard constitutional democracy for the enormous and unprecedented challenges that still lie ahead of us.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, today I rise to renew my call for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey to immediately release Kurdish political prisoner Selahattin Demirtas, who has been held in prison for more than three years. Last week, we celebrated Human Rights Day. Every year on December 10th, we commemorate the historic day in 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaiming that all people, by their inherent dignity as members of the human family, are entitled to certain universal rights, no matter who they are, where they come from, what they believe in, or how they pray or think. Seventy-one years later, under Erdogan, Turkey has conducted a campaign of repression against anyone who dares disagree with his barbaric policies. He has put the Dictator's Playbook into action, arresting journalists, targeting academics, threatening judicial independence, and jailing rival political leaders, such as Selahattin Demirtas and other members of the Peoples' Democratic Party. As an Executive Committee Member of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, I am proud to stand with Demirtas and to advocate for his immediate release. The bipartisan Lantos Commission is charged with promoting, defending, and advocating for international human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to take part in government, directly or through freely chosen representatives. These are some of the rights that President Erdogan has callously disregarded in his continued imprisonment of Demirtas. As fellow parliamentarians, we cannot simply look the other way when a colleague is targeted by an oppressive regime simply because their party is out of power. Today, I call on my House colleagues to stand with Selahattin Demirtas. I call on President Erdogan to immediately release not only Demirtas, but every political prisoner who is being incarcerated for advocating for democracy and human rights in Turkey. We must stand together with all those who stand up for human rights and democracy in the face of tyranny.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 741 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 741, providing for consideration of two measures. First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, under a closed rule. The rule self- executes a manager's amendment offered by Chairman Nadler and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides one motion to recommit. Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 326, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding United States efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution, under a closed rule. The rule self-executes two manager's amendments offered by Chairman Engel. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Madam Speaker, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the great legislative achievements of American history. It is perhaps the greatest single statute of the 20th century, in a century of great statutes, including the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. But the Voting Rights Act was born out of the blood, sweat, and tears of the American civil rights movement; in the wake of Freedom Summer; in the murders of Schwerner, Chaney, Goodman, and other civil rights heroes; and in the after the famous March on Washington, where Dr. King made his ``I Have a Dream'' speech. The Voting Rights Act transformed American politics by bringing into our elections millions of voters who had been disenfranchised for a century after the Civil War ended. It changed the nature of politics in the Deep South and across the United States, and it changed the politics of the United States Congress as well. Theoretically, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments had solved the problem of disenfranchisement after the Civil War. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment established equal protection; and the 15th Amendment banned discrimination in voting. But after the dismantling of reconstruction, African Americans were subjected to a regime of disenfranchisement that included violence, terror, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, poll taxes, and an ever-expanding panoply of devices, tricks, and tactics to keep Black people from being able to register to vote and to participate in elections. The civil rights movement and President Lyndon Johnson fought for the Voting Rights Act, which passed in 1965 and which included a package of strong remedies targeting discriminatory voting practices and devices in the areas where discrimination was most egregious and virulent. A key component of the Voting Rights Act was section 5, the preclearance requirement, which compelled covered States--that is, the States to which it applied--to stop discriminating and to subject all changes in their voting practices to the Department of Justice or to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. States were covered if they had used illegal voting discrimination devices like literacy tests, poll taxes, and character exams, and if fewer than 50 percent of the people were registered to vote or allowed to participate. The Voting Rights Act was challenged immediately in litigation called South Carolina v. Katzenbach, but in 1966, the Supreme Court rejected arguments that the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court said Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition on race discrimination in voting. It upheld the preclearance requirement against attack. Specifically, it was said by South Carolina that it violated the so- called equal footing doctrine, but the Supreme Court said that the equal footing doctrine applied to the admission of States and not to the Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment or section 2 of the 15th Amendment. All of this worked for the Voting Rights Act to usher in a new era of real democracy in America. The preclearance requirement meant that the States, counties, and jurisdictions that had been discriminating had to submit to the Department of Justice or to Federal court their plans for changes. That worked to enfranchise millions of voters across America. It worked for the election of thousands of African American elected officials at the local, State, and Federal levels. The genius of section 5 was that jurisdictions had to submit potentially discriminatory changes before the harm took place. Anybody can go ahead and sue under section 2 after an election is over, but then it is too late because the harm has already been done, the election has taken place. So even if you win in court, the court is not going to order a rerun of the election. It is not going to require all the voting to take place again, so it is too late at that point. Section 5 puts the burden on the potentially discriminating parties to prove that they are not discriminating when they make changes in voting laws. It works all the way up until 2013, when the Supreme Court rendered its 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Shelby County case struck down the section 4(b) formula for which States were covered, declaring that this formula was now out-of-date because it went back many, many decades to the 1960s and 1970s and that the Congress would need to update the formula to address current needs in the field and to show that the formula relates to the current problems that we are targeting. The Court said specifically that coverage was based on decades-old data and eradicated practices, like literacy tests, which don't exist anymore. So when it got struck down, dozens of States and counties that were previously required to preclear changes related to voting didn't have to do it anymore, and they began very quickly, almost instantly, to roll back various kinds of voter protections and to pass strict voter identification laws, to pass massive voter purges, to implement cuts to early voting, to close polling places, and so on. I am going to read from one of the witnesses who testified before the House Judiciary Committee, Kristen Clarke, the president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, who said: ``We have vetted complaints from tens of thousands of voters in Shelby, many revealing systemic voting discrimination. In short, this is how Shelby has impacted our democracy. ``First, we have seen the resurgence of discriminatory voting practices, some motivated by intentional discrimination, and this discrimination has been most intense in the very jurisdictions that were once covered by section 5. They range from the consolidation of polling sites to make it less convenient for minority voters to vote to the curtailing of early voting hours, the purging of minority voters from the rolls under the pretext of list maintenance, strict photo ID requirements, abuse of signature match verification requirements . . . , the threat of criminal prosecution, and more. ``Second, we have seen increased levels of recalcitrants in hostility among elected officials who institute and reinstitute discriminatory voting changes with impunity. . . .'' ``Third, the loss of public notice regarding changes in voting practices that could have a discriminatory effect is significant. . . .'' ``Fourth, the public no longer has the ability to participate in the process of reviewing practices before they take effect. . . .'' ``Fifth, the preclearance process had an identifiable deterrent effect that is now lost. ``Sixth, the status quo is not sustainable. Civil rights organizations are stepping up to fill the void created by the Shelby decision at insurmountable expense. ``And finally, this will be the first redistricting cycle in decades'' in which redistricting takes place without the Voting Rights Act. That is one example of testimony that we got from all over America about what the Shelby County v. Holder decision meant by dismantling section 5 by knocking out section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. H.R. 4 is doing precisely what the Supreme Court invited us to do in the Shelby County decision: to pass a new coverage formula for the Civil Rights Act preclearance requirement based on new data in a new formula designed to address current contemporary problems. The Judiciary Committee and the House Administration Committee had a combined total of 17 hearings: 9 on the Judiciary side with its Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and 8 in the House Administration Committee's Subcommittee on Elections. They heard about restrictive and discriminatory practices taking place in numerous States across the country, including Texas and Georgia, where, after the end of preclearance, Georgia voters faced a myriad of new voting barriers, including the closure of more than 200 precinct polling places, spoiled voter registration materials, purging of more than 1 million voters in a racially discriminatory way, restrictive voter ID laws, systematic rejection of absentee ballots, and more. We also looked in North Carolina, which passed a so-called monster voter suppression law, which resulted in race discrimination in accessing the polls, including the closure of dozens of polling sites and long voting lines. The law eliminated same-day voter registration, reduced early voting by a week, curtailed satellite polling sites for elderly and disabled voters, and so on. Madam Speaker, this legislation is the product of massive legislative inspection of voting conditions across the United States of America today, and it threads the needle that was offered to us by the Supreme Court in the Shelby County decision by amending the Voting Rights Act to revise the section 4(b) criteria and providing other voter protections at the same time. Specifically, the bill creates a new coverage formula that applies to all States and hinges on a finding of repeated voting violations in the preceding 25 years. It establishes a process for reviewing voting changes in jurisdictions nationwide, focused on a limited set of measures such as voter ID laws and the reduction of multilingual voting materials; it requires reasonable public notice for voting changes; it allows the Attorney General authority to request Federal observers; and it increases accessibility and protection for Native American and Alaska Native voters. Just turning, now, to H.R. 326, for more than 20 years, American Presidents from both political parties and Israeli Prime Ministers have supported reaching a two-state solution that establishes a democratic Palestinian state to coexist peacefully and constructively side by side with a democratic Israel. Middle East peace talks have favored the two-state solution and opposed settlement expansions, moves towards unilateral annexation of territories, and efforts to arrive at Palestinian statehood outside the framework of negotiations with Israel. In 2002, President Bush stated: ``My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security.'' In 2013, President Obama reiterated this exact same commitment, stating that: ``Negotiations will be necessary, but there is little secret about where they must lead--two states for two peoples.'' This resolution emphasizes the sentiment of the past 20 years of peace talks by expressing the sense of this House of Representatives that only a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ensure Israel's survival as a secure democratic state and fulfill the legitimate aspirations for a secure and democratic Palestinian state. It further expresses the sense that any U.S. proposal that fails to endorse a two-state solution will put a peaceful end to the conflict only further out of reach. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend from Arizona chides me for having described section 5, the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, as genius, which is amazing to me because this has been a bipartisan national commitment and a bipartisan commitment in Congress since 1965 when it passed on a bipartisan basis, since 1982 when it was reauthorized on a bipartisan basis, and since 2006 when President Bush signed it, as well, and celebrated it. So we have had Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Obama, a continuous array of Presidents, supporting it, and Congresses supporting it. If you don't have it, here is what happens: The NAACP Legal Defense Fund testified to us about successful litigation they had in Texas against a restrictive voter ID law that had discriminatory racial impact. They won on the lawsuit under section 2, but it was too late. In the meantime, who was elected in Texas? A U.S. Senator, all 36 Members of the House of Representatives, a Governor, a lieutenant governor, and so on. The reason why section 5 is genius and why we need to restore the precoverage formula is because it requires States to submit in advance laws that could be potentially discriminatory. I was amazed to hear again the language of federalizing control and a Federal takeover of elections when this has been a bipartisan commitment for decades grounded in the Constitution of the United States which tells us in Article I, Section 4 we can regulate elections; Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment saying we can regulate elections to prevent race discrimination; Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the republican Guarantee Clause, which tells us we must guarantee to people of the States a republican form of government, which means representative government based on democracy. Finally, I will allow my friend to portray what is going on in her State her way, and she paints a lovely picture. I would just refer her to page 25 of the Judiciary Committee report which says that in Arizona polling places were closed throughout the State, many with significant populations of Latino voters, in advance of the 2016 election. Maricopa County, 31 percent Latino, closed 171 polling places, Mohave County closed 34, and so on. So there is another story to be told there which is embodied in the work. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey 10 additional seconds.