tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 28, 2019 8:59am-1:08pm EDT
worry about as we have the opportunity to view each other in our uniqueness and as one nation. host: the hill reported in -- she that you were wanted to talk to your office about a sexual assault and she was fired in response. guest: that matter has been handled in the courts and we look forward to her doing well. host: what about the claims? guest: it has been
handled. host: representative sheila jackson lee joining us on washington journal to talk about the violence against women act. congress is just about to come in in just a matter of moments. when they do come in, local matters as we talked, paycheck fairness, other issues as well. if you go to our website, you can keep track of all the hearings that will take place including the interior secretary. more information of that at
c-span.org. 9:00, the house of representatives is just about to come in and we will take you to them now. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc.,
in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chap -- chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. merciful god, thank you for giving us another day. your care and wisdom are shown to us by the way you extend your kingdom into your world down to the present day. your word reveals every aspect
of your saving plan. you accomplish your design purpose in and through the hearts of the faithful who respond to you. today convert our minds and hearts that we may become the great nation you hope us to be. help the members of this people's house to seek your presence in the midst of their busy lives. and make them with your spirit and help them to perform their appointed tasks to come to solutions that will redound to the been fit of our nation. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek
recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado further seek recognition? >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will please rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from alifornia, mr. harder. mr. harder: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today because it's absolutely absurd that in the year 2019 women are still paid less than men. 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. but it's even worse for women of color. latina women make only 53 cents on the dollar. that's why i was so proud to support the paycheck fairness act which included our amendment to specifically support women of color. there are thousands of latina women in my district who work hard day in, day out only to be paid half what their male counterparts do. it hurts them, it hurts their families, and it hurts our
central valley community. this is an equality issue but also an economic issue. mr. harder: almost a quarter families in the central valley have a woman as their breadwinner. it's 2019. it's time that women, especially latina women, are not left behind. i urge my colleagues in the senate to take up this bill and make sure we're lifting up everyone in our communities. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in 1970 congress made a commitment to provide a free and appropriate education to students with disabilities. while we have made tremendous progress thanks to the individuals with disain'ts education act, we have also failed to fully fund the cost of special education that was promised by congress at that point in time.
congress promised to cover 40% of the extra cost of special education, but we have never come close to fulfilling that promise. in fact, current funding remains only at 14% of the targeted amount. mr. speaker, that's shameful. this means our students and schools suffer. it means that the programs will be cut. it means schools won't be able to recruit and retain qualified teachers. above all else, it means that students with disabilities will not be able to succeed. not without appropriate high quality services they deserve. that's why i proudly co-sponsor the bipartisan idea full funding act which would mandate gradual increases in idea funding to reach that full commitment made by congress of 40% by fiscal year 2029 and each subsequent fiscal year. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and uphold the promise to provide students and schoolsle with the resources they need. -- schools with the resources they need. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from florida -- the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to honor the life and legacy of central florida community leader faculty member, and editorial writer john who recently passed away. bosh and raised in central a florida, john earned a blagojevich lore degree from the university of central floridas as well as masters degrees from georgetown university, american university, and london school of economics. mrs. murphy: he he began coming back to our -- he came to our community and wrote an editorial series that showed irresponsible payday lenders leading to legislation that cracked down on that industry. in 2001, he began teaching at the university of central florida where he helped establish the center for the study of human trafficking and modern slavery. throughout his career, he
inspired his students to pursue a love of travel, new cultures, and humanity focused work. his passion spread beyond that campus. he host add weekly tv show on the wucf and chaired different institution, including the global connection cans foundation, the world affairs council of central florida, and the orlando area committee on foreign relations. john sought to broaden people's connections to the outside world while helping us see that global issues can also be local. for that and much more, he will be truly missed. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize the accomplishment of an outstanding group of young men from vincennes university in indiana. for the first time since 1972, and the fourth time in school history, the vincennes university trail blazers
captured the national junior college athletic association men's basketball championship. led by coach todd franklin, the blazers had a benchmark year, ending the season with a record of 24-2, and defeating ranger college in the championship game by a score of 87-77. the team standout in the finals was freshman forward ken osaw who scored 2 points and--- 22 points and 10 rebounds. athletics provide a set of skills that will be with these young men for the rest of their lives. the commitment and follow through required to come together as a team and win a national championship are rare. and should be commended. congratulations to the vincennes university blazers men's basketball team on a job well-done. mr. bucshon: good luck next year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> to ask unanimous consent to
address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise today to mourn the passing of a dear friend and remarkable professional, steve. as c.e.o. of port everglades, he saw the largest expansion in the port's history and helped fort everglades grow to weekend forecast the number one cruise port in the country. he had a vision for the port and he was an incredibly dedicated public servant. he loved his work, community, and family. he was a loving husband, father, and grandfather, and took any opportunity to share how proud he was of his grandchildren, often sharing photos of them before meetings to which i can personally attest. his professionalism was unmatched and i am grateful for his uncaferinge commitment to keeping americans safe. although steve is no longer with us, his legacy will live on through the institution he helpedpropel into the leading port in our nation. steve was a selfless, compassionate, and tireless public servant and he will be
profoundly missed but never forgeten. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yield back. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. hartzler: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise to honor the rock bridge high school bruins boys basketball team of columbia, missouri, for winning the missouri state championship class 5 basketball championship in springfield. in winning the school's first boys basketball state title, the bruins exhibited a never say die attitude. staging a comeback after being down by eight points heading into the final quarter against christian brothers college high school. the bruins came close last year, bowing out in the semifinals, but this year's team would not be denied. the long hours of practice paid off. as rock bridge came roaring back in the final quarter to win 63-59 and bring home the
championship. this season finale is a testament to the great coaching of jim scanlon and the dedication and hard work of all the players whose determination and teamwork brought home the victory. congratulations to the brock ridge high school bruins state champs from missouri fourth district. we're proud of you. we pish you continued success. -- we wish you continued success. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate douglas county colorado being named the healthiest community in the united states by "u.s. news and world report." with all due respect to all my colleagues in this combroid, there is no state like colorado. we're home to 300 days of sunshine. the rocky mountains, and the best breweries and skiing in the country. it should be no surprise it helped make us the seventh
fastest growing state in the country. but this year we have added another accomplishment to our list, community health. with seven of america's top 25 healthiest communities in colorado, douglas county tops that list, home to countless walking trails, community building events, 63,000 acres of protected land, and innovative infrastructure, douglas county is truly a great place to live. mr. crow: i welcome my colleagues to douglas county and the rest of our incredible district to see for themselves what makes this centennial state so great. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the distinguished gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. collins: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. thus far i have released four transcripts of interviews from the judiciary committee into the apparent wrongdoing at the fib and justice department. today i release the fifth.
the american people deserve transparency, they deserve to know what transpired at the highest levels of the f.b.i., origin of the probe in president trump's campaign. therefore, mr. speaker, i request that dougcollins.house.gov forward slash nellie orr be placed into the record so the american people can review the transcript of her interview. will i continue to work to release as many transcripts as possible. the american people deserve the truth. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk the disparity in pay between men and women in this country. today women are paid only 80 cents for every dollar paid to men. resulting in a gap of $10,169 each year. the gap exists in every state
regardless of geography, occupation, education, or work pattern. this disparity is worse for women of color. on average, hispanic women are typically paid 53 cents. native american women 58. and black women 61 cents for every dollar paid to white nonhispanic men. . the paycheck fairness act would help close these punishing gaps by eliminating loopholes in the equal pay gap. this denies women $900 billion in income each year. across the country, this disparity directly affects children. in my district of the virgin islands, 32% of families with children live in poverty, and of that number, 76% are headed by a single mother. we know that families that live in poverty have higher rates of instability and that children living in poverty perform worse in school than their counterparts. by paying each woman the $10,000 they lose per anum to the wage
gap we can do the right thing and the fiscally responsible thing and raise millions of families above the poverty line. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 52, i call up house resolution 124 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 124, resolution expressing opposition to banning service in the armed forces by openly transgender individuals. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 252, the resolution is considered as read. the resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services. the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and the gentleman
from texas, mr. thornberry, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on house resolution 124. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. this resolution is very straightforward. the department of defense, in cooperation with the white house, recently issued a policy which will be implemented in a couple of weeks that would effectively bar transgender people from being able to serve in the military. we have this resolution to reject that policy. it's that simple. that straightforward. we believe that the policy that the pentagon is putting forward is unfair and based on ignorance and bigotry and will actually harm national security and we ask the house in this resolution to express the sense of congress
that we oppose this policy from the pentagon. again, what this policy's primarily based on is ignorance and bias against the transgender community. the policy is being implemented will make it virtually impossible to let them serve in the military. it's discrimination. the military last year failed to meet its recruitment quotas. it's hard to find the people who have the character, the capability and the ability to serve in our military. we have the best military in the history of the world. we need high-qualified people to serve. and to single out a particular group of people to discriminate against them and say they cannot serve, not because they can't meet the qualifications, it's not because they can't run fast enough or shoot straight enough or work hard enough to be a member of the military, but because of something that literally has nothing to do with their ability to do their job is bad for national security and unfair discrimination.
now, we have heard a lot from people about how difficult it is for unit cohesion to have transgender in the military. whole bunch of arguments. the only problem with that is the military leaders who have actually been responsible for this -- and i am going to read one quote. there are many and some of my colleagues will say it as well, but army chief of staff millie who is about to become the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said last year, there are precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion, discipline, or morale as a result of transgender people serving. so there is no issue in terms of readiness despite what the proponents of this policy will say. it is discrimination, fair and simple, and it is unnecessary. now, you will also hear opponents say, well, the policy doesn't ban transgender people from serving. under certain circumstances they can. but those circumstances, as described, are so limiting and restricting and worst of all, as i'll explain in a minute, in certain parts it allows them to serve only if they're willing to
deny who they are and that amounts to a ban. if you cannot be who you are and serve in the military, then that is a choice that nobody should have to make. and let's start with the fact that right now, under this policy, anyone who wants to join the military, if they have transitioned to a different gender, either gone through the surgery or began hormone therapy, this policy says you cannot join. now, again, this doesn't say anything about their fitness to serve, in terms of their physical ability or anything. if you had transition surgery or gone through hormone therapy you are barred from serving. but worse than that, the people who are already in the military who are transgender who, to a certain extent, are grandfathered in, in many different places throughout this policy it says over and over again that they have to serve in their biological sex. now, a lot of people go, what the heck does that mean? but that gets at the essence, at
the very heart what it means to be transgender. and this is not something that is just in people's minds. it is a physiological condition that people are born into in which they decide they are more comfortable being in the opposite gender. and that's one of the cornerstone difficulties that all of these people have to go through, what am i, what gender do i want to be? and working with therapists, working with other people they make that determination. i know who i am and this is who i am going to be. this policy says, sorry, we don't care what your doctor says. you cannot be the gender that you know that you are. you have to deny who you are in order to stay in the military. in many places throughout this policy, that is a consistent theme and points out what is so totally and completely wrong about this policy. now, people, you've also heard undoubtedly, there are higher health care costs for people who are transgender. there are a number of studies out that show that actually isn't true. yes, health care expense is part of people who serve in the
military, and regrettably, people who join the military have different levels of health care that we have to pick up. there is no evidence that this will be an increase in cost. and we know this is not about cost because one of the first points i made how you are not going to be able allowed to join the military even if you've already gone through transition therapy, transition surgery or hormone therapy and if you are done with that and there is no additional medical cost to come, this policy says you are barred and banned from joining the military. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: i yield myself an additional 15 seconds. which makes it perfectly clear this policy is unfair discrimination based on bigotry and ignorance and i urge this house to reject it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized -- from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i
yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, this resolution is a sense of congress resolution that makes no change whatsoever in law or policy. it's a messaging bill. rather than legislation that actually does something on a substantive issue. so one may ask, well, why bother opposing a bill that doesn't do anything? well, i got a couple of answers. part of the answer to me is that we normally do not bring isolated issues in the jurisdiction of the armed services committee to the floor because pasht of the reason that -- part of the reason that a national defense authorization bill has been signed into law every year for 58 straight years under presidents of both parties and congresses of both parties is that we try to look at national security as a whole
when as it relates to the department of defense. so there have been a few isolated instances where something needed immediate attention, but generally we try to look at the whole, not bring isolated issues to the floor. i worry that doing so, even with a messaging bill, undermines that bipartisan approach that has been so successful. another part of the reason, mr. speaker, is that we also normally try to keep our troops above and beyond politics, and so bringing a messaging bill that does nothing to law or policy also threatens to undermine that and i worry about that. on its face, the resolution, the messaging bill that's before us includes a number of statements that are just flat wrong. it says that president trump reversed the prior policy on transgender individuals in a
tweet, but in fact, well before any presidential tweet, secretary of defense mattis had put a delay on implementation of the policy that had previously been announced so there could be a six-month review. and there was a six-month review with experts, with uniform, civilian people, from all the services, with medical experts, a whole variety of folks. and it is serious and thoughtful. despite some of the characterizations that have been made from time to time, i recommend that members actually read it, because i think they will be impressed. they may not agree with all of the recommendations but they'll see the serious and thoughtful approach that the department took to this issue, and as a result of this review, the previous policy was modified. it didn't go back to the way it
was, but, again, those details are in the report. the resolution before us today says that the mattis policy is a ban. it's not. and the d.c. circuit court of appeals found on january 4, 2019, that it is factually inaccurate to call it a blanket ban. in reversing the lower court, the court of appeals said, quote, the district court made an erroneous finding that the mattis plan was the equivalent of a blanket ban on transgender service, end quote. this resolution before us says that there is a global medical consensus on transgender care, but the world professional association for transgender health says that they offer flexible clinical guidelines which cannot possibly reflect all the differences and situations which exist. mr. speaker, just turning to the substance of the matter for a
second, to me the heart of the issue is contained in the very first sentence to the department report, which was issued february, 2018. the first sentence says, it is a bedrock principle of the department of defense that any eligible individual who can meet the high standards for military service, without special accommodations, should be permitted to serve. any eligible individual who can meet the standards without special accommodation should be permitted to serve. that's what i believe, mr. speaker. i think that's what this policy attempts to achieve. now, it is a fair question -- point to say, well, it went too far this way. it didn't go far enough this way. we can have those substantive, serious debates in an
appropriate time and place, but a messaging bill is not going to get that job done. i would say, finally, mr. speaker, that our committee ard day before yesterday a reminder that only 29% of americans age 17 to 25 are eligible for military service. only 29% meet the physical, mental, and legal requirements to be eligible for military service, even if they want to. now, that means 71% are not eligible for whatever reason. now, there can be and maybe there should be a debate that the standards are too high, that we need to lower the standards, we need to make some changes in the standards so that more people are eligible, but the point is our view of military service is that anyone who meets those standards should be allowed to serve. if someone can't meet those
standards, then they are not able to serve. they can serve in a different way but not in military service. i think, again, mr. speaker, if we were to really be discussing the substance of the issue rather than a messaging bill, then we could talk about the high standards for military service without special accommodation, and there would be a substantive discussion. that's not what we're doing today. it's a messaging bill, and that's too bad because there are serious issues that need to be discussed. i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. just briefly, i will agree, this is a messaging bill, and the message is, this is a bad policy. that is what the house is doing. i will also agree, when it comes to crafting the right policy in this area it should be done in committee and it will be done in
committee. that's why we didn't bring that out here on the floor. it's important for the house of representatives to make it clear to say how wrong we think this policy is. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. . mr. kennedy: mr. speaker, equal has always been our nation's north star. endowed by our creator, inscribed by everyson in the declaration of independence. engraved above the doors of the highest court in our land. codified in our constitution after a war tore our country apart. it is that pursuit of equality journey uality, that for a more perfect union that sets america apart. at times we have stumbled, enslaved men, women, and
children because of the color of their skin. we have segregated those same families in the first breadth of their freedom. we have stigmatized fellow americans based on their race, their ancestry, their god. the nation of their birth, the hand that they hold, and the very identity. some willing to die for our freedom, fought wars, only to meet a government that offered them a handshake and they returned to second class citizenship. today this house has a chance to not repeat the mistakes of our past. to move one step closer to that sacred promise by telling brave trans men and women in uniform that they can can can cannot be banned from military -- that
cannot be manned from military service because of who they are. targeted discrimination against transgender americans. supporters will say otherwise. it's about unit cohesion, they say. except for the fact that the five chiefs of staff for the military branches have testified that they are aware of exactly zero instances of a transgender service member negatively impacting discipline or morale. it would degrade our military, they say. except that 56 retired generals and flag officers told us that it is the ban that would degrade readiness, quote, even more than the failed "don't ask, don't tell" policy did. it's science, they say. except the department of defense relied on data nearly half a century old and ignored
plenty of other studies. just ask the american medical association, american psychology association, american psychiatric association. it's about cost, they say. except that the military spends 10 times more annually on ewreck tile dysfunction medication that we have on transrelated care in the last three years combined. it's not a ban, they say. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: i yield an additional one minute. mr. kennedy: to ask exactly what this ban means. mr. speaker n. a country that celebrates freedom -- mr. speaker, in a country that celebrates freedom, this policy tells our service members they don't have the freedom who they are. where is the freedom in that? i ask all members of the house to support this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington
-- texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. speaker. let me tell but a sharp young patriot from my district. she worked hard, earned straight a's and was accepted into law school to join the j.a.g. corps. she, however, was denied entry into the military because she had bunions on her feet. she is an amazing woman and a long distance runner, but d.o.d.'s policy was clear that due to the risk of future surgery she could potentially be temporarily undeployable and so was denied entrance into military service. she did not meet the physical, mental medical standards. another constituent was denied service because had he asthma. he, too, wanted to serve his country but the health risks outweighed the benefits to the military. he did not meet the physical
mental medical standards. d.o.d.'s military accession standards state individuals must be free of medical conditions or physical defects that may require excessive time loss from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization. our all voluntary military is the greatest military force in the world and we must allow it, we must allow it to make the best medical and military judgment about what medical conditions should qualify or disqualify an individual from serving. we should not carve out exceptions for an entire population. military service is a privilege, not a right. that is why secretary mattis reviewed and issued a new policy on transgender service and the medical condition of gender dysphoria. the policy is not a ban. it allows transgender service members to serve in their biological sex. the mattis policy does not kick
anyone out of the military for being transgender, nor does it give preferential treatment to transgender persons. all persons unless grandfathered or granted a waiver must serve in their birth gender. it is a fair policy. allowing transgender individuals to serve openly as long as they are willing to serve in the biological sex and they can can can meet the medical behavioral standards. this resolution we're voting on today is riddled with inaccuracies. first as i just stated the policy is not a ban. second, it claims there is a global medical consensus that transgender care is effective, safe, and reliable. that is not true. rand, the mayo clinic, c.m.s., and others have all determined that there is not enough quality evidence to be able to say that. and there are valid concerns. there are costs as well. the department of defense announced already that they have spent $8 million on those
individuals who have identified as transgender last year and that money has been spent on psycho therapy, sex change operations, and that's money that could have been spent on bullets, body armors for our troops. and third, the resolution claims there is not an adverse effect on military readiness. this is false. the individual readiness of those undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria will be impacted. it takes over 260 days to recover from the surgery. individual readiness directly impacts the readiness of our forces. so the diagnosis and treatment for transgender personnel takes them away from their jobs for an indeterminant amount of time. this lost deployment time means someone lells have to step forward and go in their place. this is unfair. the military has valid reasons for excluding people with certain medical conditions from service. it is not the job of congress to dictate what medical
conditions the military should accept. we should not degrade the efficiency and lethality of our armed forces. this resolution is riddled with false claims and i urge my colleagues to oppose its passage. i yield back. the eaker pro tempore: gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker is recognized for one minute. the speaker: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time and really for his leadership on this very important issue as to who we're as a nation. how we honor our oath to protect and defend the american people. in doing so recognizing the contribution of all who want to o serve our country. i want to thank you -- who want to serve our country. i want to thank you, adam
smith, for your leadership. i also want to acknowledge our leadership our colleague, joe kennedy, sponsor of this legislation, for his relentless and rship, his forming and transforming the transgender caucus and making clear in our policy that we respect the dignity and worth of every person. the men and women who step forward to serve in the u.s. military are patriots, all of them. people of great strength and courage who sacrifice -- whose sacrifice keeps us safe. we owe those heroes our most humble gratitude and steadfast support. i want to thank our transfriends for their service, their courage, their patriotism in serving our country. thank you. instead of honoring their service, the president continues to insist on his cruel transgender service member ban. this is an act of cruelty. let us all salute again
congressman joe kennedy, a champion for equality, fairness, and dignity in this congress for his firm moral leadership on this resolution to oppose the president's bigoted ban. this resolution is a resolution that our distinguished chairman, mr. smith, and our colleague, joe kennedy, are putting forth is bipartisan because protecting transgender service members is a matter of patriotism and it transcends politics. the president's ban is cruel and arbitrary, a decision designed to humiliate the transgender americans horrificing and giving their lives for the united states of america. there is no moral justification for this ban which violates every value of our american democracy and betrays our fundamental belief in fairness, dignity, and respect. there is no medical
justification for this ban which the american medical association, the american psychlogical association, and the american psychiatric association all oppose. and there is no military justification for this ban which would undermine our military readiness and make america less strong and safe and that is according to our own military. after the president's first retired his band, 56 generals and flag officers issued a statement asserting that the ban would create -- would cause -- these are their words, quote, would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission critical talent, and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a lie, as well as nontransgender peers who would be forced to choose between reporting their comrade or disobeying policy.
as a result, they go on to say, the proposed ban would degrade readiness even more than the failed "don't ask, don't tell" policy. other military leaders have spoken out to denounce this ban. former joint chiefs of staff mike mullin. army chief of staff, general mark kelly, commander commandant of the united states coast guard, carl shultz, chief of naval operations, admiral john richardson, commandant of the marine corps, general robert neller. yet the president has chosen to ignore the expertise of these military leaders, making clear the president has done that prejudice not patriotism drives his decisions. e president's ban, again, is cruel. no one with the strength and bravery to serve in the u.s. military should be turned away because of who they are.
the house will continue to fight this discriminatory action which has no place in our country. we will never allow hate and prejudice to dictate our national security. i hope we have a resounding yes vote to reject the president's ban today. again, i thank our distinguished chairman, mr. smith, our colleague, joe kennedy for his leadership and courage and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of our time. mr. smith: at some point someone has to tell me what engaging in personalities means. i have been serving for a long time and still don't know. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in
solidarity with our transgender service members and to stand against president trump's proposed ban of transgender people serving in the military. transgender troops have been serving openly since 2016, at home, overseas, and in combat zones without incident. when i met with transgender service members last month, i was impressed to learn that by serving openly, i want to make a note of that, by serving openly, the quality of their service improved. in fact, the obstacles, there are many obstacles, mr. speaker, the obstacles they have overcome informed their greater ability to do their job . their impressive records speak for themselves. and there is no doubt that each of the service members i met with have served their country with distinction. already stated, this ban is
blatant discrimination, poorly disguised as concerns over readiness, unit cohesion, and medical costs associated with transitioning. we already know that there had been zero reports of issues regarding unit morale or cohesion since the ban was lifted in 2016. a fact that has been supported by the chief of staff of every service. the cost is to have minimal impact on the military's health care budget. this is misinformation, misinformation to disqualify capable, qualified people from service to their country. at a time when the army is meet recruitment goals and the navy and air force opted to lower their quota in order to reach their own recruitment goals, we cannot be turning away dedicated,
able-bodied recruits simply because they happen to be transgender. yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to support this resolution with vigor. last month, the subcommittee of military personnel, within the armed services committee, held a hearing. it was the first time in the history of this congress that five transgender members of the military were allowed to testify. four of them are transfemale. one of them is transmale. all five of them have served our country with distinction. all five of them have served more than 12 years in the military. one of them is a west point
graduate. all of them have served either in iraq, afghanistan, multiple eployments, and in submarine service. and to the service member, all i saw was pride to be in the military, pride to serve their country, pride to put themselves on the line. the testimony from the administration was like a twisted pretzel. they offered a weak and dithering defense of their cruel policy. two things became clear at this hearing. first, the administration policy is a ban. make no mistake about that. those who are in the military and serving as transgender can continue to do so. no one can come into the military who is transgender. if you are in the military and transgender and have not identified, you cannot identify. so it is a ban.
stelleck said it best. they can seek care transgender or not. if the policy changes, soldiers will no longer seek care because if you say you are transand get gender disforia, you are ineligible and will be terminated. the policy is a solution in search of a problem. worse, it discriminates against our service members. second, the hearing demonstrated resoundingly that the last 2 1/2 years of open service have been unequivocally successful. and with that, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, let me say transgender service members have been there for us. it's time for us to be there for them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield one minute to
the distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the chairman for yielding. i thank the ranking member for his service and his leadership as chairman. i would urge all members to reject the president's executive order and to support this resolution. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the resolution, introduced by my friend, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy. his resolution simply states that millions and millions of americans know it to be true, that the trump administration's ban on transgender people serving their country in our
ilitary is discriminatory. it reflects bias. it reflects prejudice. indeed, it reflects bigotry. martin luther king tried to teach us that what we said in the declaration of independence we ought to live out. he said that all of us -- and he certainly would have included women, as we did yesterday in our pay equality act -- are created equal in the image of god. martin luther king said we ought to judge one another on the ontent of our character. the president's order does not do that.
the president's order is based prejudiced view of somebody because of a distinction that is not the content of their character nor the quality of their performance. i was proud to be the sponsor of and brought to this floor as majority leader the repeal of the don't-ask, don't-tell legislation. at has enhanced our national security, not diminished it. the president's resolution states what millions and millions of americans know to be true, the trarbgs' ban on transgender people -- the trump administration's ban on transgender people serving in our military is discriminatory.
it denigrates the service of patriotic americans. at is the facet of their character. they are patriotic and they want judgese, and the service them able to do so. this resolution, millions of americans understand, undermines our national defense at a time of serious global threats. and this resolution rightfully calls on the trump administration not to implement uch a ban on april 12. to do so will be a blow to our country and the principles it represents. let me remind my colleagues that there was a time when we said african-americans ought not to serve with white americans together because that would undermine morale and undermine
.he security of our country that was a manifestation of prejudice and bigotry, not of ntellectual honesty. content of character. have we not yet learned that lesson? are we not big enough to live out the premise of all men and ?omen are created equal this resolution seeks to redeem the best of america's principles , not the worst of our discriminatory past. i was proud to bring legislation to the floor as majority leader that ended don't-ask, don't-tell
and it was overwhelmingly supported in this house and in the senate and passed. it has been a benefit, not a detriment. in the years since we've seen our military strengthen by the open service of many lgbt americans that have helped advance our national security interests around the world. to say transgender service members in uniform that they must leave their units, not because they're not performing well, not because they're not needed, but because of who they are, not the content of their character, not their service, not their performance, but because of who they are. this would be a shameful action for our country and deprive of us of their talent and contributions. to deny transgender americans the opportunity to put on that uniform and wear the flag of the
country, as i do every day, they wish to serve with me, would be to diminish that flag, that declaration of independence, that constitution of the united .tates of which we are so proud in this colleagues a y will join in sending clear message that the house, not republicans, democrats, but the house, the people's house reflects the values, the service and patriotism of our ransgender fellow americans. let us today reflect the best of of ourues, not the worst
values. pass this resolution. make america proud of its declaration of independence and its constitution and of martin luther king jr.'s admonition to make our judgments based upon content of character, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. carbajal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. carbajal: thank you, mr. speaker. as a veteran, i rise in support of this resolution. when this country first debated the possibility of
african-americans, women, or lgbt people serving in our military, the same doubts, the same report, and the same concerns were raised regarding their service. one of these misleading claims is that allowing transindividuals to serve could -- trans individuals to serve could harm our military ready. mr. speaker, allowing patriotic americans who are willing, capable, and ready to serve their country does not harm readiness. i'll tell you what does. diverting military personnel and billions of dollars in military construction funding to build an unnecessary wall to respond to a nonfabricated military emergency. i want to ask my colleagues who support this shameful service
ban if they believe they have the right to deny an individual their right to be who they are, to limit opportunities because of their gender identity. are these the values america was founded upon? we as a nation are much better than this. during the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell, critics invoked fear upon america saying it would disrupt unit morale and readiness. today, nine years later, we have the most powerful and capable military in the world. for almost three years, transgender troops have been able to serve openly. during that time, there has been no evidence of lack of military readiness or unit cohesion. unfortunately, in return for their service, we are requiring they suppress their identity. this is absolutely unacceptable
and discriminatory. i believe former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey responded best when he stated, the service of the men and women who volunteer, who meet our standards of service is a blessing, not a burden. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. brown. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. brown: mr. speaker, i rise to express my vehement opposition to banning service in the armed services by openly transgender individuals because the trump administration considers transgender identity to be some medically disqualifying condition. gender identity is not a medical condition. it's who we are as individuals. since president truman desegregated the military, we
tore down barriers to the equal treatment and opportunity of every american to serve. women now serve in combat roles, defending our nation as rangers, infantryman and submariners. gay, lesbian and bisexual americans serve our country openly and with distinction. in 2016, the pentagon lifted the ban on transgender americans, allowing them to serve without having to hide their true identity. the fact that thousands of transgender service members are currently serving, meeting, and exceeding standards, are deployed worldwide speaks volumes about their dedication and contributions to our nation. we need their skills, their experience, their courage, and their patriotism. in 1948, many americans agreed that racial segregation in the armed forces was right, but history shows all of us today that they were wrong. former defense secretary gates said no aspect of black americans' quest for justice and equality under the law has been
nobler than what has been called the fight for the right to fight. my 30 years in the army leaves me to believe that all americans who want to serve, who can meet our standards should be given the right to fight. my deep belief is shared by general dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who reiterated that very belief to me just two days ago. we have an obligation to allow transgender americans the right to fight for our nation. we cannot, mr. speaker, settle for this discriminatory policy. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i continue to referee:. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. cisneros. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cisneros: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank mr. kennedy for his leadership on this issue and members and staff of the house armed services committee
for help bringing this important resolution to the house floor. i served in the navy during the time of don't-ask, don't-tell. too many were forced to live their lives in secret, unable to be true to themselves. in 2016, transgender service members were allowed to serve openly in the united states military. individuals like lieutenant commander blake drummond who is still currently on active duty and deployed 11 times. during his testimony in the military personnel subcommittee, he stated that his transition meant that he was no longer compartmentalizing parts of his life. he also stated that his decision to transition made him a better officer and better leader. he has proven it by receiving the navy's award given to the navy's top 134r50eu corps officers. my support for lieutenant commander drummond and all transgender service members is unequivocal. they have sworn tremendous courage and why i fight for inclusion and equality for the lgbtq community. the president's policy is
taking not only our military but our country backwards. it is unnecessary and purely discriminatory action against a group of individuals who want to do nothing more than serve their country and disgusting attack on a community that he once swore to protect. he's attacking service members who have already proven their ability to meet strategic needs and pose no risk to unit cohesion or military readiness. as far as i'm concerned, any person who has the courage, spirit, and commitment to serve our country in uniform when so many choose not to should be allowed to do so. i will vote to pass this resolution and unlike the president i will continue to advocate for and protect our lgbtq community. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of this resolution and denounce the president's hateful policy towards our service members. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities
toward the president. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of this resolution and in opposition to the administration's ban on openly transgender individuals in the armed services. throughout history, each time we have expand the armed services to better reflect the diversity of our generation. the same tired arguments are brought back. any individual within the new group, regardless of their ability, is unfit to serve and disrupt unit cohesion. we heard these arguments with respect to black and latino men, women and gays, lesbian, and bisexuals. we know that's untrue. there are no issues with transgender individuals serving in the military. you don't have to take my word for it, the service chiefs of all five branches of our
military have testified there have been zero instances of .ransgender service members attacking transgender individuals in all areas of america life is cruel and demoral. it is astonishing after years of support our troops' demagoguery from my colleagues across the aisle they would choose to turn their backs on active duty service members and deny them medically prescribed care. after 2 1/2 years of transgender service members serving with no issues, there is one reason and one reason alone for this administration to be bringing back a ban on transgerder service -- transgender service members. to force a bigoted agenda on o the military they cannot force on the rest of the american people. mr. speaker, much of the history of this country is the history of expanding our understanding of who the declaration of independence meant when it said that all men are created equal. it didn't men in 1776 black men, certainly didn't mean
women, it didn't mean native americans, it didn't mean lgbtq people. we have come to the point where we understand aspirationally it means all those things. this resolution gives us a choice. do we join the march, do we continue to march to expand the meaning of the declaration of independence, to declare equality for everyone regardless of specific characteristics? or do we join that dreary procession of slavers and confederates and racists and misogynists who have dragged this country through the mud and besmir shalled the ideas of our declaration of inpens. that's our choice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of
this resolution expressing opposition to president trump's decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this resolution. i thank my friend, mr. kennedy, for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. the president's decision in 2017 to prohibit transgender individuals from military service is disgraceful and wrong. not only is the decision based on ignorance and bigotry, but the evidence shows that there is absolutely no need for this discriminatory policy. america has the strongest and most effective military in the history of the world. and that's because of the brave individuals who serve in uniform. excluding an entire group of highly qualified and skilled individuals from service undermines our national security. in 2016, the obama administration removed the ban on transgender individuals after thoroughly and carefully studying how it would impact military and readiness. a year later president trump announced he would resume prohibiting transgender individuals in a tweet and
didn't bother to tell his secretary of defense about it. the national center for transgender equality estimates over 15,000 transpeople are currently serving in the military. in 2016 a study by the rand corporation found service by transgender individuals does not adversely affect readiness. in fact, many military leaders have acknowledged that the ban will degrade military readiness. this cruel ban seeks to force transgender members of our military back into the closet or out of service. it's the policy that's not based on any fact or careful deliberation, but merely an attempt to score points with the hard right faction of his political base. by doing this the president is hurting our military, making our country less safe, and making our country less just. transgender individuals who serve our country in the armed forces are american heroes. they deserve our thanks. and they deserve more than to be used as a political prop by their commander in chief. we as a country are better than this. mr. speaker, quite simply it is
un-american and immoral to deny transgender individuals who want to serve our country in uniform the right to do so simply because of who they are. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mbers are reminded to engage -- from engaging in perments toward the president. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you. thank you, chairman smith, for your leadership and yielding time. i also want to recognize congressman kennedy for his tremendous leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.res. 124, rejecting the president's discriminatory ban on openly transgender service members in the military. transgender service members have served with honor and distinction and the defense of our country for decades.
yet president trump announced on twitter that transgender service members would no longer be allowed to serve. despite the fact that many military leaders concluded that being transgender does not impact our readiness. president trump's own chief of staff said he hadn't received any reports of problems with unit cohesion or morale regarding transgender service members. the president's cowardly ban makes it clear the prejudice and patriotism guides his decisions as the daughter of a career military officer who served in the segregated military, i know what it's like for our country to betray our american values. as a person of faith i was taught to treat everyone equally. as a african-american woman, i will fight discrimination wherever it surfaces. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i continue to reserve.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman. and i thank the ranking member managing this bill. and i thank mr. kennedy for his insights. we're reminded that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. franklin delano roosevelt offered those great words on the precipice of world war ii, the victory that the united states, troops standing side by side, and some of them african-americans, who lived and served in the uniform but in a segregated way. but their blood was the same. they shared their blood in the same way. they died in the same way. do we want victory or defeat? let me be very clear, allowing transgender to serve and rushing them out is a travesty. do you realize it is clear that the rand report found that
health care coverage for transgender military personnel would increase the u.s. military total account by less than zero. in addition, when all of this was banned, we recognized by the obama administration that we recognize it is honored the sacrifices of selfless transgender service members who have endured exclusion, silence, and persecution, due to discriminatory policies and attitudes against lgbt and military personnel such as don't-ask, don't-tell which was rightfully struck down under the obama administration. we must be against these disruptive practices. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: there is nothing to fear but fear itself. support this resolution to stand with those who want to serve and die for their country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the chair whether the gentleman from washington, the chairman, has any further speakers other than himself? mr. smith: i am prepared to
close at this time. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, it seems to me that the current house leadership seems rather consumed by presidential tweets. as a matter of fact, just a few moments ago the speaker of the house herself was one of those members who had to be reminded that it's a violation of the rules of the house to disparage the character of the president. i guess we could do this every day. the president could tweet and we would have a sense of congress to comment on it. the president would tweet and -- but generally, mr. speaker, i think there is a higher and better purpose for this house to work on the problems that confront the american people. this as i mention add few moments ago, this is a messaging bill. it changes no law. it changes no policy. it could also be done down in the radio tv gallery.
somebody could give a speech. there could be a press conference. it would have the same effect as having this resolution on the floor. i cannot take the -- have the time to correct all of the misstatements in the resolution or that have been made on the floor today. i will say this, mr. speaker, if we're going to do messaging, my primary message is that every individual who serves our nation in the military is entitled to respect and our appreciation. every single individual. and i am among those who was very impressed, by the way, by the transgender individuals who testified in front of our personnel subcommittee just a few weeks ago. but on the substance of this issue, i believe the principle is that the department of
defense -- for the department of defense that any eligible individual who can can meet the high standards for military service without special accommodation should be permitted to serve. any eligible individual who can meet the standard without special accommodation should be permitted to serve. i think that's the standard. that's not exactly what we have been talking about today, but that's the standard. it should be the standard. there may be some difference abouts what a special accommodation is, about various medical diagnoses and conditions. i understand that. but the standard is, if you meet the standard, without special accommodation, you should be permitted to serve. those who serve deserve our respect and our appreciation. that's the point. that's not really the point of this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker.
i yield myself the balance of our time. let's remember one important point. there was no problem. this was not an issue. it was not talked about. until the president decided in his words he wanted to ban transgender people from serving in the military. i hope that's not engaging in personalities, it's simply saying what he said and did. he sent out a tweet saying we should ban people in transgender. and the military has had to backfill that tweet with a policy. and i feel bad for the members of the military who have had to do that. who have had to waste their time for the last year trying to accommodate the ignorance and bigotry of this presidential policy. there was no problem. every single service chief testified there is no impact on unit cohesion. we weren't talking about that until the president decided that he wanted to discriminate against transgender people. . and i think the ranking member of the armed services committee is correct. all eligible person who can
perform the duties should be allowed to serve. this policy violates that principle in a whole bunch of different ways but i will simply mention two. even if you've already transitioned, even if you've already gone through all of the health care needs and have fully transitioned to a new gender, this policy says you will not be allowed to serve if you are transgender. that means that fully qualified people, not ones who have potential future surgery or anything, are being banned from serving. it also says if you're serving now, you cannot be who you are. and this is where the ignorance comes in. what do you mean? you got to be the gender you were born in. that's not the way it works. that is ignorance talking, and this policy saying, no, sorry, you have to be in your, quote, biological sex, which means you have to deny who you are and that will also ban people from serving who are otherwise 100% qualified. without question, trans men and
women who are fully qualified to serve in the military will be banned by this policy. we've already seen the other two -- well, the health care costs will go up. no, they want. the stats, the evidence, the facts show transgender people have no greater health care cost than the average person serving in the military. and the unit cohesion argument is an absolute joke. this debate, this policy, prompted by the president, inserting discrimination where it did not belong, is the only thing that's caused any of this issue. as general millie said, zero evidence of any unit cohesion issue. so let's be 100% clear here. this policy is based on ignorance and bigotry. and why are we doing it on the house floor instead of down in some press conference somewhere? because the vote of this house matters more than just the individual words of a few members. i, as a member of the united states house and as a citizen of the united states of america, want my congress to go on record
that we will not stand for ignorance and bigotry in our military or anywhere else. a vote of this house makes it clear just how wrong-headed this policy is and make no mistake, this is not the military that wanted this. the president drove it and he's causing problems that do not need to be caused. we should reject this policy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 252, the previous question is ordered on the resolution and the preamble. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the resolution -- the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.
pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the house resolution 124 will be followed by five-minute votes on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. and this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238. the nays are 185 with one member answering present. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. his is a five-minute vote.
the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, this letter is to inform you of my intention to resign from my seat on the house committee on science, space, and technology effective immediately. i appreciate your assistance with this request and the opportunity to serve on the committee in the 115th congress. signed, sincerely, neal p. dunn. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the rest ignition is accepted. -- resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from wyoming seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by treks of the house republican conference, i send to the specific a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 264, resolved, that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the
following standing committee of the house of representatives. committee on science, space, and technology, ms. herrera beutler. miss gonzalez-colon of puerto rico. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table s. 863, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 863, an act amend title 38 united states code to clarify the grade and pay of podiatrist of the department of veterans affairs. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. olson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from furpt consideration of h.r. 962, the born alive abortion survivors protection act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships. mr. olson: if this request can not be general tained, on behalf of the human beings, babies -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not recognized for debate.
mr. olson: mr. speaker, this necessary -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not recognized for ebate. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorabler yorble, the speaker, house of representatives. madam, pursuant to section 1652-b of the john s. mccain national defense authorization act, for fiscal year 2019, i am pleased to appoint the following member to the cyber space solarium commission. the honorable mike gallagher of wisconsin. signed, sincerely, kevin mccarthy, republican leader. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition?
>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for two important reasons. mr. scalise: one is to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week. and also to inquire of the majority leader the score of the l.s.u.-maryland basketball game from last week. and i yield to my good friend. the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. chairman, i anticipated this was going to e an extraordinarily hostile colloquy. louisiana was so incredibly lucky. however, it cost me, i admit to the world, i guess, i hope i don't get in legal trouble, but the republican whip and i had a
little sort of side bet, so i owe the republican whip a crab dinner for four people. that's the bad news. the good news is the minority whip will now be eating the best crab in america, not louisiana crab. it will be maryland crab that i will be giving him for dinner. i yield back to my friend if he would like to ask questions about the schedule and stop -- he already did ask me, i'm told. i knew that game was coming. mr. scalise: i'll be happy to ask both questions again. i look forward to the maryland crab dinner. i think as the gentleman from maryland knows, a lot of times when you go to places and they say it's maryland crab it's really gulf of mexico crabs because they want the best quality to offer the patrons. we were excited to see the buzzer-beater. i know both of us were waiting in those last 12 seconds to see which team would walk away with
the sweet 16 banner. and proud that my mighty fighting tigers of l.s.u. were in that number. but we will come to d.c. and hopefully you will now be rooting for us so you can can say you rooted for the eventual national champion. l.s.u. tigers, to win the final four. with that i'll now yield to hear about the schedule for the coming week in congress. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i think it keeps getting worse, i think. in event we'll move on to the schedule. i congratulate l.s.u., they played an excellent game. as did maryland. it was a really good game. there's got to be one winner, one loser. we lost. we have the youngest team, the fourth youngest team in the ncaas. so we'll be back. we'll be next year, maybe we'll be able to play l.s.u. again if they make it. on monday, the house will meet at 12:00 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business, with
votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12 p.m. for leverage business. on wednesday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. and recess immediately. the house will reconvene at 11:00 a.m. for the purpose of receiving a joint meeting with the senate. his excellency, january sultenburg, the secretary-general of the north atlantic treaty organization will address us. members are advised to be on the house floor and seated no later than 10:30 a.m. for the joint meeting. mr. speaker, on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business with last votes no later than 3:00 p.m. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. the complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. mr. speaker, the house will also consider major piece of legislation, h.r. 1585, the violence against women re-authorization act of 2019.
frankly, that bill should have been re-authorized prior to september 30 of last year, the last congress. we extended it until february 15 of this year, at which time it lapsed. we're very hopeful and expect that this will pass this next week. it is sponsored by representative karen bass. i'm pleased to bring this bipartisan bill to respond to our nation's crisis of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. the violence against women act officially expired on september 30, as i said, extended and is way overdue that we consider a long-term authorization of this legislation. mr. speaker, it is possible that we will bring to the floor legislation regarding the
crisis that is occurring in yemen. there are 22 million people at risk of starvation. 22 million people. noncombatants and women and children. we also may consider other legislation, if it comes from the senate. i yield back to the minority whip. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for the schedulele update. i would like to inquire, we know that there is only seven legislative days left for congress to meet its required deadline to provide a budget, april 15 deadline. what troubles me is that there has been no budget brought through the house budget committee. in fact, there's been reports that your majority doesn't plan to bring a budget at all. obviously the budgets are very
important to show the priorities of our congress, to show the priorities of each of our majorities, to, as we did in seven of the eight years we were in the majority, not only doing a budget, but then this last year we were able to achieve a two-year budget agreement so we were able to know with certainty what the budget numbers were that we would actually be working on to draft appropriations bills. again, the bills that carry out the priorities of congress to show the country how we're going to properly fund government at the levels that we, as a congress, set, which is what the budget does. as i have seen there is no current budget agreement negotiation going on that's yielding anything. without a budget agreement, does the gentleman plan to provide and bring a budget to the house floor? mr. hoyer: it is very interesting question, mr. speaker, that the minority whip
asked me. i would ask in response, does the minority whip remember when last year when you were in charge you brought the budget to the floor? mr. scalise: if the gentleman yields back. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. scalise: i'll be happy to walkthrough the last eight years. mr. hoyer: i asked you a simple question, reclaiming my time, i asked you a simple question, mr. whip. you asked me about when the budget was coming. i asked you when did you bring the budget to the floor last year? mr. scalise: if the gentleman would yield. mr. hoyer: i yield. mr. scalise: last year as the gentleman knows we were working under a two-year budget agreement. typically we don't have a two-year budget agreement. you bring one budget and that's the budget for that year. so for fiscal year 2012 the house passed a budget. in our majority we passed a budget to establish those numbers to then start the appropriations process.
in 2013 we passed through the house a budget to establish the 2013 budget numbers to work off of. in 2014 we passed a budget through the house to establish the budget for that fiscal year. in 2015 we passed a budget through the house to establish the budget for that year. in 2016 we actually got an agreement both between the house and the senate, passed the budget, of course, through the house, and the senate, fiscal year 2017. we passed a budget through the house and the senate and got a full agreement to do an appropriations process. in fiscal year 2018, as the gentleman knows, we actually agree to a two-year budget agreement. to not only set the fiscal year numbers for one year, but for two years, which was tremendously helpful in making sure that our nation's defense, which many times had been used as bargaining chips for other budget negotiations, we took that off the table.
we made sure our men and women in uniform had the certainty of a two-year budget agreement, which doesn't happen often. frankly it should happen more often. we should strive towards that. so we achieved it. so in 2019 as the gentleman knows, we passed a budget out of the house budget committee, but we already had a budget agreement to work through the appropriations process because we had done a two-year budget the prior year. we don't even have a one-year budget agreement right now. as the gentleman knows there is no fruitful negotiations to get a one or two-year budget agreement so there is no budget number to work off of, which is why you produce a budget. last year we did bring a bill out of committee but we didn't need to pass a budget because we already had the budget number agreed to from the two-year deal prior. so with that is the gentleman willing to engage in or come to an agreement on at least a one or two-year budget agreement so we can actually have an
appropriations process that works for the country and shows the priorities of this nation? i yield back. mr. hoyer: i appreciate, mr. speaker, the -- a lot of words of the minority whip, he didn't pass the budget last year. there was no fiscal year 2019 budget. he is correct that we had reached a caps deal. that is not the budget, mr. speaker. a budget is a plan that is reported out and brought to the floor and passed and sent to the senate and the senate passes and we have a budget that is in the same position on each side of the aisle. that's a budget. that has rarely been done in the last eight years. a caps deal has been reached. i would like to see a caps deal reached. i've been talking to mr. mcconnell who wants a caps deal reached. i've talked to mr. shelby, both of those republican leaders. i've talked to the white house about a caps deal.
unfortunately i don't think mr. mulvaney wants to reach a caps deal. he wants to use it as leverage, as opposed to allowing us to proceed in the regular order. but a budget is a different kettle of fish, i will tell my friend, than a caps deal. the caps deal does in fact set the 302 level of discretionary funding for both defense and nondefense spending. yes, we reached a two-year cap. deal. i've been -- cap deal. i've been trying for the last two months to get meaningful negotiations under way to do the ame. i haven't been successful. mainly because the president and mr. mulvaney aren't interested in reaching such a deal. i regret that. but the budget committee is meeting this week, next week. it's going to meet next week. and we are going to be reporting will be what the
minority whip refers to as a budget. it will certainly speak to the levels of funding that we need to spend. because i want to pass the appropriation bills by june 30. that's never been done. but i want to do it. i think we can do it. mr. speaker, and i'm going to work toward that objective. it will require reaching what numbers are going to be for discretionary spending. unfortunately the budget the president of the united states sent down to the congress is totally unreasonable and irrational. and there's not a single person, i think, on this floor who will support his budget and i will tell the minority whip that i would be glad to give his party the opportunity to vote on the president's budget. if he asked me, i'll have it put on the floor. mr. speaker, it is unfortunate
that we are not able to get to a budget caps deal. we passed, again, in my view, irrational, and i voted for, it i'm sorry i voted for it, budget control act. creating the sequester. the sequester is a complicated word which starts with s which i tell my people in my districts and town meetings stands for stupid. it was an irrational document that took numbers out of the air without regard to our responsibilities and our opportunities. but i am hopeful, and i tell the republican whip, my friend, that we are going to try to hopefully, working -- working with his party, establish some reasonable, rational numbers for defense and nondefense discretionary spending so that we can move ahead with doing what really makes the difference, and that is the adoption of appropriation bills on this floor, send them to the senate, and have the senate consider them and we'll have a
conference, we'll pass those bills and send them to the president of the united states. and i yield back to my friend. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. i too am hopeful that we're able to start an appropriations process and ideally to complete it by summer. well in advance of the september 30 government funding deadline. because we shouldn't be operating under deadline after deadline where we go until the midnight hour. but as the gentleman knows, you can't start an appropriations process until you actually set what are known as the 302 numbers. the 302-a and 302-b numbers. so we know what each bill can target in terms of their overall spending number, to have that caps limit. ideally it would be done through a budget, but maybe the gentleman's going to be able to work with the committee to get a budget passed out of committee before the deadline. but if not, as the gentleman urges hopeful desire to get a caps deal, i would like to get a caps deal as well. i supported the last caps deal
because it gave us two years of certainty. it was bipartisan. it was an agreement that while we may disagree on top line numbers and we want more money for defense and some on your side more -- might want more for nondefense discretionary, we finally came to an agreement. that gave certainty to our men and women in uniform and over 70% of our federal government was fund fuly funded for the fiscal -- fully funded for the fiscal year. we had a difference on border security and that remaining area of our budget wasn't funded. t at least for the 70-%--- 70%-plus, the american people were able to see us achieve that and hopefully we can do something like that again well before the deadline. that's the objective. hopefully we can get there. i'd be happy to yield. mr. hoyer: i want the public, mr. speaker, to understand that a caps deal is not a budget. there are two separate items.
a budget is a plan for expenditure on defense and nondefense objectives. a caps deal is to simply set, not necessarily those priorities per se, but to set a top-level -- top level of discretionary spending. that's why it's called a cap. it's been about a $1.1 trillion or $1.2 trillion, now it's going to be a little over that this year, i presume, for discretionary spending. most of the budget, of course, is not discretionary spending. 2/3 of the budget is either mandatory spending or debt payment. but i just want to clarify that we are talking about two separate items. one, a budget, which is a budget plan, which can in fact include caps within it. but a caps deal is a separate deal, as the gentleman has pointed out, we've usually made them now for two years since the sequester would otherwise have gone into effect. the reason we've made that deal, both sides, both sides are
unwilling to follow the sequester. because we think the sequester does not make rational sense for the security of our country. and for the investments our country needs to make. the president doesn't want to do that either. the difference is, he wants to borrow an additional $180 billion-plus to fund defense and leave domestic discretionary spending largely at 2010 or 2009 levels. we think that doesn't make sense. but i will clarify for the gentleman again that the budget committee is in fact considering what legislation they should bring to the floor in order to facilitate us as the budget, as the caps deals did, to facilitate us achieving the ability to mark up our appropriation bills, send them to the senate, and try to reach agreement between the senate and the house prior to september 30 and certainly to avoid the
historic and very harmful shutdown that occurred at the end of the last congress and continued into this congress. and i would yield to my friend. mr. scalise: i again thank the gentleman for yielding back. as i pointed out earlier, you have two methods within which to set those caps. you can do it through the budget. which seven of the eight years we were in the majority we did. or you can do it through a separate caps deal, which two years ago we were able to do for a two-year period, which is why we didn't do a budget last year. we passed it out of committee and at least showed what our priorities are. but we didn't need to pass a budget to get a caps deal because we had a caps deal in place from the prior year. the other seven years there was no caps deal. so the budget laid out that number. the gentleman's majority has done neither. you don't have a caps deal or a budget. so at some point you're going to have to produce the number to show what we're going to start the appropriations process
using. and the other part of the budget , which isn't talked about as much, but is equally important, is the establishment of the priorities for that majority. how do we get back to a balanced federal budget, for example? we laid that out in our budget multiple times. you have programs like medicare, medicare's going bankrupt if we do nothing. it would be irresponsible for us to let medicare go bankrupt. reports show it could go bankrupt in the next eight years. which we think is irresponsible. that's why we put in our budget a plan to save medicare from bankruptcy. whatever the gentleman's plan would be to save medicare from bankruptcy, i would urge him to show it. show the american people what the priorities are, but they haven't done that. and why? why haven't they done that? because they've spent the last two years trying to impeach the president. trying to lay out this foundation that there was collusion -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. scalise: the gentleman will yield in a moment. but let's be clear. for the last two years, we heard
this clarion call that there was some collusion between the president or his family and russia. we heard all these talks, impeachment and everything on down, from the highest levels. including now the chairman of the house intelligence committee , who went multiple times on national tv and said there was more than credible evidence of collusion. finally, everybody was waiting on the mueller report. many were hanging their hat going, it's going to show all these things, there's going to be lists of indictments. go look at all the tape from every national tv show you can imagine, of some of the most outlandish claims that were made and now the mueller report comes out and it's clear those claims are baseless. there was no collusion. mr. hoyer: the mueller report is not out. mr. scalise: there was no collusion. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? the mueller report is not out. mr. scalise: the attorney general -- we will see the full mueller report, clearly we've seen assessments of it. if the gentleman thinks it's
going to show something differently, then please share it, but they've made it clear there was no collusion and there will be no further indictments. in fact, the attorney general of the united states said this. but as noted above, the special counsel did not find that the trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with the russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from russian affiliated individuals to assist the trump campaign. so multiple times they were offered, they never even came close. there was no collusion. these conspiracy theories, the witch hunts, it's time for it to end. there was no collusion. if you or any of your colleagues have proof of collusion, as your chairman of the intelligence committee claims, they need to show that to the attorney general of the united states, because it completely contradicts what the attorney general has now said, based on
the findings of the mueller report. there was no collusion. so when chairman schiff says, quote, more than circumstantial evidence that he's seen that associates of president trump colluded with russia. in august, quote, i think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight, and even now that the attorney general makes it very clear there was no collusion, the chairman of the intelligence committee will not recant his previous statements that have been discounted. so, today, as the gentleman knows, this morning, every member of the nye mortgage party on the house intelligence -- minority party on the house tense committee called for the chairman -- intelligence committee called for the chairman of the intelligence committee to step down. every member. and so i would ask the gentleman, will you call for the chairman of the intelligence committee to step down as chairman after losing so much credibility in the wild and vicious claims that he's made
that have been disputed by the attorney general of the united states based on this mueller report, after 22 months, and over $20 million of taxpayer money that found no collusion? and i yield. mr. hoyer: what it found is six of the president's closest associates, his campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his foreign policy advisor, his national security counsel his lawyer and for over a decade, all committed crimes, all were either convicted or pled. mr. scalise: crimes of collusion? mr. hoyer: to crimes. mr. scalise: will the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: no, i don't -- won't. you had a lot to say. i have something in response. there is not a person on our side of the aisle that doesn't believe the letter that shoed regarding mr. schiff -- that you issued regarding mr. schiff isn't a partisan distraction
from what you hope is not found. there has been no mueller report yet that we have received. the gentleman, mr. speaker, voted to have the mueller report , as did every other member on his side of the aisle, and every member on our side of the aisle, to be disclosed. hopefully it will be. hopefully it will not be just a four-page letter from an attorney general of the united states appointed by mr. trump. hopefully we will get mr. mueller's full report. that's what the congress voted to get. that's what we expect to get. and that's what we hope to get. but let me assure the gentleman, there is not a person on my side of the aisle that believes that mr. schiff has done anything but act in the highest interest of our government, of the intelligence committee, and of full knowledge for the american people. unlike his predecessor.
unlike his predecessor who worked hand in glove with the white house, not as an independent co-equal branch of government, but as an advocate for white house's position. who clearly should have been removed and was not. . i want to tell the minority whip, mr. schiff is a member of the highest integrity, highest intellect, and great responsibility. we expect, i expect him it pursue his responsibilities as chairman of the intelligence committee to assure that neither russia nor any other country will in the future be able to interfere in the elections of the united states, as mr. mueller concluded the russians have. the president hasn't concluded that, but almost every american
understands that the russians tried to, on behalf of the president of the united states, affect the elections. i tell my friend, i hope that we can have the debate. let's look at the mueller report. very frankly there are other investigations that are going on as the gentleman knows in the southern district of new york. as well as in the government operations committee. as well as in the foreign relations committee. as well as in the financial services committee. as well as in the intelligence committee. we still pail -- pale into incision in the number of investigations that we have had or oversight hearings that we have had when compared to the oversight hearings you had of the obama administration and mrs. clinton in trying to undermine their credibility. an administration, by the way, at i don't think anybody was
put in legal jeopardy, and there were no scandals in the obama administration. there were disagreements, but i would think the gentleman ought to be very reserved, very flange, in terms of making conclusions based upon a four-page letter before we have seen the mueller report, before we have seen the actions of the southern district of new york, and before we have seen the results of the oversight hearings that are continuing. i yield. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there are a number of -- items that need to be addressed in what the gentleman just said. first of all, to claim that there was any collusion, as you said, quote, on behalf of the president of the united states with russia, goes in complete contradiction to the findings that were delivered to us by the toirge -- attorney general of the united states. i'll read it one more time. as we noted above the special counsel did not find that the
trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with the russian government. anyone who would make a claim to the contrary is either being irresponsible or ought to show the evidence. if there is evidence that the chairman of the intelligence committee has, let's be clear, he's tweeted things out, here is what we know. this is from chairman schiff, in 2017, here is what we know. the russians offered help. the campaign accepted help. the russians gave help. the president made full use of that help. he's claimed again that he has more than circumstantial evidence that there wasco lution. yet the attorney general of the united states -- collusion -- there was collusion. yet the attorney general of the united states in the report obviously within the confines of the law, the law makes it clear how something like that gets reported, i hope the gentleman understands and wouldn't suggest that classified information should be disclosed.
but the report ought to be disclosed and show the american people what they found, but we have seen the summary of it. and of course we're going to look at the entire thing. and maybe then after reviewing the entire thing if the gentleman does see, as the report summary shows, that there was no collusion with the president of the united states, then maybe this gentleman, and all the other people that have made outrageous claims that the president was in collusion, will maybe acknowledge they were wrong l. maybe offer an apology. who knows? we can hold out hope for that. but let's be clear about the statements that were made and the things that were alluded to that aren't true, that a weren't the case. no one should hope that the president of the united states, any president, conspired with the foreign government. but to suggest it over and over again for two years and then for all of this 22 months of over $20 million
of taxpayer money. more of our committees have troun all of their oversight operations to thoroughly investigate they found no collusion. should the russians liked to meddlele with elections they have done it before and make sure it doesn't happen together again and work together on that. but to suggest the president of the united states colluded when he didn't is irresponsible. it's happened over and over and it continues to this day. it's got to stop. this idea that maybe some other attempt to go and harass the president and his family will find something else, it gives credence to the claims it was a witch-hunt. it's time for us to focus on the real problems of this country. it's also time for us to hold people in our intelligence agencies accountable who showed up at their job with a partisan agenda. f.b.i. or c.i.a., any intelligence agency is no place for you to bring your political agenda. we all have political views. if you put that badge on and you accept that responsibility, and then you use that position to abuse your power, we all
ought to call on it to be rooted out. i hope it is. if there were abuses of the fisa process, which is a very important court, has a very narrow focus to protect the national security of this country. if the fisa court was abused by people in positions of power because they wanted to carry out a political agenda, because they didn't like the results of the 2016 presidential leaks, that's not the place for it. -- election, that's not the place for it. the ballot box is where to carry it out. not wearing a badge and being a member of law enforcement in this country. i hope that's rooted out because we want to see the integrity of those institutions like the f.b.i. restored. i want the country to have full faith and confidence that the people working there are carrying out the national security interests of the country, not their own political interests. there are a lot of questions raised over whether or not that happened. in the end when we review the report, we have seen the summary, if people are still hoping that there is some mystery indictment out there, they said, there are no further
indictments. they said there was no collusion with the presidential campaign. what time is your side going to acknowledge it didn't happen? if you want to change the results of the presidential election, the results are changed at the ballot box. that's how we resolve it in america. we don't try to find something on a president that doesn't exist. we have done oversight. you have done oversight. the mueller investigation was the ultimate oversight for 22 months, and it rooted out and found there was no collusion between the president and the russians. maybe some people are disappointed to hear it. we should all celebrate that as a country. we all ought to be concerned that no president of the united states is targeted by an intelligence agency or by a congress or majority or minority because they don't like the results of the election so they are going to abuse power to go and try to take them down. that's not the way we do it. i hope we can finally focus on the real problems of this country.
and not continue to use these committees, even after they didn't find what they were looking for, to keep finding something that's not there. the former chairman that was alluded to, mr. nunes, did a very impeccable job of carrying out his duties to find the facts. it was always about the facts. if you go and look at how he carried himself and managed his committee, the entire time it was about finding the facts. and they looked, we looked. there was no collusion that we found. if someone has proof of that collusion that they keep alluding to, it's time for them to show it. show the american people what you have. don't run around hiding saying you have something when the attorney general says it's not there. if you know about collusion, you owe it to the country to show it. if it's not there, stop saying it. it's irresponsible. hopefully everybody heeds those words and we get back to focusing on what's important for this country. express our political differences. obviously, if there is a political difference that we have with each other, with the president, with a cabinet
secretary, we have all kind of forums to express that opposition to correct it. to bring legislation to the floor. but if we just don't like somebody personally, that's not what we're here to do. and i hope we can get beyond that. i would yield to the gentleman. -- -- the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i don't think i'll respond to all of that, time being of the essence, i suppose. the gentleman speaks, represents a party who held eight hearings, all headed by republicans, on mrs. clinton. all eight reached the same conclusion. but the first one wasn't enough. the second one wasn't enough. the third one, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh wasn't enough, so the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, was appointed to do one more. because it was pretty close to the election then, mr. speaker.
and the majority leader, now the minority leader of this house, said, oh, no. they accomplished something. they accomplished the political objective. he said that on television. roundly criticized by his party. why did you say that? why did you admit that? but for the minority whip to say that the mueller report instigated x millions of dollars spent for political purposes, it was -- mueller was appointed by a republican. not by a democrat. and the attorney general recused himself so that the deputy attorney general, mr. rosenstein, was the one who made the appointment. why did he he recuse himself? because he had been involved, contrary to what he testified to in his nominating hearing, nomination hearing, to the russian ambassador.
i don't know whether there was anything substantive in that conversation, because we don't fully know what that conversation was. but the fact of the matter is for the minority whip to be talking about political hearings or oversight, and then to say, he's had an opportunity to review the mueller report. you have had more than i have. mr. scalise: for clarification -- mr. hoyer: reviewed the barr letter, four pages appointed by mr. trump. and what we know is barr's reading and his conclusion. but frankly we knew that before. because he said a 19-page letter months ago that he thought this investigation would not reach any conclusion. and that it should not. and that the president could not be held accountable in any event. that was justice department policy. so i listened to a long
discussion. in my view, with all due respect, i tell my friend, the whip, at odds with the performance of their administration and the eight hearings they had in trying to bring mrs. clinton down, and never finding, never, eight hearings, all led by republicans. to a conclusion that led to anything. so we'll see what the mueller report says. i hope, and i'm pleased that the whip and his party voted to have the mueller report fully disclosed. he is correct, there are some national security interests that will properly restrict some of that so we don't outsources. -- out sources. or ways and means of discovering information. having said that, we will have a time, mr. whip, to debate
this. we'll have a time to debate it when we have the information. we'll have a time to debate it, perhaps months from now, when all of these investigations are through. but i wouldn't take too much solace in what the mueller report did. it led to, as i said, the indictment and conviction of the president's campaign manager. it led to the indictment and conviction, either through plea or trial, of the five other individuals to date. that is not something, i think, that -- to be very proud of in terms of the president of the united states being so close to d so involved, mr. cohen particularly, brings that information forth to a hearing,
and he was -- apparently his closest legal advisor for over a decade. so we'll see. but i don't think now, mr. speaker, is the time to debate it because the time to debate it will be to see when we see and the american people see the mueller report. yes, i am -- i want to say my friend so he understands, i am pleased that we don't have a finding that the president of the united states colluded, as he said he did not do. colluded is not a legal term. it's not conspiracy -- conspiracy is the graph min -- gravamen or the essence of a criminal activity, a conspiracy to commit something that is illegal. but we have a time to debate that. and discuss it. and the american people hopefully are going to have an opportunity to reach their own
conclusion, which obviously in the final analysis will be the most important conclusion. but the good news is we're continuing to do the substantive business of the people of the united states. we're continuing to focus on jobs. we had numerous hearings this week on jobs, on wages. we had numerous hearings on health care and the costs of health care and the costs of prescription drugs. . we passed one of the most far-reaching reform bills that we've seen on the floor of this house. h.r. 1. every democrat voted for it. almost every democrat -- republican voted against it. we've passed just today pay equity. we have passed some rational, reasonable controls on people with criminal records or on the
no-fly list or with mental health problems, from not getting weapons of -- to a lot of -- to hurt a lot of people quickly. we've seen the tragedy here and around the world. so we've done a lot of very substantive legislation in a relatively short time and very frankly would have done more if the republicans hadn't left the government -- hadn't let the government shut down and preetedly open -- repeatedly voted against opening it up for the first month of our session. so, mr. speaker, this is obviously about scheduling. if we're going to continue to bring substantive bills to the the needs spond to of the american people. and, yes, we can do oversight as well. but that will not preclude us from pursuing, as the majority, the agenda that we think the american people sent us here to
washington and made us the majority to do. and i hope that my republican friends will join us in that effort and offer substantive amendments when they think there are differences that they have with that legislation, consider those and send them to the senate. because that's really what the people want us to do. and to the gentleman's observation about impeachment, i know he's been here. i know he's voted on efforts by some to move ahead on impeachment. and surely i know that he knows the overwhelming majority of democrats voted no. and i know that he must have heard speaker pelosi say that we're not pursuing impeachment. we want to focus on the needs of the american people. i'm sure he heard that, mr. speaker. but he tends to reference otherwise on that. and i think that's not accurate.
and the american people ought to understand that we are pursuing their agenda, their jobs, their health care, the welfare of their families. that's what our duty is, that's what our responsibility is, and that's what we're doing. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. whether or not there's an ultimate move towards something like impeachment, which i hope wouldn't come, with all the things we know there are, no high crimes or misdemeanors, there's not even collusion. there are still committee chairmen in your own party that are talking about impeachment. it's not something made up. there's leaders in your party talking about it. the chairman of the judiciary committee issued more than 80 subpoenas. again, you can keep looking -- look at the summary of the mueller report. 2,800 subpoenas.
more than 500 search warrants. interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. so, you can talk about people that were indicted that had nothing to do with the collusion, nothing to do with any ties to the president, maybe somebody had filed a false tax return. go throw the book at them. mr. cohen came and lied to congress. and he deserves to go to jail for it. what did your majority do? they brought him back as their star witness. a man who was already guilty of lying to congress came, swore himself in, and likely lied to congress again. so again, throw the book at him. but in terms of what the basis of the investigation was, it was to find collusion and they found none. no further indictments, no evidence of collusion. in fact, saw the trump campaign pushing back at even offers for
help. foreign governments like russia trying to interfere with our elections clearly happened. not just russia. other countries too. and we all ought to be concerned about it. we all ought to make sure that our defenses are as high as we can make them, so that they're not able to collude. you've seen companies in america that were taken advantage of during that campaign season. and they've taken corrective actions too. so that russia can't use social media companies in this nation to try to take advantage of our electoral system. but in terms of collusion with the president of the united states and a foreign government, it didn't happen. if anybody has evidence to the contrary, show it to the american people. stop alluding behind some cloak and dagger conspiracy theory that it happened still to this day, when the mueller investigation concluded it didn't happen. we'll get the full report. i look forward to reviewing it
just as the gentleman from maryland looks forward to reviewing it. and maybe we'll continue this conversation. but if all of the findings that the attorney general gave us in his summary are accurate, which i don't discount they will be, i think they will be -- i have the highest level of confidence that the attorney general's summary is accurate. it's not clearly -- if it's not, clearly we'll be taking that up separately. but we ought to celebrate the fact that there was no collusion. but then move on. and the people that made accusations that turned out to be baseless ought to apologize there are people's personal lives that were being questioned. they ought to hold themselves accountable and to a higher standard. and those are the points that i was making. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? scholschol-- mr. scalise: i'd be happy to yield. mr. hoyer: is my friend at all concerned that somebody he didn't mention, mr. flynn, was
fact indicted and convicted of lying about his relationship with the russians and his having , in ukraine, pe which he failed to disclose? he was appointed to one of the highest offices, the national security advisor to the president. and he lied about his relationship with the russias -- russians to law enforcement, which is a crime, and was convicted. nd in fact pled. i understand what mr. barr has said in a four-page letter after some 48 hours of review of all of the documents, all of the evidence, that was deduced.
none of us know, i'm not going to make a conclusion until i have an opportunity to review the report. and i hope we'll have a full debate upon that. but all of us are concerned, republicans and democrats, about the extraordinary number of people very close to the president and most importantly flynn, who was the national security advisor to the president, convicted of lying to law enforcement. some not paying their taxes. of cheating the american people and all of us by not paying their fair share, what was due. i think that ought to be of concern to all of us. these weren't just some people. they were the president's campaign chairman, they were one of the president's foreign policy advisors. it was his personal attorney. .or 10 years, a so-called fixer
did anything he was told or implied to do. we ought to all have concern about that. but we ought to also be happy that hopefully, correctly, mr. mueller found that we were not in a conspiracy with, i don't know about that, but colluding with, i don't really know what that exactly means. i have a sense, but it's not a legal issue. that the president did not. because any president that did collude with a foreign government who is clearly not our friend and indeed, for the most part, our competitor and, yes, enemy, that would be something i think of which all of us would be extraordinarily concerned. so i'm glad that mr. mueller didn't find that. but to think that, as the
president says, this was a white wash and no problems, when five or six of your closest allies and friends have been or are about to be sent to jail, that's not something to be happy about. it wasn't that mueller didn't find wrongdoing. what mueller didn't find was beyond a shadow of a doubt. that there was criminal behavior on which he believed he could act. that's what barr said. and the -- and in fact mr. mueller in barr's letter concluded that the president could not be exonerated or insbited -- indicted on the basis of obstruction of justice. he made a conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence. we don't know the answer to that
question. but mr. mueller says he could not find beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore made no assessment as to whether he did or did not. in any event, we need to move on, as i said, mr. speaker, with the people's business. jobs, health care, integrity in government, safety in our neighborhoods, education of our children, the health of our people. and i will tell the whip that i look forward to working with him on such an agenda for the people. and i yield back for a final time, my time. mr. scalise: i would share the gentleman's concern about addressing those important issues. i will say, for the five people that the gentleman referenced, anybody who broke the law ought to be held accountable. but after 500 witnesses interviewed and over 2,800 subpoenas all looking to find collusion with the russian
government, not one of the people you mentioned had anything to do with colluding with the russian government. if they made misstatements, if they didn't pay their taxes, then make0 subpoenas, sure that they're held accountable for the things they did, but don't suggest that it had anything to do with collusion with russia, because it didn't. and again, go pull 500 names out of the phone book and if you put the full weight of the united states government and 2,800 subpoenas into looking into 500 random people, i'm sure not one of them will have done anything wrong and hopefully not, but if they did, and it had nothing to do with what you were initially looking for, let's not try to suggest it had anything to do with collusion, because it didn't. we'll see the full report, we look forward to seeing that, again, hopefully if the full report shows what we've already seen in the summary, that there was no collusion, then people who have been claiming there was
collusion will also hold themselves accountable, maybe apologize. maybe recant. but surely stop continuing any kind of witch hunt and then focus on these important issues like getting our economy even stronger, working with this president to solve big problems, which we have the opportunity to do. to get a real trade agreement with our neighbors, mexico and canada. all of whom want to have better trade relationships with us. can help benefit our economy and create more jobs and have fair labor standards. something we have in front of us an opportunity to do in a bipartisan way. maybe get a budget agreement so that we can have certainty well before the september 30 deadline, how we're going to fund our government in a responsible way. make sure our men and women in uniform don't have to wonder whether or not they're going to get paid while they're deployed in a foreign country. make sure we can focus on lowering health care costs, immigration reform that can solve some of the big problems on border security and so many other areas. so hopefully we can find agreement on that and i'm sure
in the coming weeks we will, on some, if not all, of those issues. i look forward to working with the gentleman to do that. and i appreciate while we go back and forth sometimes, we can have a little fun with our hobbies, but we also have big, important tasks. and i know that the gentleman carries out his role in the most responsible way, to promote the agenda that he thinks is best for this country, as do i. and ideally we can find a lot of intersection where we can work together to get really good things done for the american people. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house i adjourns today it adjourn -- house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow and further, when the house adjourns on that day, it
adjourn to meet at noon on monday night, on april 1, 2013, for morning hour debate, and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. recognition of major john ostenburg of illinois, son, father, grandfather, legislator, leader collaborator, author, speaker, editor, reporter environmentalist, unionist, merchant, director, advisor, lecturer, painter, reader, traveler, humanitarian and
ubiquitous friend. ms. kelly: we do not exist for ourselves his mentor once said. en he uttered those words it caught the attention of john ostenburg. it happens that many endeavors share a common thread, to serve others for the greater good he make shures every role he plays positively impacts others. that's who he. is a per petch -- a perpetual he comes mankind, complete with the wise grin of a friend, with career highlight taos too long to list and colleague taos numerous to count, i commend and thank john ostenburg for his service to those across the second congressional district of illinois. on their behalf and on behalf of the united states, i wish park
forest mayor john ostenburg god speed as he retires from elected office but not from public service. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much. i rise today to honor elainizeman. in congress every day we have people who come to the nation's capitol to advocate for important issues facing people never community across our country. however, few do this as tirelessly and with as much passion and grace as elaine. rs. rodgers: as board chair of lymphedema group, she was the driving force of the lymphedema act which will require medicare o cover an essential part of
lymphedema treatment. she developed lymphedema in 1999 and has made it her goal to be a voice for other suffersing from disease. thank you for your leadership and for creating a vibrant community for patients in the northwest and beyond. i am proud to be your friend. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor national deaf history month, celebrated march 13 through april 15 each year. what started as a very small observation at a washington, .c. library has grown to a
32-day long celebration recognizing the countless contributions of deaf and hard of hearing americans honoring deaf culture. mrs. beatty: soifs pleased when one of my constituents, don watts, an advocate for he deaf community, approached me with an idea of introducing a resolution recognizing deaf history month in congress for the very first time. i want to thank don as well as he national association of the deaf and the american library for their insight and support nor resolution. mr. speaker, i encourage all americans to take time this month to learn more about the deaf -- about deaf americans who helped shape our country. i am hon in order to be able to have introduced this resolution.
thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania eek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. america is built on some core values that everyone should have an equal voice in the democracy and that equal work should mean equal pay. right now, however, equal work doesn't mean equal pay. according to the united states census bureau, on average, women earn just 80 cents for every dollar earned by men. this wage gap hurts women, of course, but it also hurt theirs families and our economy as a whole. yesterday, we took a major step toward addressing this challenge by pass h.r. 7, the paycheck fairness act. this bill will help close the wage gap by holding employers accountable for discriminatory
practices and making it easier for workers to seek redress. ms. dean: if we believe americans deserve equal pay for equal work and i believe that as deeply as i believe anything, this bill is how we put our values into action. i thank representative delauro for her decades of leadership on this issue and i urge the senate to take up this bill. what better way to conclude women's history month than by making history for women and all americans. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of our transgender troops. the united states is stronger and safer when our military reflect ours nation's diversity. this administration's
transgender ban makes a mockery of that commit. . let's be clear,s that ban. we must not ask transgender service members to go back in the closet or tell them, you are less than other americans. i whole heartedly support every single american who wants to serve our country. my father was a 30-year career marine and he would never judge another marine on anything other than that ability to complete their mission. why should there be another standard. . haaland: trans service members meet the same standards as any other service member, that was confirmed when trans troops testified as witnesses. they were highly decorated and earned recognition on the bay sthoifs quality of their work. as all military personnel do, transgender troops deserve our respect. i challenge anyone who favor this is kind of discrimination to look at their transgender constituents and tell them they
are not fit to serve. i thank my colleagues for taking a stand for all of our service members today. hank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for time? the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i, the honorable brian j. mast, have been served with a subpoena for testimony in a criminal trial issued by the united states district court for the southern district of florida. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed, sincerely, brian j. mast, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, this is
to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i, stephny cope, have been served with a subpoena for testimony in a criminal trial issued by the united states district court for the southern district of florida. after consult ache with -- after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined that compliance of the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and thrifings house. signed sincerely, stephanie cope, legislative correspondent, office of brian mast. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time it's my honor to yield to my friend from new jersey, not just a friend but a brother, ar dent pro life advocate, who i have seen as
come tissue has compassion for every baby child and i yield such time as he may need to consume. >> let me begin by thanking my good friend and colleague for yielding and for his leadership on behalf of human rights, we have worked on issues like in sudan and other issues over the year, i want to thank him for being such a compassionate person. mr. speaker, on wednesday evening, i intended a pre-- i attended a premiere of the new film "unplanned" which open this is weekend in over 100 theaters. the movie is an extraordinary, well-written, well-directed, is -acted, ashlee spectacular as abby johnson the main character in the film. it tells the largely untold story, a very difficult story and is packed with insight and a profoundly important message that america and the world needs to hear. base odd then life of abby johnson and her book
"unplanned," the film chronicles ms. johnson's work at planned parenthood as a student activist, followed by almost eight years at a large planned parenthood clinic in texas where over 20,000 abortions with performed. -- were performed. working as a counselieror and then director of that clinic, abby says 10 minutes of participation in an ultra sound guided abortion shook the foundation of her values and changed the course of her life. she writes in the book which is powerfully portrayed in the film, the details started -- startled me. at 13 weeks you can clearly see the profile of the head, both arms and legs and even tiny fingers and toes. with my eyes glued to the image of this perfectly formed baby i watched as the new image emerge odd then video screen. she said a straw-shaped
instrument attached to the end of a suction tube had been inserted into the uterus and was nearing the baby's side. it looked like an invade ker, she said, on the screen, out of place, wrong. it just looked wrong. she gos on to write, and you can see this portrayed on the screen, my heart sped up, time slowed, i didn't want to stop looking. at first the baby didn't seem aware of the instrument. the next moment with a sudden serk of the tiny foot of the baby as he started kicking as if trying to get away from the probing invader. as the instrument passed on -- pressed on an pressed in, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away. and then the doctor's voice broke through, startling me she said. beam me up, scottie, telling he assistant to turn on the suction. the abortion clinic director went on to write, i had a sudden urge to yell stop, to shake the
woman and say look at what's happening to your baby. wake up, hurry, stop. but even as i was thinking those words, i thought of my own hand and awe my own hand holding the probe. i was one of them, perform this act of abortion. again her eyes shot back to the screen and she writes the instrument was already being rotated by the doctor, now i could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. for the briefest moment it looked as if the baby was being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. then the little body crumpled and began disappearing before my eyes. the last thing i saw was the tiny perfectly formed back bone sucked into the tube. then everything was gone. the image of that tiny dead baby, mangled and sucked away, kept replaying in my mind, abby johnson writes. what was in the woman's womb a moment ago was alive. it wasn't tissue.
it wasn't cells. this was a human baby fighting for life. a battle was lost. in the blink of an eye. he she writes in the book, what i told people for years as a planned parenthood leader, what i believed and taught and defended, is a lie. mr. speaker, some day, someday, future generations of americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, the weakest and most vulnerable, could have assisted so aggress -- and so aggressively promoted death to children by abortion. they'll demand to know why dismembering a child like the one abby johnson witnessed or pulverizing an infant or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of chemicals failed to elist empathy or mercy or
compassion these victims no one is expendable or a throw it is away, mr. speaker. every human life has infinite value. birth is merely an event. it is not the beginning of life. abortion is violence against children and it is violence against women. he movie "unplanned," not only moved me as i believe it will move others. but it also inspired me as i believe it will inspire others to care even more for both victims of abortion, the mother and the child, love them both. to reach out to post-abortive women and there are ministries all over this country who say yes, an abortion has been procure bud we love you. we want to see you reconciled and find peace and joy again. and this makes clear that we need to continue to reach out to the people inside the abortion industry, in the sincere hope
that they, like abby johnson, will recognize that there is nothing compassionate, benign or nurturing about abortion. abby johnson has formed main industry, a nongovernmental organization, it's called and then there was none. it's designed to assist abortion clinic workers out of the industry. to date, approximately or over 500 abortion clinic workers have left that field of work because of what they've realized they are doing inside that building. including seven abortion doctors who now nurture life rather than kill it. abby johnson is a courageous, selfless woman who spreads truth, she speaks truth to power . t is an amazing movie, a truly
amazing movie. i yield back to my good friend. mr. gohmert: will the gentleman stay for a question? i'm deeply moved and touched by everything my friend from new jersey had to say. ,ut at one point my friend said you really believe that someday americans will look back on this int in history and one of my great concerns, because of the love i know is shared between us oth for this country and desperately wanting this country, our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, someday to enjoy our freedoms. one of my beggest concerns is -- biggest concerns is that it won't be americans that look back, that if we stay on this killwhere we dismember and
babies, it may not be americans that look back. it may be historians in some other country after the united states no longer exists in its present condition that look back and say, wow, look how degenerate they had gotten and it just seems so accepted. does the gentleman from new jersey, my friend, have any concerns that perhaps if we don't address this problem, that it may not be americans that look back and see this problem area? i yield to my friend. mr. smith: i do believe that there are deep concerns about the loss of life and what it means demographically. both here and all over the world. i mean in places like china, sex selection abortion has claimed the lives of so many of the girl children, that there are tens of millions of men who will never marry, because the women simply have been exterminated through sex selection abortion.
i held a number of congressional hearings, i've chaired them, where we've talked about the disparity between boys and girls. one estimate puts it at 62 million missing girls in china alone. one of my witnesses said that if you look at all the women that have been killed in asia through sex selection abortion alone, and it is worldwide, it equals -- equates with the number of all the women and girl children living in the united states of america. i mean, that is a horrific crime, in my opinion, against women. i mean, the disparity in male to female that is a consequence leads to other horrific consequences like human trafficking, as my good friend knows, i'm the prime author of the trafficking victims protection act and four other laws that combat human trafficking. including the most recently signed frederick douglass anti-human trafficking law
signed by president trump just a few months ago. i'm the author those of bills. and we watch very closely what's happening all over the world and in places like china, trafficking has increased because of the missing daughters. who have been killed simply because they happened to be girls. and women. young women. young females. that to me is -- on this floor of the house, as you know, because you voted, as did i, we had a bill to ban sex selection abortion. to this day i am shocked and dismaid how many of our colleagues, and i respect our colleagues on both sides of this issue, didn't see that discrimination begins in the womb. when a woman is singled out, a girl, a girl child, simply because she's a girl, and is killed for that reason. sex selection abortion is almost never, although it is occasionally, for the boy child, it is the girl child who suffers. so when we look back, when our
future generations look back, they will also note that discrimination, why did that bill not become law? it seems to me there are at least 20 nations around the world where there are disparities. india and china are among the worst. but it's a huge problem. and we need to look at protecting unborn children as a human rights issue. you know, killing an unborn child in the womb is the only human rights abuse that dares call itself a human right. and there are people who do that on a regular basis. they keep saying it's a right, a right to dismember a child, the right to chemically poison a child. ands you know, because you, again -- ands you know, because you, again, were a co-sponsor of e pain-capable child protection act, it says that
children at least at 20 weeks, and maybe earlier, but at least at 20 weeks need to be protected because they suffer in excruciating pain when they are being dismembered. for a couple of minutes, we're not sure exactly how long, but the evidence is very, very clear that they suffer as they're being killed by abortion. and that legislation passed with good numbers, good -- large number of members of the house. but it's not law yet. so i think when we look back, we're going to say, we had all these opportunities. now the most recent, and i appreciate you yielding this time to my friend from texas, the most recent outrage is what's happening with regards to children who are born alive. and then are killed after birth. we just had the mayor -- not the mayor, the governor of new york eviscerating protections for children who survive abortions. years ago the philadelphia inquirer did a big piece, a big
article called the dreaded complication. and the dreaded complication were those children who somehow evaded the dismemberment process or some other part of that process and emerged alive. it was usually a certain abortion. but in other cases as well. to go on and breathe and gasp and cry. and these very weak and vulnerable children should be protected. we have a bill that has been introduced, the born alive protection act, -- the born-alive protection act. we have asked, just a few hours ago from this floor, many times, i did it as well, asking that our friends in the majority would allow this bill to come up, so at least when these children are born alive, the same regiment of care, the same due diligence would be given to that boy or girl gasping for breath, to ensure that they are protected and get resuscitation. why in these abortion clinics
e they allowed to die due to exposure or sometimes to an additional effort to just kill them? this legislation, you know, a large number of co-sponsors, house and senate. the senate had an opportunity to take it up and it was voted down . stath sadly by friends on the other side of the -- sadly by friends on the other side of the aisle. again, we reach out to our friends on the other side of the aisle to say this is a human rights issue. born alive? i did a speech in 2012 in what s called after-birth abortion. two people wrote this piece. i would invite anyone who wants to read it, it's on my website. they wrote this piece about how we ought to kill babies after birth because really they're not really different than the child before birth. they can't dream, they can't talk, they don't have cognitive abilities that say a 4-year-old or a 5-year-old might have. you know, birth is an event that
happens to all of us. it's a continuum of life. and abortion is violence against children. but after-birth abortion also is violence against children. and let me just conclude. many people, like dr. martin luther king's he's in, she's had two abortions -- niece, she's had two abortions. and she has said hour account dream survive, that is to say, her -- how can the dream survive, that is to say, her great uncle's dream, i have a dream, if we kill the children? and hurt and wound the women? you know, the pro-life movement that i've been for this 47 years, care for both. mother and child. love them both. and again, this new movie, "unplanned," chronicles a woman, abby johnson, who was right there with the strongest of the pro-abortion activists in this country, including counseling women to get abortions and then she was director of a clinic in texas, as i said earlier, in
your home state. and then when she saw that child killed in realtime, on an ultrasound, she was -- it shattered the myth that somehow that child is not human and not alive and she walked out the door and never came back. there were people praying for her from the 40 days for life. a very, very humane organization of men and women who pray for the clinic personnel. they pray for the babies they pray for the moms -- babies, they pray for the moms. that's their agenda. care, compassion, love. she then later on, and it's depicted in the movie, was trying to reach out to some women as well so they wouldn't make this irreversible decision. i want to thank you again. but, you know, someday we will recognize that these children, and you know, this millennial generation and others that are coming along, first baby
pictures now for parents and grandparents are of ultrasound imaging of their children. that's what goes on the refrigerator. the newborn picture goes on too with great smile and joy when the child is born. but we now know before birth, when he or she is a girl or a boy, we know, you know, just so much and we have that picture. which is the first baby pictures. and to think, and this is what got to abby johnson, she watched as that child was dismembered right in front of her. she's holding the probe and it just dawned on her, the blind spot was lifted, and she realized, i'm participating in the killing of a baby. and she left that clinic and now she's one of the most courageous pro-life leaders in the country and the world. i thank my friend. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend. thank you.
i really appreciate those words from my friend, chris smith. and i look forward to seeing that movie. i was very moved watching the movie "gosnell." just thought about the poet, the inhumanity to man. it is tragic. and having talked to people that have taught in china. you know, it is a human crisis what's gone on with the abortion of so many women. and like my friend, chris smith, i can't help but wonder why that's not considered a war on women, when you kill a baby in utero simply because the child is female. since rently in china,
couples are only allowed normally to have one child, many couples think, well, we'd rather have a boy. discrimination against girls. ,s a father who has three girls they have brought joy to my life in so many ways. i just cannot fathom the thought of ever doing anything to have prevented those girls from being born. but there are far-reaching plications when you have a gendericide, i guess, coining a new word. but as was pointed out by a teacher in china, first of all,
the boys don't have as much opportunity to have female friends, making it more difficult to find a heterosexual partner. but more than that, because it's restricted to one child, you have two sets of grandparents and two parents, six people who have one child to focus on and it actually -- one of the , groups of ciplines children in the world, used to be considered from china. but more and more you have doting grandparents and parents, since they only have one child to dote on among the six of them , more and more of those chinese children are being spoiled rotten.
it's much more difficult to maintain order because now that there's one child to spoil among six people, the teacher is never right, the child is always right. so it's interesting seeing all the far-reaching ramifications of this gendericide against women. and i hope and literally do pray hat things will change and babies will no longer be killed just simply because they are female. there's four other topics i want to touch on. ne, i was greatly surprised to find out about a motion in order by the obama administration in 2012 before the fisa court. because being on judiciary
committee, wasn't there when the patriot act was passed, been there for re-authorization, have grave concerns about some of the civil rights there. my colleagues across the aisle on judiciary, many of them had extremely grave concerns when they were in the minority about civil rights and civil liberties and those seem to have taken a back seat while the president was -- president obama -- and i'm hopeful that now that there's not a democrat in the white house that we can get some bipartisan concern again about civil liberties after the obama administration really did run roughshod over so many. but one of the things we were ssured in re-authorizing the
fisa court, the procedures and all, is that no american, this was under the patriot act as well no american would be caught up in any foreign surveillance or foreign -- or surveillance by our u.s. entities whether c.i.a., n.s.a., whatever, unless the american citizen was engaged in a conversation with a known terrorist, foreign terrorist, or , you know, an agent of a known terrorist organization, and then hrough this colonoscopy, figuratively speaking, that the trump campaign administration were getting, we come to find t things were far more loose in protecting civil liberties,
privacy rights, the fisa court unfortunately, we have at least one or more fisa judges that really don't care about the constitution. they don't care about fourth and fifth amendment rights. they've allowed the justice department to run roughshod over those. and i am very concerned about how far this goes back. did it go back before the obama administration? is it newer invention? just how probing, how many activities that were once considered unthinkable by the federal government are now just ho-hum to fisa judges? and the fact that we now know fisa court, at least one, perhaps more, courts were lied to and since this is basically a star chamber where the public is
not allowed to know what's went on, things are held in secret, transcripts are held in secret, you know, unless you get them released by wiki leaks as the application for warrant affidavit on which it was based and the order regarding verizon some years back, you know, wikileaks released that, that was the eye opener for me because as just an ardent historian when it comes to so that ings american, and includes first amendment rights, i was shocked, fourth amendment, fifth amendment. we know the constitution very clearly, you can't just say give me all the information. you've got -- give me all the information you've got. it's required, you've got to have some kind of probable cause here. and you have to describe with
particularity the area to be searched they are thing to be searched and the specific thing that is being sought. for which there's a warrant. and i was overwhelmed to see an affidavit say, you know, for america's protection, we just need every bit of information that verizon has on every one of their customers. oh my gosh. you knowing, my days as a felony judge in texas, a officer had come with an affidavit and an application signed, sworn to, and given that to me and we need to warrant, going, you got to be kidding. there's no particularity here. just give me everything you've got on every customer this company has, are you kidding? you need to go back to school. i'm not sure i need to be signing any more warrants for
you if that's the way you consider constitutional rights. yet it was just ho-hum for the justice department. ho-hum for the fisa court judges. and then, i mean, thrls there's some fisa judge that signed these four warrants regarding the trump campaign, individuals with it, there's just completely lost his or her mind and doesn't know what's going on, that judge or judge has to be aware they were lied. to there was fraud upon that court. and the fact that we have federal judges that were confirmed by the u.s. senate after being appointed by a u.s. be dent who would not bothered that the united states department of justice and the
f.b.i. had people that would come before that judge and lie to that judge and the judge is not bothered. oh, well. i remember after a bankruptcy hearing many years ago, and i really like this judge, but he said louie, you seem bothered that the person that filed bankruptcy got caught in a huge lie. that seemed to bother you. but louie, they all lie. ou just got to get used to it. well i have still not gotten used to the idea that somebody can come in and lie under oath before a judge without any ramifications coming from that. and the fact that we've got one or more fisa judges who are not bothered, have done nothing, have put no one in jail for the fraud committed in the fisa
court, tells me we have got to either get throifed fisa court, go back to the way it was before, when if you had a matter of national security, it was treated differently, but we didn't have special star chambers where you came and had secret hearings and -- they were -- you just went to a normal judge and handled things in camera, if necessary. we got to either do that, get rid of the fisa courts, or we have got to have some safeguards to make sure that americans' rights are protected. ut there is a motion, an order here, the motion, it was secret, classified, before the foreign intelligence sur vie lance court, and this is from april 3, 2012, it's now been
declassified, i had no idea that the obama administration, the justice department had sought this and gotten it but apparently as broadly spread as information was about american citizens whose names were unmasked and about what they were saying when it didn't necessarily involve any foreign terrorist organization, some of us, i'm still not over the fact that some of us were lied to in order to get some of the patriot act re-authorized, but -- and that was not the obama administration i'm talking about. to -- well,a motion the title is, government submission of amendments to standard minimization procedures and that's the procedure where if it's an american citizen hat's caught up in a phone
surveillance, phone conversations that are being surveiled by our intelligence, the minimization is what the law requires where you mask the name, you minimize the conversation so that it cannot -- the identity, other information is not available for review because the constitution protects american citizens and gives them fourth and fifth amendment rights that otherwise would be abused. said for f.b.i. electronic surveillance and physical search conducted under the foreign intelligence surveillance act and submission of ve revised minimization procedures for the national counterterrorism center and motion to amend orders
permitting use of amended minimization procedures. then i see that it was gohar, d by tashina deputy assistant attorney general, who answered directly to rod rosenstein, i guess still does. but my understanding is, i was told that she's the one, or she's one of the key people who was telling jeff sessions that he needed to recuse himself. this is some -- this is an attorney, deputy assistant attorney general who was loyal to sally yates, is still loyal to sally yates, even though she refused to do her constitutional duty to defend a constitutional act by president trump. she didn't care for the president so she wasn't going to carry out her constitutionally
mandated duty. so fortunately, sally yates is no longer there. and we have at least some people there who are willing to carry out their obligation to the constitution. but when my friend jeff sessions was saying, you know, he talked to career people and they have encouraged him, told him he need cuse himself, i heard that gohar was one of those people. you can call her career person, i hope her career is about ended, but at least in the justice department. i also had understood she was someone who was trying to make jeff sessions look bad. and as the national security counsel lee a-- national security council he ason, the notices of meetings would go to her for the attorney general and i'd heard that -- i was told she would sit on those and not get them to the attorney general, he
would get his notices late, he would be therefore the least prepared at the n.s.c.'s critical meetings and sometime he is would have conflicts because -- she didn't get him notices early enough. and yet she, i was told, is one of those, oh, yeah, you got to recuse yourself. her loyalty is more to president obama and sally yates than they appear to be, at least, to me, to the constitution itself. and yet she's the one that is also pushing to change the minimization requirements and what really got me as i read hrough this lengthy motion is, let's see, get over here, tagged it. i think this is really the crux of it. over here, page 64.
so obviously it's a long motion. on behalf of the u.s. government by tashina gohar. it says, and i'm quoting flerks motion, the following underlined text will be inserted into the first sentence, quote, the f.b.i. may disseminate fisa-acquired information concerning united states persons which, and then here's the underlined part, reasonably foreign o be intelligence information, more underlining, is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information, or assess its importance, or is evidence of a crime being disseminated for law enforcement purpose.
look, when you get language like his that could allow the massive distribution what have we were assured during re-authorization of these type of procedures, oh, no, you wouldn't -- it is so restricted. so, here's the regulations, this is who can find out about an american citizen that was surveiled electronically, it is protected. if somebody that's an american citizen happens to be captured by -- just because of who they're talking -- to whom they're talking, you know, we have the minimization, nobody gets to know who that person is. the requirements are so tough to reveal the name. oh, no. ot in this that was filed by taj gahar. if it reasonably appears it's necessary to understand some
intelligence, good grief. that throws the door wide open. ou could justify giving this constitutionally protected information to basically anybody . well, i think this will be important for them to help -- to help them understand some other intelligence information. this is an outrage. and i had no idea, and don't think -- i don't know of anybody that id know back in 2012 our obama justice department was throwing this door open with this kind of vague and ambiguous terminology. oh, well if it helps them understand other information, well then they can see and hear and get all of what otherwise should be constitutionally protected information, where the u.s. government has been spying on u.s. citizens.
as i've said before, i mean, it's becoming more and more clear that the only thing that or well got wrong was the -- orwell got wrong was the year. it wasn't 1984. ut here, oh, yeah. anything that our d.o.j., our intelligence want to disseminate to their friends, even if it's somebody that may be working at the u.n., we'll disclose it, because it will help them understand other information better. for heaven's sake. this is such an outrage. .nd, you know, here it is seven years -- next month, seven years since this motion in order was filed to allow the government to pass around top secret information that should be not only classified, it should never have been obtained
in the first place. and then through the investigation of the donald trump campaign, we find out that a ually you don't have to be terrorist or a member of a known terrorist organization, if you happen to be an am bam doeser with -- an ambassador. which i imagine most members of the house and senate have met with ambassadors, have talked to ambassadors of foreign countries. and it never crossed my mind that our justice department or our n.s.a., c.i.a., f.b.i., that they may say, oh, here's a senator or a u.s. congressman who is having a conversation with a foreign ambassador, so we get to surveil this member of congress or senate. but turns out, you have a conversation with an ambassador,
you can't be sure anymore that you don't have the f.b.i.'s electronic intelligence community noting and logging, checking everything that you are doing and saying. that that is ineded -- incredible. that is just almost unfathomable due to the protections that used o be observed for american citizens. i thought we had made progress. you know, the days when attorney general kennedy authorized a wiretap of martin luther king hoover were and surveilling so many people that never should have been allowed to be surveiled. i thought we had gotten beyond that. some of those activities were unconstitutional, were illegal.
and i thought we had progressed to the point that members of the house and senate, both sides of the aisle, should be deeply offended to find out that their government may be spying on them, perhaps when they talk to an ambassador. even if it's not a terrorist country, it's just extraordinary what we've been finding out in the last two years about the extent of abuses of americans' privacy rights. i am hoping, though, that we can work across the aisle to rein in some of these abuses, since the obama administration is no longer there and the protection seems some of my colleagues were trying to afford them, even though, in my mind, it meant really abuses of americans'
constitutional rights. and then -- somewhat related, my friend, rand paul, down the yesterday.story from notes that senator rand paul has escalated his demand for an investigation into former obama officials who concocted the anti-trump rush-russia scandal, reveal -- anti-trump-russia scandal, revealing that john brennan was the key figure who legitimatized the charges and discredited, quote, dossier, unquote, against the president. and it's interesting, this term dossier, everybody using now because of the former mi-6, former f.b.i. informant who became no longer trusted by the f.b.i., no longer usable because
he was untrustworthy by the f.b.i., which was never conveyed to the fisa judge. and that allowed the judge to keep signing warrants based on this untrustworthy person. but now to have this as rand was reporting or senator paul was reporting, in a tweet he said that he had heard from a high-level source that brennan helped to validate the dossier and intelligence reports. quote, a high-level source tells me it was brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake dossier be included in the intelligence report. brennan should be asked to testify under oath in congress asap, senator paul tweeted. in an earlier tweet wednesday, senator paul called for wide investigation into former president barack obama and his team, quote, time for congress to investigate. what did president obama know and when? how did this hoax go on for so
long unabated? it goes on to say, brennan has denied in the past that he included the salacious dossier, but at least two other top intelligence officials said he did. , it's not in the article, but we know brennan has admitted being untruthful under oath before the senate. he's admitted purgering himself when it suited what he wanted to accomplish. over is is a guy that was running the trump campaign, donald trump and his campaign, then donald trump, now president trump. as abusing his position . ad of an intelligence agency
this says, "the washington post" editor bob woodward also said that brennan endorsed the dossier from crist officer steele when he -- christopher steele, when he, bob woodward, got a copy in late 2016. woodward said that brennan felt it matched the russia collusion charges, he had heard. and i can't help but wonder now if where brennan heard this was when it came out of his own mouth. the dossier was never considered true until it was recognized in intelligence assessments and only after the late john mccain and top obama officials helped circulate it, said senator paul. the dossier was underwritten by the democratic national committee and hillary clinton's campaign, by indicating the kremlin interfered in the election. it helped fuel false allegations of foreign collusion with the
trump campaign, leading to two years of nonstop investigations. i'm very concerned that it's becoming more clear that the obama administration was able to obtain a fisa warrant to spy on our campaign based on a phony opposition researched from the clinton campaign, having federal law enforcement spy on a presidential campaign based on phony campaign research is really distressing in the true, unfold story. he said. but that -- this is a problem. and i know others may feel otherwise. i like adam schiff. he was put in charge of, back when he was in the judiciary committee where i was serving, we actually impeached two federal judges who needed to be impeached, who needed to be removed.
and my colleague, adam schiff, did a wonderful job in handling that effort. as far as i'm concerned he developed great credibility with me in his professionalism and the way he handled the impeachment of those two federal judges. but over the last two years, as he has continued to say, we know there was collusion between the trump administration and russia, and we have evidence and on and on, his credibility when it comes to intelligence matters have now been done great harm. not only here, but abroad. and so, you know, i think it is time to have a different chairman of intelligence. it's too important that we have someone who is a chairman that hasn't spent two years saying
something was true that it turned out wasn't. we need to have a democrat who has credibility with foreign governments, as well as here in the house, as well as in the senate. and there are people like that. there are people like that on both sides of the aisle that have that kind of credibility, that we know just would not be spreading something that wasn't absolutely true. so i agree with my friends that are on the intelligence committee, and i appreciate my fellow texan, mike conway, for pointing out, this is now a problem and it needs to be addressed. i do appreciate this article points out something i very much appreciate, the article is from greg ray with fox news. that president trump in an exclusive wide-ranging interview
wednesday night with fox news' hanity, that was a great interview, my friend sean hannity had with the president, really enjoyable last night. but anyway. it says, to release the full and unredacted foreign intelligence surveillance act warrants and related documents used by the f.b.i. to probe his campaign, saying he wants to, quote, get to the bottom, unquote, of how long the long-running russia collusion narrative began. trump told anchor sean hannity that his lawyers previously advised him not to take that dramatic step out of fear, that it could be considered obstruction of justice. quote, i do -- i have plans to declassify and release, i have plans to absolutely release, unquote, trump said. quote, i have some very talented people working for me, lawyers, and they really didn't want me to do it early on. a lot of people wanted me to do
it a long time ago. and i was one of those people. he says, i'm glad i didn't do it , we got a great result without having to do it. but we will. one of the reasons that my lawyers didn't want me to do it is they said if i do it, they'll call it a form of obstruction. ut last fall, when i was in the last fall when i was in the oval office with the president, talking a while, his personal attorney came, in it seemed that his personal attorney was very concerned about declassifying the documents, that it was not the time to to the do it but there's no reason not to do it now for sure. these things need to come out, just how badly abused the system was. and i -- my friend jerry nadler s chairman of judiciary, and i
remember my first term, there as no more vocal advocate on behalf of civil liberties and privacy rights and i really hope that our chairman of judiciary will join in with republicans to try to correct the situation. clearly there's still many people that are working in the trump administration that don't want the trump -- president trump to succeed, don't want the president to succeed. with what he is trying to do, what he promise head would do. so i don't think anybody has to worry about president trump being abusive, secretly, of somebody's rights. but if there -- but if this
isn't handled now, even though republicans are not in the majority, if we don't clamp down on what we see are clear abuses within the d.o.j., within the intelligence community, with the fisa courts, then we are easily headed for a time when somebody else will come in there and they will see how the system was abused during the obama administration, and i don't know whether it'll be a democrat oa republican but i'm telling you if we don't clamp down on it w, the abuses will allow the ising of a chavez, allow the rising of these people that got elected and then became totalitarian. and i think there's a great deal to the poster that circulated,
the problem with socialism is, you can vote your way into it but you have to shoot your way out of it. that's what they found in venezuela. they voted it in, but then it -- in order to have true socialism you've got to move toward totalitarian. you've got to have such a powerful government. you can take from those who have earned and who have worked and give to those who are more desirable to have it. according to the government. and so -- it's interesting. we have billionaires that are contributing mass i have amounts of money to move toward socialism and obviously they don't know their history well enough to know that yeah, they're considered good friends of the movement, thank you, you're the hero, but then when you move either toward communism, which true communism means there is no government, everybody just shares and shares alike out of the goodness of their heart, never can get
there, you got to have a to tall -- a totalitarian government, that's why communism doesn't work. but socialism, boying their welcome the help of all the rich people but once you move toward real, true socialism, most of the time the billionaires, they're going to end up in prison or dead and their money confiscated. so i'm amaze sod many billionaires don't realize, they're just lackeys that are being appreciated now but someday they're going to go under the bus and their money is going to be relieved from them. so it's a very critical time as the mueller investigation is finally concluded, having questioned mr. mueller numerous times, have done so much research on the man, i feel like i know him very well. obviously not as well as eric holder who thought he would end up with an indictment, keep
going. i can't help but wonder if we have a new attorney general that me in and realized there's nothing here after all of these subpoenas, tens of millions of dollars, it's time to wrap it up. and -- because i really do think mueller, left to his own devices, would have just kept an investigation going until every potential limitation on anything he had done wrong had run out. but it's time to reform fisa courts. it's time to reform d.o.j. time to reform our intelligence communities. so the kind of abuses that have just gone on will not continue and presidents in the future, whether democrat or republican, will not be tempted to abuse the system as it is now appearing has been done.
mr. speaker, appreciate the indulgence. at this time, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 2:30 p.m.