Providing for Consideration of H.R. Student Borrower Credit Improvement Act, and Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendment to H.R. Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 811

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3621) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to remove adverse information for certain defaulted or delinquent private education loan borrowers who demonstrate a history of loan repayment, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-47, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 550) to award a Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the United States Merchant Mariners of World War II, in recognition of their dedicated and vital service during World War II, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with each of the two amendments specified in section 4 of this resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except as specified in section 3 of this resolution.

Sec. 3. (a) The question of adoption of the motion shall be divided between the two House amendments specified in section 4 of this resolution. The two portions of the divided question shall be considered in the order specified by the Chair.

(b) Each portion of the divided question shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Sec. 4. The amendments referred to in the second and third sections of this resolution are as follows: (a) An amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-48.

(b) An amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-49.

Sec. 5. If only one portion of the divided question is adopted, that portion shall be engrossed as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Senate amendment to H.R. 550.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 811, providing for consideration of two measures: H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive CREDIT Act; and the Senate amendment to H.R. 550.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3621 under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services. It self- executes Chairwoman Waters' manager's amendment, which updates definitions, amends requirements for issuance of final rules, includes protections for workers affected by a Federal shutdown, and makes other technical changes. It also makes in order 14 amendments.

The rule also provides for consideration of two House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 550. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for each House amendment. Finally, the rule provides for separate votes on each House amendment.

Madam Speaker, on H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020, credit scores and credit reports play a critical role in determining which of our constituents across America will be able to pay for college, rent an apartment, buy a car or a house, start a business, meet major unexpected expenses, or even, increasingly, get a particular job.

Most Americans do not have the wealth to pay out of pocket for major expenditures, so credit is essential; and credit scores and credit reports have become the key screening and sorting mechanism, the key gatekeeper that makes the difference for millions of Americans between having the money to pay for college or not, being able to buy a house or rent an apartment or not, and, increasingly, qualifying as an employee for a specific position or not, because so many employers are increasingly using credit scores and credit reports as part of the qualifying process for appointing and hiring new employees.

The system of credit scores and credit reports is deeply flawed today, and we have done nothing to reform it in 17 years. The Federal Trade Commission tells us that one in five Americans has an error on at least one of their credit reports, and 5 percent of the people have errors grave enough to result in their being denied credit or having to pay substantially more for their mortgages or their auto loans or to obtain insurance policies.

The three big CRAs, consumer reporting agencies--Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian--have files on more than 200 million American consumers, which means that there are errors in the credit reports of at least 40 million of our constituents and serious, potentially life-changing errors in the credit reports of 10 million Americans across the country.

Correcting these errors often takes considerable time and procedural effort, as well as knowledge on how to communicate with the credit reporting companies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, determined that, in 2018, credit reports were the single most complained-about financial product in our country, and the three big CRAs were the most complained-about financial companies in America.

Many vulnerable populations like seniors, stressed and busy working- class Americans, and less financially literate young Americans describe immense frustration in trying to solve problems with credit scoring and reporting companies. Even beyond the errors and mistakes, the credit system takes advantage of the financially insecure and precarious, converting transitory lapses of poverty into a lifetime of financial stigma and hardship. It is very expensive to be poor in America.

Consumers lack the right to a free annual credit score. Many consumers who try to get a free annual credit report or to obtain their scores get tricked into purchasing high-priced credit monitoring or subscription services.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020, comprehensively addresses these abuses and combines six bills carefully constructed by our colleagues on the Financial Services Committee to improve transparency, fairness, and accuracy in America's credit reporting system. It reforms and upgrades the process for consumers seeking to resolve errors in their credit reports, and it seeks to ensure that consumer financial information held by the CRAs will be accurate, complete, and verifiable.

This bill will:

Prohibit reporting on consumers' debt relating to medically necessary procedures and delay reporting by 1 year for other forms of medical debt;

Remove adverse credit file information relating to defaulted or delinquent private education loans for borrowers who demonstrate a history of essentially timely and faithful loan repayments for these loans;

Permit reasonable interruptions in the consecutive repayment periods for student borrowers facing unique and extenuating life events;

Prohibit most current and prospective employers from using credit reports to make employment decisions unless required by a local, State, or Federal law or government;

Shorten the time period adverse credit information stays on consumer reports from 7 years to 4 years and from 10 to 7 years for bankruptcy information;

Give consumers a new right to appeal the results of disputes with the CRAs; and

Improve the oversight capabilities of the CFPB on credit reporting agencies and their scoring modules and require these agencies to better train their personnel on addressing consumer concerns.

It has been more than 15 years since we enacted comprehensive reform of the credit reporting system. The House can be proud of the significant progress this credit reform package will bring to hardworking people across America for whom credit and credit reports are the lifeline to education, housing, and, in many cases, good employment and financial stability.

Madam Speaker, on the Senate amendment to H.R. 550, the House also considers the rule on two important amendments to the Senate amendment of H.R. 550.

The first amendment, based on Representative Ro Khanna's No War with Iran Act, clarifies that Congress has not authorized military force against Iran and asserts Congress' funding power to enforce the congressional authorization requirements under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It, thus, prohibits funds for any military force in or against Iran unless Congress declares war or enacts specific statutory authorization for the use of military force against Iran or there is a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States or our Armed Forces consistent with the provisions of the War Powers Resolution.

The second amendment, based on Representative Barbara Lee's bill, will repeal the 2002 AUMF for the Iraq war against Saddam Hussein, which authorized the President to use the Armed Forces to the extent ``he determines to be necessary and appropriate'' to ``defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and ``enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.''

The commanding premise of the 2002 authorization was the need to counter the threat of weapons of mass destruction putatively possessed by Saddam Hussein. But Saddam Hussein actually never had nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and was driven from office in 2003 and was killed in 2006. The current government in Iraq is a strategic partner of the United States in the struggle against nonstate terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaida and poses no threat to our national security.

The 2002 AUMF does not authorize, and has never authorized, the use of force against Iran; yet it was invoked by National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien as a primary source of the administration's authority to engage in military hostilities against Iran, including the strike against Qasem Soleimani.

This is one problem with obsolete AUMFs hanging around decades after they were approved. Presidents can treat them like a loaded gun sitting on a table which can be picked up at will and used in a completely different context for a completely different reason.

The 2002 authorization must be repealed to ensure that no President now or in the future can use it as a pretextual justification for deploying military force without congressional authorization or a formal declaration of war as called for by the Constitution of the United States.

Madam Speaker, the Framers gave Congress the power to declare war because they had just had a revolution against the kings and the monarchs who, for centuries, plunged their populations into wars of vanity, intrigue, political advantage, and distraction of the population. The Framers understood that the power over life and death, over war and peace, was far too awesome to vest in one person, much less a political actor motivated by the desire for fame, prestige, and power. By giving Congress the exclusive power to declare war and to appropriate funds for war, the Framers made certain that the momentous decision to go to war, to send our troops into battle, would belong primarily to the representatives of the people, both the people who fight and die in our wars, their parents, and their families, and the communities that they are drawn from.

Over the last month, the President initiated a dramatic escalation of tensions with Iran without the consent of Congress and without consulting Congress pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. In the case of the strike against Qasem Soleimani, Congress was never consulted by President Trump, although he apparently spoke with several people who were guests of his at Mar-a-Lago, where the decisions were apparently being made.

On January 7, Iran retaliated for the killing of General Soleimani by launching ballistic missiles against our military and coalition forces in Iraq. We now know that at least 34 troops have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries from these strikes, injuries the President has dismissed as headaches. We have still yet to receive any legitimate explanation for the justification for the strike in Iraq, and the administration's subsequent briefing on these actions left far more questions than answers and troubled even many Republican Senators to the point of extreme frustration.

On January 8, when administration officials briefed Members of Congress on the President's actions, both Democrats and Republicans, alike, expressed grave concerns about the briefing, with one Member highlighting the administration had given no time, place, or method justifying the attacks. The President later said there were four threats to United States Embassies, an explanation which apparently was withdrawn in the aftermath. So we still don't know.

In any event, Madam Speaker, we need to return to the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law. The grave decision to go to war is one that belongs properly with Congress.

If we can send our sons and daughters into battle and ask them to exercise the most powerful courage in the world to do that, certainly, we can exercise and summon up the moral and political courage needed just to properly exercise our constitutional powers. We have the power and we have the duty to declare war when we engage in military hostilities abroad, and that is what we are doing with these two amendments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rarely fail to be moved by my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) with his directness, his charm, and his legislative prowess. But I have to say I fail to be moved by this last jack-in-the-box procedural maneuver of people getting up and asking for unanimous consent to do something that my friends failed to do for the last 8 years when they could have had a hearing at any point on the War Powers Act, yet they didn't do it.

Now, I believe that all of my friends who got up in the line were operating under a misapprehension because there was a hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 14--that is about 2 weeks ago--called ``From Sanctions to the Soleimani Strike to Escalation: Evaluating the Administration's Iran Policy'' and all the implications in terms of Congress' war powers.

For the life of me, I can't understand why my good friend is not joining us today. I understand that it is always possible to summon up a procedural objection when the substantive task at hand is too difficult to do politically. I understand this would require people to make the President of the United States mad because, like every President before him--and this is a bipartisan issue, as Chairman McGovern said--this President wants to be able to decide for himself whether or not the United States of America is going to be plunged into war.

The very simple proposition that we bring before the House that everybody in the Chamber can speak to right now, and everybody in the Chamber can vote on, is the repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

That was 18 years ago. We have kids who could die in a war against Iran in Iraq, or a war in Iran, based on this resolution, and they weren't even born when this Authorization of Use of Military Force was adopted by Congress.

The real question is: Are we going to have the courage to stand up for the Constitution and to stand up for our constituents and say that we will not go to war unless there is a specific statutory authorization by Congress or a declaration of war or there is an actual attack on the United States such that the President is really acting in self-defense?

Both Democratic and Republican Members of Congress were bewildered and frustrated by the presentation of this administration as to why the United States of America needed to commit that strike when they did.

There were changing stories. About every 20 minutes, we got a new story about why it was necessary. I have not heard a single word on the other side--to their credit--defending any of the justifications or rationalizations or pretexts that were offered by the administration.

So, we come back to a constitutional point that is not difficult, and that is one that came up at that Foreign Affairs Committee hearing a couple of weeks ago. It is one that we talked about in the Rules Committee last night in debate. It is one that every one of us is invited to join in right now on the floor of the House to discuss, which is the one that was made by the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I have to say a word in honor of our great chair on the Rules Committee. He has been invoking the Constitution and the exclusive power of Congress to declare war for two decades, through Democratic Presidents, Republican Presidents, Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, and now Trump. He has been saying the same thing, which is that we should not be committing American troops to wars abroad without a vote of Congress, which was the explicit design of the Framers of the Constitution.

Go back to the Preamble of the Constitution:

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and preserve to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty do hereby ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.

The very next sentence in Article I states that the legislative power is vested in a Congress of the United States, a House of Representatives and a Senate. Then, it sets forth all of our powers, including the power to declare war, the power of taxes, the power to appropriate money, the power to raise armies, the power to maintain a navy, and so on. All of that is with Congress.

You go all the way through Article I, Madam Speaker, and then you get to Article II, where the President is denominated the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy in times of actual conflict and insurrection, and the President's core job is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

That includes the Constitution itself, of course, and it includes the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

This is a very clear principle. It is a constitutional axiom we are advancing today. We had a hearing on it a couple of weeks ago, but we don't need weeks and months of hearings. Obviously, our good friends didn't think it required any hearings over the 8 years that they were in control of the House of Representatives.

It is a simple proposition, which is that the war power belongs to Congress. We have to declare war. We can't run away from it any more than our brave troops can run away from battle when they have been committed to battle.

All we are saying is that if there is going to be war against Iran, if there is going to be a war against the new government in Iraq--not Saddam Hussein, who is gone and dead--then we have to declare the war; we have to authorize the war; and we have to debate and deliberate over it as contemplated by the Founders of our country. That is our job.

We had a bipartisan vote invoking the War Powers Resolution on January 9. It ended up 224-194, but we had Democrats and Republicans invoking the War Powers Resolution with respect to the situation in Iran.

Again, I am not quite sure why our colleagues don't want to do this with us. I understand it is easier to do it when the opposing party is in the White House, but we have many Members on both sides of the aisle who have demonstrated their courage by invoking the War Powers Resolution and by standing up for the Constitution. That is what we have to do today, and we have the perfect opportunity and legislative vehicle to do it right now.

I reserve the remainder of my time, Madam Speaker.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank my good friend from Georgia for our robust and active exchange today.

We came to debate matters of war and peace and the reassertion of Congress' essential constitutional powers over the declaration of war and the commitment of our troops and our funds to foreign wars.

These are critical issues that our friends, when they were in charge of the Chamber, routinely ignored; but we are confronting them, and we invite them in enthusiastically to be part of this process of reasserting Congress' war powers.

But the minority's previous question is obviously unnecessary and an irrelevant distraction from the important issues that we have come to address. And I want to be clear about this: It is an unnecessary distraction because the House majority leader committed this morning to bringing up S. 3201, which extends the ban on all fentanyl-based substances. It took place this morning. Check docs.house.gov, which has the complete running explanation of what is taking place. This morning, he scheduled it for the very first item of business tomorrow.

So the bill that my friends are valiantly promising to bring to the floor if we defeat the previous question is already scheduled to be considered as the first item of business tomorrow morning under suspension of the House rules.

And I will remind my colleagues of what defeating the previous question means. It gives control of the floor to the minority. We are not going to do that because we are here to prevent unauthorized war with Iran; to repeal the obsolete and unnecessary 2002 AUMF, which addressed the situation with Saddam Hussein; and to modernize the credit reporting system, which is failing millions of Americans, our constituents.

For all of the reasons that we have discussed during this robust debate, we need to ensure that the whole House gets the chance to vote on all of these things: on the repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF and on reforming the credit reporting system so our people have better access to credit and we have real transparency and fairness in people's credit reports and credit scores.

I hope that all of our colleagues, both in the majority and the minority, will join us in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on this rule so we can move on to serious, thoughtful, deliberate consideration of all of these critical measures that we bring before the Congress and the American people.

I also hope that all of our colleagues will join me in supporting S. 3201, the fentanyl legislation, which our colleague discussed, on suspension tomorrow.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, this will occur tomorrow morning on the first bill at 12:15, 12:30. It is the first bill.

Madam Speaker, let me just say that I hope our friends take yes for an answer, and I hope that this will perhaps usher in their ability to support the underlying legislation here because I know that they agree with us that the Constitution gives the House of Representatives and the Senate the power to declare war. It gives Congress the power to declare war, to spend money on war. We should not allow a President of any party--Democratic, Republican, or anything else--to usurp that power and to engage in unilateral Presidential wars without our specific authorization, without our declaration, unless there is an attack on the land, the people of the United States, or our Armed Forces, as specified in the War Powers Resolution.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 811

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (S. 3201) to extend the temporary scheduling order for fentanyl-related substances, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy & Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of S. 3201.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source