[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 93 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4236-H4244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, AMERICAN DREAM AND PROMISE ACT 
                                OF 2019

  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 415 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 415

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) to 
     authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of 
     status of certain aliens, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-16, modified by the 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. 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: 
     (1) two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 415, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, under a closed rule self-
executing a manager's amendment. The rule provides 2 hours of debate, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill in this rule, H.R. 
6, the American Dream and Promise Act. I rise as the granddaughter of 
immigrants.
  This is a historic day in which we begin to shape immigration policy 
that reflects American values. H.R. 6 offers a path to lawful permanent 
residence status for Dreamers, TPS holders, and DED beneficiaries. 
These are our neighbors, our friends, our schoolmates, our workers, and 
our family. They make our communities stronger and fuller. They are 
Americans in every way except under the law. We intend to correct that 
omission today.
  These immigrants are longtime residents of our country with deep 
roots in the communities where they reside. For many of them, the 
United States is the only country they have ever called home. It is 
cruel and un-American that we have left members of our communities to 
suffer uncertainty in this way.
  With this bill, we keep families together and ensure that these 
women, men, and children can continue contributing to the communities 
we share. In my district, Florida's 27th, there are 11,400 residents 
who are eligible for protection under H.R. 6. Approximately 8,200 are 
Dreamers, and 3,400 are TPS or DED holders.
  As I have long said, in my south Florida community, it doesn't matter 
the color of your skin, the language you speak, whom you hold hands 
with, your religion, or your country of origin. You are a Miamian if 
you call our city home. Today, the House of Representatives will make 
clear that you have every right to call yourselves Americans, too.
  Madam Speaker, I proudly support this historic step forward towards a 
more just America. Let's pass this rule and H.R. 6.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank Representative Shalala for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Madam Speaker, circumstances demand that we make substantial 
improvements to our Nation's broken immigration system. My home State 
of Arizona is at the forefront of a crisis on our Nation's southern 
border, but the bill before us today offers no solutions and will 
instead, I believe, exacerbate the problem.
  I have represented the people of Arizona for over a decade. Last 
Congress, I was honored when the people of Arizona's Eighth 
Congressional District sent me to represent them here in Washington, 
D.C.

[[Page H4237]]

  For my constituents, as residents of a border State, fixing our 
broken immigration system is a top priority. With Customs and Border 
Patrol apprehending 4,500 people per day and, in April, over 100,000 
people just in that month alone, it is critical to develop and 
implement a solution immediately. As a member on the Homeland Security 
Committee, the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Citizenship, and the House Rules Committee, I stand ready to work 
with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to develop real 
solutions to our immigration crisis.
  Unfortunately, with the bill and the rule before us today, it is 
evident that the majority has no intention of advancing consensus 
legislation to fix our broken immigration system. The bill advances a 
series of what I believe are flawed policies.
  As the bill worked its way through the committee process, the 
majority denied reasonable amendments to improve the bill; and the rule 
passed in a party-line vote--very partisan bill--by the Rules Committee 
does not allow for amendments to be considered by this body as a whole 
at all. It is a closed rule.

                              {time}  1300

  Democrats have framed this bill as a solution for recipients of the 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, or DACA, a laudable 
goal.
  In fact, last night in the Rules Committee, the chairman said it is 
only designed for a small group of people, the DACA recipients. Well, 
that is just not true.
  In fact, the American people should know what this bill really does. 
It provides green cards and, thus, a special path to citizenship to 
millions of illegal aliens, whether they are current recipients of DACA 
or not.
  Unlike President Obama's executive order on DACA, this bill allows 
people who have been living in the United States illegally for 40 
years--decades--to get a special path to citizenship. That is not what 
President Obama's DACA program did.
  It places the interests of those who violated U.S. immigration laws 
above the interests of those who have been waiting and waiting to enter 
this country legally. It provides amnesty. It will only incentivize 
further illegal immigration.
  The American people should also know what this bill fails to do.
  It does nothing to provide the men and women protecting our border 
with the resources they need to keep our country safe. It does nothing 
to fix the de facto system of catch and release. It does nothing to 
remedy the crisis at our southern border. In fact, I believe it will 
make it worse.
  Finally, the American people should know the changes that my 
Republican colleagues and I proposed to improve upon this bill, all of 
which my Democratic colleagues rejected.
  Democrats rejected an amendment to exclude aliens convicted of 
misdemeanor firearms convictions from getting this special pathway. 
Democrats rejected an amendment to exclude illegals convicted of a 
misdemeanor DUI offense if the alien's conduct killed or injured 
another person or if they had multiple DUIs.
  What this means is, if there was an illegal immigrant who had a 
misdemeanor DUI that severely injured someone, they are still welcomed 
in under this plan.
  Approximately half of the 158,000 people arrested by ICE in fiscal 
year 2018, the illegal immigrants who were arrested, or about 81,000, 
had been charged or convicted of driving under the influence. This bill 
could reward people like this with a special pathway to citizenship.
  Democrats also rejected an amendment to make gang members ineligible 
for benefits under this bill.
  Democrats also rejected an amendment to make fraud a ground for 
ineligibility. In fact, I proposed an amendment that said, if they 
fraudulently fill out the application form, or misrepresented 
themselves as U.S. citizens in the past to get benefits, they would be 
rejected. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues said no, welcome them 
in.
  Democrats rejected an amendment to remedy a confidentiality provision 
that prevents information contained in an application from being used 
for law enforcement purposes, thereby impeding law enforcement efforts.
  To summarize, under this bill: Gun criminals are welcome. Drunk 
drivers are welcome. Gang members are welcome. Fraudsters are welcome. 
But law enforcement hands are tied.
  From the bill's text and failure to adopt reasonable amendments, it 
is clear that my Democratic colleagues do not value the integrity of 
our immigration system or ensuring that criminals do not exploit 
loopholes in their bill. At best, they are choosing to ignore the chaos 
at the border and to ignore the perverse incentives of their policy of 
wide-reaching amnesty. At worst, they are encouraging it.
  Last Congress, Republicans voted for a DACA solution that enforces 
the law and remedies our immigration system. Republicans recognized 
that America is a nation of immigrants but also that the world has 
changed since we put in place the immigration laws governing our 
enforcement efforts along the southern border and that we need 
immigration laws reformed.
  That bill that Republicans proposed and I supported last year would 
have addressed DACA by allowing DACA recipients to obtain legal status. 
It would not have allowed for a special pathway to citizenship. It 
would not have allowed them to jump in front of the line.
  That Republican bill recognized that many DACA recipients entered 
this country without legal documentation through no fault of their own 
but that they were in the country and we needed a solution.
  That Republican bill would have also secured our border, improved 
enforcement, and addressed our need for skilled workers. It authorized 
a border wall, mandated E-Verify, and increased visas for the skilled 
workers we need most. It also eliminated the diversity visa lottery and 
increased the credible fear standard to combat asylum fraud.
  The bill offered reasonable immigration reform, but not one single 
Democratic Member of Congress voted in favor of it. Instead, today, my 
Democratic colleagues are advancing a bill that offers no reforms to 
the legal immigration system, no border security, no solutions for the 
humanitarian crisis that is happening each and every day at our border. 
And it comes with a $35 billion price tag.
  The crisis at our southern border is real and substantial, with 
Customs and Border Protection apprehending an average of 4,500 people 
per day on the southern border. Border Patrol facilities are beyond 
capacity. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities are full.
  The number of people apprehended in the past 7 months has already 
surpassed any year since 2009. At this rate, CBP will apprehend over 
1.64 million people in just 1 year. That is more than the last recorded 
official population of the city of Phoenix.
  We must develop and implement a solution to the crisis at our 
southern border immediately. Instead, we have before us a partisan bill 
to provide amnesty to millions of people and incentivize countless more 
to cross our border illegally.

  This bill has no chance of being taken up by the U.S. Senate or 
signed by the President.
  The majority's inaction to the crisis at our southern border is 
absolutely unacceptable. Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership 
refused to even fund the extra funding for the humanitarian crisis that 
would help the children and the migrants themselves.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chair of the Committee on 
the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I stand here today in strong support of 
H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, a product of 
decades-long advocacy, grit, and compromise.
  I am extremely proud to stand with Dreamers and recipients of 
temporary protected status and deferred enforced departure. We are here 
because of their hard work, as well as the steadfast determination of 
immigrant rights groups, faith-based organizations, labor unions, civil 
rights groups, business associations, and so many of my colleagues who 
have worked tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor today.

[[Page H4238]]

  Our work has paid off. There is widespread, bipartisan support across 
the country for protecting Dreamers and passing the American Dream and 
Promise Act.
  Just yesterday, over 100 business leaders urged us to vote in favor 
of the bill, including household companies such as eBay, Hewlett-
Packard, IKEA, Chobani, and Levi Strauss. They support the bill because 
the United States will benefit economically from its passage.
  The Chamber of Commerce says that it supports the bill, and it may 
make the vote on the American Dream and Promise Act a key vote.
  Even now, more than 70 percent of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies, 
which generate $3 trillion in annual revenue, employ Dreamers. Even the 
conservative Cato Institute found that allowing Dreamers to remain here 
would add an extra $350 billion to our economy and an additional $90 
billion in tax revenue.
  On the other hand, failure to support lawful status for Dreamers will 
directly undermine our competitiveness and subject them to permanent 
exile. That makes no sense.
  We have waited long enough. It is time for us to pass the American 
Dream and Promise Act in the House of Representatives.
  It was 2001 when the first iteration of the Dream Act was introduced. 
Eighteen years later, we are finally poised to pass it.
  We have seen the benefit of President Obama's DACA announcement, a 
temporary initiative that allowed these young people to temporarily 
work and to stay without looking over their shoulders. The courts have 
kept us from seeing the destruction of DACA that President Trump had 
ordered, even though polls show that almost 90 percent of Americans 
support legal recognition for Dreamers.
  Dreamers are Americans. All they lack is the paper to prove it. They 
live in every one of our 50 States. Their families hail from every 
region of the world. Their contributions are felt all across the 
landscape of this country.
  Among them are future industry leaders; nurses; doctors; chefs; 
construction workers; teachers, including 5,000 teachers in California; 
and care providers for our children and parents.
  Dreamers are joined in their efforts by TPS and DED brethren. In the 
same month that the administration announced the end of DACA, they also 
announced the termination of TPS for six countries and, a few weeks 
later, the termination of DED for Liberians, even though many of them 
have been here for 30 years.
  More than 400,000 nationals of seven countries now face exile from 
the United States. The majority have lived here for at least 20 years, 
building their lives, raising families that include more than a quarter 
of a million U.S. citizen children.
  The future for Dreamers and longtime TPS and DED recipients does not 
have to be uncertain. We have the opportunity to pass the American 
Dream and Promise Act in the House of Representatives today and, by 
doing so, put those Dreamers and strivers on the path to legal 
recognition.
  Let's put partisan fights aside for the good of our Nation, for the 
good of our economy and our communities. Approve this rule and, later 
today, vote for the American Dream and Promise Act.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I want to give context to this before I 
talk specifically about the idea of a closed rule here, which I oppose 
so much.
  First of all, there are about 690,000 in the DACA population, but 
there is an estimate that there is another 1 to 1.2 million, though no 
one really knows what that number is, who might have applied but chose 
not to apply under the Obama-era DACA regulations.
  We also have a significant population, post-2012, who have been 
brought here. We had a surge in 2013 and a surge in 2014 of 
unaccompanied minors. We have again seen a surge in the last few months 
even. We don't know what the population looks like for this.
  Another way to put this into context is this way: We have a million 
people who have absconded from their court dates. That means they 
haven't shown up. They got an order to appear, and they are not showing 
up. We have another million with active removal orders.
  That is 2 million people who are roaming the country. We don't know 
who they are, where they are.
  We brought in 1.2 million legal immigrants last year. That is a good 
thing.
  We are going to catch more than 1.2. We will apprehend more than 1.2 
million illegal aliens coming across our border this year. These are 
numbers that are almost unfathomable.
  That population I just mentioned would be the second largest city in 
the United States after New York City, more than Los Angeles itself.

                              {time}  1315

  When we say that we are going to apprehend 1.2 million this year, 
when one talks to Border Patrol agents, people who conduct censuses on 
these things, they will say that we have no idea any longer what the 
getaway number is. A year ago, they thought they were catching 1 in 2. 
Four months ago, they thought they were catching 1 in 3. Today, they 
will say that they have absolutely no idea.
  Last week, in El Paso alone, one group of over 1,000 people were 
apprehended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Arizona an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. BIGGS. A group of 1,000 was apprehended, and 2,200 came in 
through El Paso, in 1 day alone, who were apprehended. We are averaging 
about 4,500 apprehensions a day in this country.
  What happened when this bill came to markup? Why is it, in my 
opinion, a real problem that we have a closed rule here? The 
Republicans offered a number of amendments. We pointed out issues that 
we thought were of concern. We offered amendments to address those 
issues, such as allowing repeat criminals and gang members to obtain 
green cards. We offered amendments that would allow application 
information regarding illegal status to be used for deportation. We 
attempted to prevent fraudulent applications from being filed.
  But none of these and a whole host of other amendments offered by 
Republicans were accepted, even some that were just absolutely 
rational, such as those with DUIs that resulted in an accident where 
someone was seriously injured or even killed. They were not prevented 
from obtaining this path of legalization.
  Here we are today, and now they are saying no amendments can be 
offered from either side of the aisle. I have essentially opposed every 
closed rule since I came to Congress. I think it actually undermines 
this process where we represent districts and come to try to offer 
amendments. I have offered many amendments and had them all shut down, 
quite frankly, whether by vote or in the Rules Committee.
  But the reality is, I represent a district, and when the majority 
closes a rule like this, it is preventing me from representing a border 
State that has a great deal of difficulties because of the rampant 
border crossings of illegal aliens.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the underlying bill 
and the rule that is presently before us.
  As I do so, let me thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee. We 
have served for any number of years, and Congresswoman Lofgren has been 
on the front lines of reason and trying to address the question of 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  Together, respectively, and parallel to each other, we have 
introduced, over and over again, comprehensive immigration reform. We 
have watched it be refuted and rebutted by those who really could have 
helped us solve even the problem of the surge that we are seeing 
crossing the border today.
  Let me, as well, thank Madam Speaker, who has been engaged in a very 
important way, and my friend and colleague Lucille Roybal-Allard, who 
has clearly been leading on this issue and many others. Let me thank 
the Judiciary Committee as well, where we came together as a team.
  Let me reinforce what has been said over and over again, and that is 
that Dreamers are Americans. Those who

[[Page H4239]]

are beneficiaries of TPS, they have been here 20 to 30 years because of 
the difficulty of their home countries. They have, likewise, shown 
themselves to love this country.
  There was a period of time when Dreamers had joined in and went to 
the Iraq war. They were not citizens, but they went there because they 
loved this country so much. They came as a child, and they realized the 
wonderment of this country.
  It is important to convince those who believe that we are opening the 
doors and that we are reckless. Let me be very clear. Besides the 
Immigration and Nationality Act that is already in existence, there are 
very clear parameters on dealing with people who are felons or a threat 
to national security, individuals who have committed DUIs, those who 
have misdemeanors. There are clear parameters of ensuring that the 
Nation is protected. But, as well, there is dignity and human rights.
  There is also the question of what investment in dollars you will 
lose, what you will throw away, $460 billion from the national GDP over 
the decade from 685,000 workers--in my own State, $8 billion annually 
in the State GDP.
  Immigrants are in the fabric of our society. We are immigrant and 
nonimmigrant. All of us have come from that history. Mine is different, 
having been brought here by, meaning those who are of African American 
heritage, as slaves.
  386,300 immigrants are eligible under the American Dream and Promise 
Act, and 120,000 live in Harris County.
  But this is the story that I want to tell and dwell on. A Dreamer 
died trying to rescue Hurricane Harvey victims. That is Alonso Guillen, 
who came to help those in the darkest moments of our region, during 
Hurricane Harvey, the greatest and most significant disaster.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
courtesy.
  He came from Lufkin, Texas. He loved Texas football and country 
music. He had fundraisers for any manner of needs in his area.
  When he saw the devastation and the people in water in Harris County, 
and we were in 51 trillion gallons of water, he came, with a little 
boat and a friend. He didn't ask whether they were immigrant or 
nonimmigrant, Dreamer or non-Dreamer, what their background was. As 
they were in the water, as they were on their rooftops, as they were 
desperate without food, he came.

  Tragically, his family had come to, ultimately, find him floating in 
the water, when his boat had toppled and, we believe, had been impacted 
by the wires in the water.
  This is the face of Dreamers. This is the face of those who would 
benefit from temporary protective status coming from Nepal, from El 
Salvador, and from countries that are under major devastation.
  Many times, there is crime in America, and I understand that. But 
people don't imagine what it is to flee from the natural disasters that 
these individuals have fled from, to have no relief from the 
government, and to compound that with the violence that is going on, 
knowing so much violence.
  I stand here today to ask for rational thought. With a multitude of 
organizations, I want to raise up one, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It 
doesn't come lightly to this question. I would argue that, had we 
passed comprehensive immigration reform 10 years ago, 15 years ago, the 
question of surging across the border would not be an issue.
  Let me also be clear that we have built barriers across the border 
for more than a decade. I remember giving huge sums of money to ensure 
it, in certain spaces.
  What we are saying now is that that is not a sole solution. The 
solution is regularizing individuals with the safeguards of this 
legislation.
  I would hope my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, as Americans, 
understand that this Nation was built with the sweat and tears and love 
of immigrants. Every American, except Native Americans, can point to 
coming from somewhere else, no matter what condition they were in when 
they came.
  I ask our colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 6, because it 
is the American thing to do.
  Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary 
and on Homeland Security, and a representative of a state on the 
southern border, I rise in strong support of the rule governing debate 
of H.R. 6, the ``American Dream and Promise Act of 2019,'' and the 
underlying legislation.
  The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 establishes a roadmap to 
U.S. citizenship for (1) immigrant youth and (2) current or potential 
holders of (a) temporary protected status (TPS) or (b) deferred 
enforced departure (DED).
  Ensuring a path to earned citizenship is a non-negotiable principle 
for me and the sine qua non of meaningful immigration reform 
legislation.
  Indeed, providing a path to earned access to citizenship has been a 
central feature of every comprehensive immigration reform bill I have 
co-sponsored or sponsored in the Congress since 2007 when I became 
Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and 
introduced the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, 
(H.R. 1525),'' which I have reintroduced in each succeeding Congress.
  Like H.R. 6, Section 501 of my legislation provides a path to earned 
legalization status to those undocumented immigrants who have resided 
in the United States for 5 years and meet other eligibility 
requirements.
  Madam Speaker, as we stand today on the precipice of passing the 
American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, I am thinking of the hundreds 
of thousands of young immigrants whose lives will be changed for the 
better by keeping our promise to them, so they can realize their dreams 
and making America better, stronger, and more prosperous.
  And at this moment, I am thinking of Alonso Guillen, an heroic 
DREAMER who lived in my congressional district, and who came to the 
United States from Mexico as a child and died when his boat capsized 
while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding caused by Hurricane 
Harvey in the Houston area.
  That is the type of courage, honor, and commitment to service we are 
talking when we speak of DREAMERS.
  Madam Speaker, Title I of H.R. 6, the Dream Act of 2019, contains 
provisions regarding relief for immigrant youth.
  Title II of the bill, American Promise Act of 2019, contains 
provisions related to persons eligible Temporary Protected Status (TPS) 
or Deferred Enforcement Departure; the third and final title contains 
general provisions that apply to both Titles I & II).
  Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 6 because it keeps America's word to 
the more than 800,000 young people we asked to come out of the shadows 
and walk proudly and unashamedly as legitimate members of the American 
community.
  The legislation does this by providing conditional permanent resident 
(CPR) status and a roadmap to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status 
and, eventually, earned U.S. citizenship for immigrant youth who 
entered the U.S. before age 18, have four or more years of residency, 
and graduated from high school (or the equivalent).
  H.R. 6 also provides an opportunity to apply for LPR status for 
people who currently have or who may be eligible for TPS or DED and who 
have three or more years of residency.
  Madam Speaker, individuals who are eligible for protection under the 
bill have lived in the United States for much of their lives; the 
average Dreamer came to the United States at the age of 8, while the 
average TPS- or DED-eligible person arrived in 1997.
  Without permanent protections such as those in H.R. 6, these 
immigrants' and their families' futures in the United States--as well 
as the fiscal and economic contributions they make--are at risk.
  Passing this legislation is the right thing to do and now is the time 
to do it; in fact, it is long overdue.
  I am mindful also Madam Speaker that in addition to helping restore 
America's reputation as the most welcoming nation on earth, the 
legislation the House will pass also positions America to better 
compete and win in the global economy of the 21st century.
  According to expert studies, including one by the Center for American 
Progress, ending deferred action for childhood arrivals would result in 
a loss of $460.3 billion from the national GDP over the ensuing decade 
and would remove an estimated 685,000 workers from the nation's economy 
and workforce at a time when more, not fewer, workers are desperately 
needed.
  And 10 states, including my home state of Texas, would stand to lose 
more than $8 billion annually in state GDP.
  Madam Speaker, immigrants eligible for protection under H.R. 6 are 
part of Texas's social fabric.
  Texas is home to 386,300 immigrants who are eligible for protection 
under the Dream

[[Page H4240]]

and Promise Act, 112,000 of whom reside in Harris County.
  These individuals live with 845,300 family members and among those 
family members, 178,700 are U.S.-born citizen children.
  Dreamers in Texas who are eligible for protection under the bill 
arrived in the United States at the average age of 8.
  TPS- and DED-eligible immigrants in Texas who would be eligible for 
protection under H.R. 6 have on average lived in the United States 
since 1996.
  Immigrants eligible for the Dream and Promise Act own 43,500 homes in 
Texas and pay $340,500,000 in annual mortgage payments.
  Eligible immigrants in Texas and their households contribute 
$2,234,800,000 in federal taxes and $1,265,200,000 in state and local 
taxes each year.
  Annually, these households generate $10,519,000,000 in spending power 
in Texas and help power the national economy.
  Madam Speaker, during general debate on H.R. 6, I will have more to 
discuss about the salient features of this long overdue legislation 
that fulfills the American promise that all of its residents who share 
our values and respect for the Constitution and laws have an 
opportunity to realize their dreams.
  But in the limited time I have now, let me highlight some of the more 
important provisions of the American Dream and Promise Act.
  H.R. 6 helps young persons in the following ways:
   1. Extends the length of conditional permanent resident (CPR) status 
from eight to ten years to give applicants more time to fulfill 
requirements;
   2. Stays the removal of minors who are not yet eligible for relief 
but may become eligible in the future and who temporarily unenroll from 
school;
   3. Permits people with CPR to obtain legal permanent resident (LPR) 
status without satisfying the employment, military, or educational 
tracks if their deportation would cause ``hardship'' to themselves or 
immediate family members (instead of ``extreme hardship'');
   4. Includes apprenticeship programs as a qualifying education to 
obtain CPR status;
   5. Eliminates the costly medical examination for applicants;
   6. Establishes a fee ceiling of $495 for immigrant youth applying 
for CPR status;
   7. Clarifies that people with CPR can access professional, 
commercial, and business licenses;
   8. Permits people with CPR who obtain a certificate or credential 
from an area career and technical education school to obtain LPR 
status; and
   9. Updates the criminal background bars and inadmissibility 
requirements.
  Additionally, H.R. 6 provides LPR status to CPR holders who (1) serve 
in the uniformed services for two years; (2) complete two years at or 
obtain a degree from an institution of higher education; or (3) work 75 
percent of the time in CPR.
  Another important feature of this legislation is that makes it easier 
for states to provide in-state tuition to immigrant students and 
establishes that CPR-holders are eligible for federal loans, work 
study, services, and grants.
  For persons with TPS or DED status, the American Dream and Promise 
Act provides much needed relief.
  First, H.R. 6 provides LPR status for people with TPS or DED (and 
those who were eligible but did not apply) who apply within three years 
from the date of enactment if they (1) had at least three years of 
continuous residence (as well as residence since the date required the 
last time that the person's nation of origin was designated) and (2) 
were eligible for or had (a) TPS on September 25, 2016, or (b) DED on 
September 28, 2016.
  This protection covers national of 13 countries: El Salvador, Guinea, 
Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia, 
South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
  I believe similar protections should be extended to Guatemalan 
nationals in our country, which is why I will soon reintroduce the 
``Continue American Safety Act,'' which extends TPS status to Guatemala 
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this 
outcome.
  Second, H.R. 6 classifies people with TPS or DED as inspected and 
admitted for the purposes of Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) 
section 245(a), making it easier to obtain LPR status through existing 
channels (e.g., a family-based petition).
  Third, H.R. 6 stays the removal or deportation of an a individual 
while an application is pending.
  Fourth, the American Dream and Promise Act establishes a fee ceiling 
of $1,140 for people with TPS or DED applying for LPR status.
  Fifth, the legislation provides greater transparency by requiring the 
Secretary of the Homeland Security (DHS) to provide an explanation for 
and report within three days of publishing notice to terminate TPS 
designation for certain nationals.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 is exceptional legislation and a welcome 
development but is not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive 
reform and modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by 
the American people.
  Only Congress can do that and passage of H.R. 6 shows that this House 
has the will and is up to the challenge.
  Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that 
Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes 
immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that 
secures our borders and protects our homeland.
  Madam Speaker, let us build on the historic legislation that is the 
American Dream and Promise Act and seize the opportunity to pass 
legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as 
the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and 
will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.
  I urge all Members to support the rule governing debate of H.R. 6 and 
the underlying bill.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a grandchild of legal 
immigrants to this country.
  We are debating whether or not to grant the greatest gift our Nation 
has to offer, permanent residency and citizenship. We must get our 
priorities straight.
  While we are here in the middle of a humanitarian crisis on the 
southern border, Democratic leadership is choosing to bring amnesty for 
millions of illegal immigrants to a vote.
  By choosing to ignore our current immigration laws, Democrats are 
effectively inviting the mass migration of illegal immigrants across 
our border States, including Arizona. If enacted, this would be the 
largest amnesty in U.S. history. It would do nothing to enforce our 
laws but, instead, reward lawbreakers.
  This legislation grants smugglers and gang members with green cards 
and a path to citizenship. It will simply serve to incentivize more 
migrants to come to the United States illegally.
  Congress should work with the administration in stopping the surge of 
illegal immigration, not incentivizing more caravans.
  My constituents have recently and repeatedly made it clear that 
Arizona's Fourth Congressional District does not support amnesty.
  This bill does not promise the American Dream but, rather, the 
perpetration of a crisis. This crisis is doing real harm to Arizona and 
all of America.
  I encourage my colleagues not to vote for H.R. 6, which would only 
serve to enable the humanitarian crisis on our southern border and does 
nothing to close loopholes or even enforce existing law.
  I find this legislation to be a disgrace. The American people deserve 
better. It is time this Congress started putting American citizens 
first.
  It came as a closed rule. That shows you that it is bad process and 
bad policy.
  As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is quoted: ``In a 
government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it 
fails to observe the law scrupulously. . . . If the government becomes 
a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to 
become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.''
  Do I need to say anything else?
  I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation and vote ``no.''
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, this is a bright day in the history of the 
House. We are going to provide relief to people who are innocent.
  We have the debate about immigration, no question about it. But we 
are talking about children, infants, in some cases, who were brought 
here through no decision of their own. They then went to school here, 
began a career here, built a family here. In many cases, they served in 
the military here and served as first responders.
  This is finally an opportunity for those Dreamers to have legal 
status, 2.5 million of them.
  We are also going to provide temporary protected status to other law-
abiding people living and contributing here.
  This is a big deal in Vermont. First, for the people, for those 
affected, it is

[[Page H4241]]

relief. It is about time. Second, they are contributing to the economy 
with the jobs that they perform and the taxes that they pay, about $3.5 
million in Federal taxes and $2 million in State and local taxes.
  One, in particular, is a student at the University of Vermont Medical 
School, Juan Conde. He was brought here from Mexico when he was 9 years 
old. His mom later died of cancer.
  His goal in life is to help cancer victims. First, he got a master's 
degree in chemistry and a Ph.D. in molecular biology, doing research to 
advance a cure for cancer. Now he is a student at the University of 
Vermont Medical School, and he is dedicating his life to cancer 
research and cancer treatment.
  What a win it is for this country to have the services of this 
bright, idealistic young man. This legislation is going to allow him to 
have the security that we all need in order to be the best that we can 
possibly be as a contributing member of society.
  A confident nation welcomes people who are law-abiding citizens. Pass 
this legislation overwhelmingly.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
  Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, I have noticed a trend lately with the bills 
that we are voting on. They all have attractive names: the Save the 
Internet Act, the Equality Act, and now the thing that we are voting on 
this week, the American Dream and Promise Act.
  I rise in opposition to this bill because great titles don't equal 
great policies. H.R. 6 doesn't really provide a legal pathway for the 
DACA population. Instead, it gives green cards to, potentially, 
millions of illegal aliens. There is no age limit, and the bill is so 
broad that it prohibits DHS from using evidence found in Federal or 
State gang databases as the reason to deny an application.

                              {time}  1330

  The bill also does nothing to address the humanitarian crisis at our 
southern border, absolutely nothing.
  Madam Speaker, I visited the southern border earlier this year and I 
saw the crisis firsthand. I talked with our Border Patrol agents, who 
need Congress' help.
  Many things are needed to fix our immigration system, but what isn't 
needed is a political messaging bill that has no chance of passing the 
Senate or being signed into law.
  Madam Speaker, clever bill titles don't equal good policy, and good 
intentions don't always lead to good outcomes. I swore an oath to 
defend the rule of law, and that is what I will continue to do.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. 
Lesko) for her time and energy on this important issue. I thank my 
colleagues who have been speaking on the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I have got to say, this bill, like my colleague from 
North Carolina just spoke of, is more of the same. It is more of the 
same political theater that we see day in and day out in this body, 
where we refuse to actually address the issues of the day.
  We have 100,000 people pouring across the border of the United States 
per month who are apprehended--100,000. And then I watch with complete 
disbelief while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle dare to 
complain about how children are being housed, about how people are 
being housed when we don't have the facilities to do it, and they 
literally refuse to bring forward legislation to fund dealing with the 
problem.
  I have never seen greater hypocrisy in this body, and that is saying 
something pretty profound. I don't know how Members can look, with a 
straight face, at the American people and say that this House is 
actually addressing this concern legitimately.
  The Democrats are bringing forward a bill, now, under the idea of 
taking care of people who are here illegally--who, by the way, were 
given status by the President of the United States previously, 
illegally and unconstitutionally, as we proved in DAPA, which I was 
proud to litigate on behalf of Texas along with Attorney General 
Paxton, Solicitor General Scott Keller, where we won in the Fifth 
Circuit. We were upheld in the Supreme Court for DAPA, the DACA class 
was illegally and unconstitutionally granted status.
  It matters what we do here; it matters what the government does; it 
matters that we follow the rule of law; and it matters that we not look 
at the American people and claim to be, in the false name of 
compassion, concerned about the migrants coming here when we have open 
borders that are exploiting these kids.
  A little girl today is going to be raped on the journey coming up 
through Mexico while we pretend to care. When are we going to do 
something about it?
  If we actually care about the people at the border right now, if we 
actually care, why wouldn't we fund beds right now?
  Why wouldn't we fund immigration judges right now?
  Why wouldn't we fix asylum laws right now, not to prevent asylum, but 
to match it up with the 88 percent who are found to be fraudulently 
claiming asylum once they go through the process and immigration judges 
look at it? Why wouldn't we fix that problem today?
  Why are we empowering cartels to profit to the tune of $2 billion in 
2018 by moving human beings across our border?
  Why are we empowering 54 migrants being stashed in a stash house in 
Houston, Texas, by the Reynosa faction of the Gulf Cartel while we do 
nothing about it, when we can?
  We are the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Why 
don't we go to our southern border and address the problem rather than 
engaging in the political theater of this ridiculous bill?
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Florida has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona 
(Mrs. Lesko), my colleague on the Rules Committee, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, you heard my colleague's passion from this microphone 
just seconds ago.
  Lest anyone thinks this is about money, this rule today combines two 
bills: one, CBO estimates to cost $8 billion, not a penny for border 
security; another, the CBO estimates to cost $26 billion, not a penny 
for border security.
  Lest anyone thinks this conversation today is about helping those 
young people here under DACA protections, remember, the Republican 
majority brought two bills to the floor last year that would do exactly 
that, got not one Democratic vote on either one of them.
  If anyone thinks this bill is about protecting folks who are trying 
to strive for the American Dream, Madam Speaker, I would encourage you 
to read from page 3 of the bill. It says:

       This bill applies to an alien who is inadmissible or 
     deportable from the United States, and those aliens only.

  I tell you that, Madam Speaker, because I represent a constituency 
that is 25 percent first-generation Americans. I represent a 
constituency that has played by the rules, done everything right, come 
to this country legally. Their children are unprotected today, and this 
bill does not one thing to protect those children. In order to qualify 
for the protections in this bill, Madam Speaker, people had to have 
come to America the wrong way.

  If people came to America the right way and have been waiting in line 
for 5 years or 10 years or, in the case of my constituents--and you 
know this well, Madam Speaker--15 years, 20 years for a green card 
while their children are aging out of the system, this bill does not 
one thing to protect them. Only if people came the wrong way are there 
protections in this system.
  To be in the DACA program, people had to get here before 2007. 
President Obama's crisis on the border came in 2014. This bill today 
not only grandfathers all the DACA kids, it grandfathers all of those 
kids. In the meantime, we have spent not one penny on border security.

[[Page H4242]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague for 
yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, we could be doing something together today. My friend, 
the chairwoman of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, has a bill that has been cosponsored by 
more than half of the Democrats and by more than half of the 
Republicans that would go directly to this issue of folks who have been 
standing in line for decades and cannot get a green card. We could be 
bringing that bill today. It has not even gotten a hearing in the 
committee or the subcommittee so far.
  This is not beyond our control. The rabbi who prayed for us this 
morning, Madam Speaker, said we can achieve the unachievable. We 
absolutely can come together and do that. This is not a serious effort 
to do that today, Madam Speaker, but it doesn't have to be the last 
word.
  If we defeat this rule, we can come back together with bills that 
have been cosponsored by a majority of the Republicans, a majority of 
the Democrats, and move forward on this issue together. I know that is 
what the Speaker wants to do. I know that is what the chairwoman of the 
Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee wants to do. I know that is 
what most of us in this Chamber want to do, and we can.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, you know I am from the State of Arizona. Border 
security and immigration has been the top issue for years now, not only 
in my district, but the entire State of Arizona, because we see it 
firsthand. We also see the DACA recipients. I mean, they are good kids, 
going to school, and I applaud the good and great DACA recipients that 
we have.
  But what Representative Woodall says is true: Republicans offered two 
bills to give legal status and one a pathway to citizenship to DACA 
recipients, but this bill goes beyond DACA. It is like DACA on 
steroids, because it will allow millions more people to get a special 
pathway to citizenship in front of the line of other legal immigrants 
who are trying to do it the legal way.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this is going 
nowhere in the Senate and the President is not going to do this. I hope 
at one point we are actually going to work together, because as 
Representative Woodall said, on those two bills that we put forward 
last year that would have solved the DACA problem, not one Democrat 
voted for them.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking Speaker 
Pelosi for making the Dream and Promise Act one of the top 10 
Democratic priorities for the people and the Judiciary Committee for 
all their hard work on this bill.
  As coauthor of H.R. 6, I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
Dream and Promise Act. I will focus primarily on the Dream portion of 
the bill.
  Eighteen years ago, I was coauthor of the original DREAM Act, known 
as the Student Adjustment Act. Today's vote on H.R. 6 is a major 
milestone in a long fight to protect Dreamers who are part of the 
fabric of our American society.
  This bill eliminates the fear of deportation, which each day haunts 
2.1 million Dreamers at school, at work, and as they care for their 
families.
  I represent 24,000 Dreamers, the largest number of Dreamers of any 
congressional district. I think of these talented and patriotic 
Dreamers and the barriers that they have overcome to build lives and 
families in America, the only country they call home. I think of the 
courage that they have shown by standing up and sharing their stories 
of endurance, resourcefulness, sacrifice, and heartbreak.
  Dreamers exemplify American values and what it means to pursue the 
American Dream.
  I think of Dreamers like Yasmin, who was raised in a mixed status 
family and watched her father fight against a serious illness. This 
experience inspired her to help others. She is now studying to be a 
physician's assistant, serving patients like her father.
  H.R. 6 will enable Dreamers like Yasmin to reach their full 
potential, contribute to their community, and help ensure America is a 
stronger and greater nation.
  Dreamers like Yasmin are why Democrats, Republicans, and Independents 
all support our Dreamers, as well as businesses, organized labor, faith 
groups, educators, health professionals, and former Cabinet officials, 
among others.
  This broad and unprecedented coalition of support highlights the fact 
that this is not a partisan issue. This is about who we are as 
Americans and what is in the best interests of our country.
  Just like generations of immigrants before them, these incredible 
young people are vital to the well-being of our Nation. According to 
the Center for American Progress, each year, Dreamers contribute $17.3 
billion in Federal taxes and nearly $9.7 billion in State and local 
taxes, and their households have $75 billion in buying power.

  Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to lose the Dreamers' talents and 
valuable contributions to our country. Let's make the dream a reality 
once and for all. I call on my colleagues to pass the Dream and Promise 
Act today.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I would inquire if my colleague has any 
more speakers.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, again, Republicans, too, want to have a DACA solution 
for the DACA recipients, but this bill isn't it, because it goes way 
above the DACA recipients and basically lets millions more people in, 
people who could be gang members, who have DUIs, and so on and so 
forth.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide for additional consideration of H.R. 
3056 authored by Representative Rogers.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1345

  Mrs. LESKO. H.R. 3056, the bill, provides $4.5 billion in funding to 
address the immediate humanitarian crisis we have on the southern 
border. It includes $3.3 billion for humanitarian assistance, including 
shelter capacity for unaccompanied children, care for children in 
custody, and transportation for safe and efficient border processing 
centers.
  It also includes $1.1 billion for operational support, including 
personnel, transportation, and resources to combat human trafficking 
and drug trafficking--very serious issues.
  It also includes $178 million for technology upgrades and law 
enforcement pay adjustments to respond to this great influx of families 
coming from Central America to our border.
  The Democrats today are waiving all the rules to spend $35 billion on 
their, I call, amnesty bill, but they have chosen to ignore the 
humanitarian crisis that is happening right now on our southern border. 
H.R. 3056 takes steps to resolve that problem.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, it is critical that we develop and 
implement a solution to the crisis at our southern border immediately. 
I am from Arizona. There is a crisis at our border. Instead, H.R. 6 is 
just another political messaging bill because my colleagues know it is 
not going anywhere.
  Madam Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the 
underlying message, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I wish to remind 
them what the President said after terminating DACA and ending TPS for 
hundreds of thousands of immigrants: ``It is now time for Congress to 
act.'' And today, we are acting.
  We are in the midst of the longest probationary period for 
citizenship and

[[Page H4243]]

permanent status in American history. But today, we are finally 
providing real solutions for Dreamers, TPS recipients, and DED 
beneficiaries.
  We are providing solutions for people like Maria Moreno, who came to 
the United States as a child and is a constituent of mine. She is now a 
22-year-old anthropology student at Florida International University 
and currently working at HistoryMiami Museum.
  She has spent her life focused on her education. Now, as she pursues 
her career as an anthropologist, she continues to find ways to make 
changes within her community. She is a tutor for local kids, empowering 
them to find joy in learning.
  To say that Maria is not worthy of permanent legal status is cruel 
and unjust. She is just as American as you and I.
  And Maria is just one of millions of Dreamers who cherishes the 
American Dream. They work hard and believe in a country that has been 
shamefully slow in recognizing their worth.
  Despite all the hardship we have put them through, like the newcomers 
before them, they still believe in our country's commitment to 
opportunity and fairness.
  Today, the Dreamers, Madam Speaker, are one step closer to getting 
their dream. Today, the Dreamers, Madam Speaker, are one House closer 
to getting their dream.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  Mr. WOMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 
415, a rule providing for House consideration of H.R. 6, the American 
Dream and Promise Act of 2019.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 6 increases 
the deficit by at least $30 billion over ten years. CBO indicates that 
this is additional mandatory spending. Under current projections, 
mandatory spending is set to increase from 69 percent to 78 percent of 
the federal budget over the next decade. Adding to this already 
unsustainable projected growth, mandatory spending threatens to crowd 
out necessary spending on defense, homeland security, veterans, 
infrastructure, public health, education, and other discretionary 
priorities. Absent the waiver made by this rule, H.R. 6 would be 
vulnerable to a PAYGO point of order.
  The rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6 waives all points of 
order against the bill, including clause 10 of rule XXI, the House 
PAYGO, or ``Pay-As-You-Go,'' rule, which requires any legislation 
increasing the deficit to be offset with spending cuts or tax 
increases.
  Unsurprisingly, this rule was met with strong objections at the start 
of the 116th Congress by many progressive lawmakers who viewed PAYGO as 
an impediment to costly proposals such as the ``Green New Deal'' and 
``Medicare-for-All,'' which is projected to cost at least $32 trillion 
on top of what the federal government is already spending. After much 
debate, the PAYGO rule was adopted by the new House majority on January 
3, the first day of the 116th Congress. Immediately after this new 
House rule was adopted, a number of stories circulated in the press 
indicating that my colleagues in the Democratic Leadership intended to 
waive the PAYGO rule any time they needed to. In a sign of more 
division on that side of the aisle, Democrats introduced bills to 
repeal the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, even though they had just voted 
for PAYGO in the House rules package.
  From a budget enforcement perspective, it's clear Democrats continue 
to circumvent their own rules. l hope this waiver does not continue the 
practice that the House PAYGO rule will be waived by the House Rules 
Committee whenever a bill is non-compliant, feels inconvenient, or 
stands in the way of advancing their costly agenda.
  I oppose the rule for H.R. 6, since it enables a fiscally 
irresponsible bill to move forward without following House rules. 
Budget enforcement should be an important priority of the House Budget 
Committee. I hope the House will limit the extent to which future 
legislation increases already unsustainable budget deficits.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:


                   Amendment to House Resolution 415

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, 
     the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3056) to provide supplemental appropriations relating to 
     border security, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during 
     consideration of the bill. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3056.
  Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
  Agreeing to House Resolution 415, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 192, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 235]

                               YEAS--228

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess

[[Page H4244]]


     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Clyburn
     Green (TN)
     Hastings
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     LaMalfa
     Mullin
     Omar
     Reed
     Sherman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1416

  Messrs. JOYCE of Ohio and RUTHERFORD changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. NORCROSS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LAMALFA. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 235.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 203, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 236]

                               YEAS--219

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--203

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Malinowski
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Peters
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clyburn
     Green (TN)
     Hastings
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Mullin
     Omar
     Sherman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1426

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________