[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12947-12964]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3354, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
 ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018; PROVIDING 
   FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; AND WAIVING A 
 REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION 
      OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 500

       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. 3354) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, 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 two hours 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. An 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-31, modified by Rules 
     Committee Print 115-32 and 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. Points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 or clause 5(a) 
     of rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with the 
     colon on page 327, line 22, through ``crime'' on page 328, 
     line 2; beginning with the semicolon on page 535, line 12, 
     through ``(12 U.S.C. 3907(b)(2).''' on page 536, line 14; and 
     section 7080. Where points of order are waived against part 
     of a section, points of order against a provision in another 
     part of such section may be made only against such provision 
     and not against the entire section.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, and pro 
     forma amendments described in section 4 of this resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered 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, may 
     be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided 
     by section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to 
     a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     provided by section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     20 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 5.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment pursuant to this resolution, the Committee of the 
     Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of 
     the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent 
     order of the House.
       Sec. 6. (a) During consideration of H.R. 3354, it shall not 
     be in order to consider an amendment proposing both a 
     decrease in an appropriation designated pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not 
     so designated, or vice versa.
       (b) This paragraph shall not apply to an amendment between 
     the Houses.
       Sec. 7.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of September 9, 2017, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.
       Sec. 8.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of September 9, 2017.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 3354, the Department of the 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, 
also known as the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act 
of 2018. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the second 
installment of the House's effort to pass all 12 appropriations bills 
on the floor for the first time since 2006. The overall package will 
consider the remaining eight bills, covering $416.3 billion in total 
spending. It represents many months of work by the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Today's rule covers four divisions of the bill: the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act; the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act; the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act; and the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  Together, these four divisions encompass $168.2 billion of 
discretionary Federal spending. This represents a decrease of $7.8 
billion from fiscal year 2017, as Congress seeks to fulfill its 
obligation to the American people to be fiscally responsible stewards 
of the taxpayers' hard earned money.
  Most importantly, it represents the next step in fulfilling the 
greatest responsibility we have as legislators: to fund the Federal 
Government and keep it open each year to provide our constituents the 
services they deserve while ensuring that we appropriately prioritize 
where and how to spend taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies division will provide 
approximately $20 billion in appropriations, a decrease of $870 million 
from fiscal year 2017. The division will fund critical programs for 
farmers and ranchers, which is of critical importance to my home State 
of Oklahoma.
  The bill also supports conservative priorities, including language 
rolling back regulations that harm businesses, industries, farming and 
ranching operations, and rural and urban communities alike. In 
particular, the bill includes language allowing schools to get waivers 
from particularly problematic Obama administration regulations 
governing school lunches, and prevents the Commodities Futures Trading 
Commission from imposing harmful de minimis levels of trading activity 
that would force thousands of end users to comply with onerous 
regulatory requirements.

[[Page 12948]]

  The bill also includes language changing the Food and Drug 
Administration's predicate date rules for premium cigars, e-cigarettes, 
and vaping products, thereby preventing the FDA from regulating these 
industries out of existence.
  There is much to like in the Agriculture Appropriations division, and 
I look forward to considering the bill on the floor.
  On the security side of the ledger, the Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations division provides $44.3 billion, an increase of 
$1.9 billion over fiscal year 2017. Of importance, the bill provides $7 
billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an increase of $620 
million. These funds will be used to enforce immigration laws and 
combat illegal immigration, which our constituents have repeatedly told 
us they oppose.
  The bill provides $13.8 billion for Customs and Border Patrol, an 
increase of $1.6 billion, to ensure the continued security of our 
border. It also provides $1.6 billion for physical barrier construction 
on the Southern border, thus fulfilling the first step of one of 
President Trump's key promises. It provides $10.5 billion for the Coast 
Guard and supports FEMA's disaster relief fund at $7.3 billion.
  As with the earlier security appropriations package the House passed 
at the end of July, the funds in this division will help ensure 
America's national security and go a long way towards funding key 
Member priorities.
  The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations division provides 
$47.4 billion, a decrease of $10 billion from fiscal year 2017. Even 
with this decrease, the committee has funded key priorities. Security 
assistance is funded at $8.8 billion, and full funding is provided for 
battling international organized crime, antiterrorism programs, and 
combating cybercrime. The bill also fully funds the $3.1 billion 
Memorandum of Understanding with Israel.
  The Appropriations Committee has prioritized programs of importance 
and de-prioritized programs that are not in the best interests of the 
United States, such as reducing funding for the U.N. by $939 million, 
eliminating all funding for UNESCO, and eliminating funding for the 
Global Climate Change Initiative.
  In producing this division, the Appropriations Committee made 
difficult choices about the Nation's priorities, and made them well, 
and ensured that taxpayer dollars are going to the most important, 
critical, and efficient programs.
  Finally, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations division provides $56.5 billion, an 
increase of $1.1 billion over fiscal year 2017. That number does not 
include $45 billion also authorized to be spent by the highway trust 
fund for America's highways. Of note, the bill provides $16.6 billion 
for the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of $153 million, 
to maintain and promote air travel and security. This sum includes $1 
billion for so-called NextGen for more efficient air traffic control, 
and $162 million for the contract tower program, a crucial safety net 
that covers many districts across the country, including facilities 
like Westheimer Airport in Norman, Oklahoma, as well as towers in 
Lawton and Ardmore in my own home district.
  It provides $38.3 billion in net discretionary funding to Housing and 
Urban Development. Critically, it sustains Section 8 and Public and 
Native American housing programs at $27.5 billion. It also includes 
increases in funding for programs benefiting vulnerable citizens, 
including $573 million for housing for the elderly, an increase of 
$70.6 million over fiscal year 2017, and $47 million for housing for 
Persons with Disabilities, an increase of $800,000 over fiscal year 
2017.
  In all, T-HUD Appropriations covers important priorities and ensures 
that our Nation's housing and transportation infrastructure will be 
adequately funded to meet our needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying bill. The package before us represents a fulfillment of 
our most important responsibility as Members of Congress, and provides 
appropriate funding in four areas: Agriculture; State and Foreign 
Operations, Homeland Security, and Transportation and Urban 
Development.
  I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their 
months of work in making this bill a reality, and I cheer their efforts 
on moving forward to the completion of the fiscal year 2018 
appropriations process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my friend, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but the highest respect for my colleague 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), and I know he wants this House to run better. 
But the fact of the matter is, I feel bad that he has to defend this 
lousy, restrictive, indefensible process.
  As I said last night in the Rules Committee, regular order in this 
House is dead. The current Republican leadership has made it very clear 
that they have nothing but contempt for regular order, and today's 
appropriations package is only another example of that fact.
  Instead of considering bills one by one, and allowing thoughtful 
debate and Member input, Republican leaders decided to call up eight 
appropriation bills all at once this week, and even set amendment 
deadlines while Members were back in their districts for the August 
work period.
  Last night, in the Rules Committee, Republicans blocked 229 
amendments from even coming to the floor on the four bills we are 
talking about today alone. Those are Democratic and Republican ideas 
that won't be heard and won't be debated. Who knows how many more they 
will block on the next set of appropriation bills?
  That is not the open process that we were promised by Speaker Ryan. 
That is not regular order, my friends.
  What is even worse than this terrible process is the substance of the 
bills that are being brought before us. They are filled with funding 
cuts and poison pill riders that attack women's health, attack poor 
people, attack healthcare rights; repeal important financial reforms 
that protect our constituents and our economy; undermine the Affordable 
Care Act; make our land, air, and water dirtier; make our roads less 
safe; and undermine important civil rights protections. I could go on 
and on and on and on.
  These bills are political documents, Mr. Speaker. They are red meat 
for the Republican base which, I think, is at around 15 percent of the 
American people the last time I checked. That is right, Mr. Speaker, 
the majority's ideas are so unpopular that over three-quarters of the 
American people disapprove of what they are doing here today. That is 
not coming from any liberal or leftwing source. That poll was released 
last week by FOX News, you know, the network that you guys always 
watch.
  We all know we will need a continuing resolution to avert a 
government shutdown on October 1, so why are we wasting the House's 
time on this partisan exercise when we should be dealing with the CR?
  And oh, yes, we need to raise the debt ceiling, pass a budget, 
continue to fund hurricane relief, and so much more we need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of playing to the extremes. I am 
sick and tired of this President picking a fight with a different group 
of people every week, constantly trying to divide Americans, rather 
than unite us for the common good.
  And the latest target are the DREAMers. The DREAMers are our 
coworkers, our relatives, our neighbors, and our children's classmates. 
They have lived nearly their entire lives in America. They are part of 
the very fabric of our country.
  The decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or 
DACA, is a cruel betrayal of their trust in the

[[Page 12949]]

United States. It needlessly and stupidly robs us of the enormous 
talents, hard work, and ingenuity of these 800,000 young people. Ending 
DACA is a lose-lose proposition for America and for us all.
  President Trump vowed to show great heart in his decision and 
declared that DREAMers could rest easy. That is a lie, and that is a 
betrayal.
  And shame on the Republican leadership of this House that has avoided 
making DACA a permanent program for nearly 7 years. Shame on the 
Republican Party for voting against the DREAM Act in 2010, even though 
it ultimately passed the House.
  Shame on the Republicans in the Senate for blocking cloture in 2010, 
when it was clear that there were plenty of votes to pass the DREAM Act 
then. Shame on the Republican leadership of this House for not making 
DACA a permanent law when President Obama first initiated the program 
in 2012.
  Shame on the House Republican leadership for failing to take up the 
Senate-passed comprehensive immigration bill for the past 4 years, 
which included DACA and a pathway to permanent residency and 
citizenship for the DREAMers and so many other immigrants caught in 
legal limbo in our country.
  Shame on the Republican leadership for being such political cowards 
that they have failed time and time again to actually demonstrate 
leadership and resolve these problems.
  800,000 young people, who are totally American in every way that 
matters, put their trust in the United States Government and in us here 
in this Congress, not just to protect them, but to be proud of them. 
They have been cruelly betrayed.
  The memo issued yesterday by the Department of Homeland Security even 
says that they should be prepared to pack their bags and be deported to 
their countries of origin. But, Mr. Speaker, the simple truth is, 
America is their home.
  It is unconscionable that the President pardoned radical racist 
Sheriff Arpaio, who actually is a criminal, while punishing 800,000 
law-abiding, hardworking DREAMers.
  I stand with the CEO of Microsoft and hundreds of other business 
leaders who said to the President: ``To deport a DREAMer, you'll have 
to go through us.''
  I stand with the thousands of religious leaders, college and 
university presidents, mayors, State attorneys general, and civic 
leaders who demand that we reject the President's decision and have 
Congress pass the DREAM Act immediately. This Congress cannot and must 
not continue to fail these 800,000 young people.
  This morning, this House passed emergency aid for Hurricane Harvey. A 
DREAMer died in Houston attempting to rescue victims of the 
floodwaters. Another DREAMer, who is a Houston paramedic, and who 
worked night and day in rescue and relief efforts, just found out 
yesterday that his country, the only country he has ever known, has 
turned its back on him. Well, I refuse to turn my back.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that the DREAMers need a permanent 
legislative fix. We can do that this very day. If we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
Representative Roybal-Allard's bipartisan, bicameral bill, the DREAM 
Act. It is time to do what is right.
  You know, earlier today, Speaker Ryan said: Well, we have time to 
work this out. Really?
  The Speaker seems totally content to have 800,000 people continue to 
live with uncertainty and fear. I think that that is sad and that is 
cruel.
  He also said: We need to develop some sort of compromise.
  I don't know what he is thinking about. Maybe he is thinking about 
trying to add more border security money or add this stupid wall that 
the President keeps on talking about.
  Well, here's the deal. There is nothing to compromise on. You either 
support the DREAMers or you don't. They are not political pawns. They 
are people like you and me and our kids. They deserve better from us. 
Stop screwing around with their lives.
  Defeat the previous question. We can pass the DREAM Act today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin by discussing process with my good friend from 
Massachusetts, where I think he makes some good points, but I think he 
fails to recognize the progress that this bill represents.
  My good friend knows, because we have the privilege of working 
together on the Rules Committee, I have thought for many years, 
frankly, that we needed to get back to regular order. I remind this 
House the last time we actually operated under it in an appropriations 
process was in 2006. My friends were actually in the majority when we 
got rid of open rules on appropriations bills. My friends never brought 
all 12 appropriations bills to the floor and where they were subject to 
amendments by various Members.
  I would agree with my friend, this is not a perfect process that we 
have. If I had my way, we would go back to the way we operated in 2006, 
before the last Democratic majority, actually bring the bills down 
individually and, frankly, give every Member an open shot at amendment. 
I think that is the appropriate way to proceed.
  Again, my friends thought differently when they were in the majority 
and never made a move to restore regular order--quite the opposite. We 
have actually fought to do that. We did have a period of open rules on 
appropriations bills. We didn't get every bill down here, I regret to 
say, but we got quite a few of them down. But my friends decided they 
would engage in poison pill tactics.
  I regret, honestly, personally, that my conference gave into that; 
were more worried about casting tough votes. I think you are sent here 
to cast tough votes.
  So I will make this commitment to my friend. I will continue to work 
with him and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who would 
like to return to that process. However, I do recognize this is 
significant progress toward doing that.
  This is the first time, since 2006, that all 12 bills, in one form or 
another, will reach this floor, and, frankly, every single Member has 
been free to offer amendments on any portion of those 12 bills that 
they care to. Now, not all of them were made in order by the Rules 
Committee, and I would hope we get past that again some day.
  But, again, before my friends decry that too much, they need to 
remember the role they played in actually getting us out of that 
process.
  I also would like to talk just briefly with my friend about his 
thoughts about DACA, and I am sure we will have a good discussion on 
that in the course of the day, and, honestly, I think the discussion is 
helpful.
  But I think the President of the United States did the right thing 
when, number one, he recognized that he does not have the 
constitutional authority, something even his predecessor wondered 
about, to actually engage in law and put this issue back in the hands 
of the Congress. The Congress now has 6 months to deal with it. The 
Speaker has assured us that we will do that.
  I think the appropriate way to proceed is to have the committee of 
jurisdiction actually hold hearings and move forward, but we will see 
which way we go. But I think there is a better chance for a long-term 
solution, as even my friend agrees, if we have a legislative fix to the 
problem. I think that will involve some give-and-take, but my hope is 
we will end up at a place where all parties are satisfied. But we will 
see. That is what the legislative process is all about.
  Final point to make, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that 
what we are debating on here today, in terms of these four 
appropriations bills, and we will have another tranche of 
appropriations bills down here later, is actually a process.

[[Page 12950]]

  What we are really doing today is defining the position of the 
majority party as to where it stands on funding the government. I don't 
expect my friends to agree with that. There will be elements of these 
bills that they agree with without a doubt. I don't think they will 
oppose a lot of things that we do in regard to T-HUD, or in regard to 
some of these other various programs that we will deal with.
  But at the end of the day--and my side needs to recognize this--we 
are going to end up in a negotiation with the United States Senate and 
the administration some time probably after the 1st of October, and 
that negotiation has to be bipartisan.
  As my friends know, the other body requires 60 votes, and that would 
mean there has to be Democratic participation. And quite frankly, the 
appropriations bills that have moved across the floor here in fiscal 
year 2015, fiscal year 2016, fiscal year 2017, have all been 
bipartisan. They have all been the product of negotiations.
  At the end of the day--and I remind my friends, in May, a majority of 
them actually voted in favor of the omnibus spending bill for FY 2017 
in the House and in the Senate, as did, by the way, a majority of 
Republicans in the House and Senate, and President Trump signed it. So 
we know how this process ends, and we know how to make it work 
appropriately. This is simply another step in the process.
  It is my hope that, at the end of the day, we arrive at a bicameral, 
bipartisan process that actually funds the government, and we are able 
to accomplish, in concert with one another, things that we think are 
important to the American people. I have a great deal of confidence we 
will get there because that is what we have done the last 3 years. We 
are actually doing it a little better this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend from Oklahoma, who 
I respect a great deal, that if he wants to defend this process, he can 
go right ahead and do so. But I think most people watching this, the 
fact that two-thirds of all discretionary Federal spending is going to 
be decided in, like, a week's time, I don't think is a good process, 
and I don't think it is one that the American people have much 
confidence in.
  I don't think it is reasonable to expect that any Member, really, has 
read all 1,305 pages of the eight bills that my friend is bringing to 
the floor, and I am not sure everybody has had time to read all the 970 
amendments that were proposed--many of them that were not made in order 
by the Rules Committee. So this is not a process I think anybody wants 
to defend.
  The final point I want to make with regard to the President's 
decision on DACA, as the gentleman knows, this Congress and the 
previous Congresses could have acted on this any time they wanted to. 
When the Democrats were in control here in the House, we did. We passed 
the DREAM Act. Unfortunately, many of you wouldn't support it, but it 
actually passed the House, and we had Republican obstructionism in the 
Senate.
  Now, if you want a legislative fix, we have the solution for you. 
Vote ``no'' on the previous question, and we will bring up Ms. Roybal-
Allard's bill to pass the DREAM Act. We will get this done today. We 
will actually have a day of consequence where we are doing something to 
help people in this country.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question. We will then offer Representative Roybal-
Allard's bipartisan, bicameral bill, H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act.

                              {time}  1445

  The legislation would help thousands of young people like the ones 
whose heroic stories my colleagues will highlight today and who are 
Americans in every way except on paper.
  Mr. 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 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the ranking 
member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, the President's decision to rescind 
DACA brings heartbreak and fear to hundreds of thousands of young 
DREAMers who, regardless of their immigration status, are American in 
every way.
  The President's senseless and cruel action is upending their lives 
and the lives of their families, and it is sending a chilling message 
to our immigrant communities.
  It is unbelievable that we first introduced legislation to help 
DREAMers in 2001. That is 16 years ago. The fight to protect DREAMers 
has gone on for far too long. Defeating the previous question will 
enable us, today, to vote on the DREAM Act of 2017, which is a 
bipartisan, bicameral bill that will protect our Nation's DREAMers once 
and for all.
  The fact is this is our chance, as Members of Congress, to fulfill 
our responsibility on this serious issue. For those of my colleagues 
who say they support the DREAMers but that they believe that DACA is 
unconstitutional, this is your opportunity to help the DREAMers through 
the legislative process.
  The DREAMers did not choose to circumvent American immigration laws, 
and they should not be punished for something they are not responsible 
for. Today, my Republican colleagues can provide relief to these young 
people by voting to bring the DREAM Act for a vote.
  Protecting DREAMers is not only a moral issue, it is also an economic 
issue. The President's decision to end DACA strikes a vicious blow to 
our economy. Forcing hundreds of thousands of young people out of the 
workforce will disrupt businesses across our Nation. California, alone, 
stands to lose $11.6 billion annually, and the U.S. stands to lose a 
cumulative $460 billion in GDP over the next decade if DREAMers are 
removed from our economy.
  As Members of Congress, we represent the American people, and the 
vast majority of Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, 
support our Nation's DREAMers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
can pass the bipartisan, bicameral DREAM Act today to enable our 
DREAMers to continue contributing to our Nation without fear of 
deportation from the only country they know as home.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Adam, a student at the 
University of California Santa Cruz majoring in mathematics.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has 
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for the purpose of this 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield; 
therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ruiz) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, 
the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Mithi, who attends the David 
Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and dreams of saving thousands of 
lives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for

[[Page 12951]]

the purpose of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am reiterating my earlier announcement that 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not 
yield for any other purpose.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield; 
therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Cristel, an attorney who came to this 
country when she was only 9 years old.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Ms. Gabbard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Shingai, who came to the 
U.S. when he was 13, graduated with a political science degree from 
Hawaii Pacific University, and is putting that degree into practice 
today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Juan, who graduated from 
Arizona State University and is currently working as a mechanical 
engineer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Northern 
Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Riya, who grow up 
pledging allegiance to our flag, and who has worked for two Members of 
this Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Correa) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, in honor of DREAMer Marine Corporal Jose Angel 
Garibay, the first from Orange County to be killed in combat in the 
Iraq Desert.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Espaillat) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect New York DREAMers like Lisette, who 
graduated from Harvard with honors thanks to DACA. We are here to 
stay--aqui estamos y nos quedamos.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Carbajal) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DACA recipients like Gerardo, a 
computer programmer in Santa Barbara, who has grown up, gone to school, 
and worked in the United States for the past 13 years.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thompson ) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Fernando, 
who is a doctoral student at UC San Francisco thanks to DACA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Panetta) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect the 20,000 DREAMers in my district on 
the central coast of California like Adam, a student at the University 
of California Santa Cruz majoring in mathematics.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McNerney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Felipe, who works at 
Microsoft Bing, Skype, and at Doppler Labs, a San Francisco startup.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Matsui) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Eduardo, a student at UC 
Davis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Watson Coleman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect New Jersey DREAMERS like 
Christian, who arrived when he was 7 years old and is a researcher at 
the Icahn School of Medicine.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Jesus 
Contreras, who as a DACAmented paramedic worked 6 days straight after 
Hurricane Harvey. Jesus rescued people from flood waters and 
transported them to local hospitals. Jesus deserves our support.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  As the Chair advised on previous occasions, such as January 15, 2014, 
and March 26, 2014, even though a unanimous consent request to consider 
a measure is not entertained, embellishments accompanying such requests 
constitute debate and will become an imposition on the time of the 
Member who yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect New York DREAMers like Jessica, who has 
been in this country since she was two and hopes to become a doctor.

[[Page 12952]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Aguilar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Maria, who is the 
coordinator of the DREAMers Resource Success Center at Cal State San 
Bernardino.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. 
Bordallo) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Christine, who arrived in 
my home district of the territory of Guam as a child and is now a 
registered nurse saving lives and caring for our community on Guam 
thanks to DACA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Mrs. Lawrence) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Ola, a University of 
Michigan pre-med student who aspires to be a surgical oncologist.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who deserves a vote in this House, 
for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Ricardo, who arrived when he was 4 and 
is studying to be a prosecutor to help fight crime.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Soto) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Juan, who obtained a 
master's degree from our Florida State University and works in digital 
advocacy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Brownley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Martha, who 
graduated from Cal State University Channel Islands and now is on staff 
there supporting students.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Torres) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like my former intern, Luis, 
who came to this country when he was 6 years old.

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Takano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect California's DREAMers like Luceyda, who 
at age 31 hasn't been home to Mexico in 27 years because this is her 
home.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), who is the head of the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect 
Vanessa, a DREAMer from New Mexico, who dreams of becoming a doctor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Sanchez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Nadia, who received a 
master's degree in public health from UC Davis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gallego) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Vasthy, who attends 
Arizona State University and aspires to become a science teacher.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Judy Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Alfonso, 
who is in his third year at Western State College of Law in Orange 
County.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Deyanira, a DACA recipient, who is 
in my State, who is majoring in neuroscience at the University of Texas 
at Austin.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Barragan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Elaine, who is studying 
for her master's in public health at UCLA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Sayra, from 
California, who is pursuing her MBA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect California DREAMers like Monica, a 
college student who has started her own business.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lowenthal) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

[[Page 12953]]


  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Eduardo, a UCLA student 
and an anti-bullying activist.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Cartwright) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Pennsylvania DREAMers like Jazmin here, 
who aspires to become an attorney.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Daniel, a first-
generation college student.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Huffman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect California DREAMers like Oscar, who 
says that DACA has allowed him to go to school, to work, and has made 
him feel free.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Monica, an Illinois DREAMer with a 
nursing degree, who has dedicated her life to taking care of others.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), my colleague, for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Massachusetts DREAMers like Andres, who 
is working as an engineering technologies consultant.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ted Lieu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Karina from 
my home State of California. She currently works in the biotech 
industry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
O'Halleran) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Riccy, a mother of two, who was 
recently arrested and detained despite having DACA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, which would protect DREAMers like Gladys. She has 
been able to buy a home and a car with her healthcare job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Michigan DREAMers like 
Jonathan, who aspires one day to help the SpaceX and NASA space 
programs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Polis), my colleague on the Rules Committee, for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, for Johana. She graduated from the University of 
Colorado and went on to medical school, and we need to bring this bill 
up for her.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Raskin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Fatima, whose young brothers--
exceptional soccer talents in Montgomery County, Maryland--were 
deported over a great public protest just last month.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Nolan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect a young woman from the Midwest like 
Amy, who works as a user experience designer in a technology company in 
Illinois.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Castro) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Julia, who joined Teach For 
America and is a middle school teacher in San Antonio, Texas, my 
hometown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know we have a new manager on the 
Republican side. Maybe he will yield for a unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) will control the time of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I was not here for opening statements. I imagine that all time was 
yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we just want to bring up the DREAM Act so 
we can resolve this issue today, but I am hoping that the gentleman 
would be more favorable than his predecessor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn 
B. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding, and I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect young people like Isabelle, a DREAMer 
who graduated from Baruch College in New York and now works to help 
low-income veterans recuperate and get better. Thanks to DACA, she was 
able to do this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Time will be deducted from the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Al

[[Page 12954]]

Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring 
up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Daniel, who 
arrived at the age of 2 and graduated from the University of North 
Texas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Speier) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to 
protect DREAMers like Mariella. She is a Ph.D. student at UC Irvine. It 
is time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Trott). As previously announced, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to 
protect New York DREAMers like Mila, who is able to go to college, get 
a job, and get a driver's license thanks to DACA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring 
up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Rey, a priest at 
the Cathedral of Christ the King in Atlanta.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada 
(Ms. Titus) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Victor, who arrived when 
he was 7 years old and now works as an IT support analyst.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in order to carry out the 
Speaker's expressed intent, to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to 
protect DREAMers like Jean, who studies at the University of Maryland 
and is a credit to that institution, a credit to our State, and a 
credit to our country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Time will be deducted from the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 18 
evangelical religious leaders and other religious leaders in opposition 
to President Trump's decision to end DACA.

                                                September 4, 2017.

 A Letter From Faith Leaders and Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration 
                                 (.Com)

     President Donald J. Trump,
     The White House,
     Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,
     Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
       Honorable President Trump, Majority Leader McConnell and 
     Speaker Ryan: We agree that immigration reform and DACA are 
     difficult subjects. God loves the foreigner. Indeed, God 
     loves us all. It takes time to discern the balance of mercy 
     and justice by which a nation thrives.
       It is easier to speak publically of mercy, as we, and many, 
     do. And, while loving mercy, who will also stand for justice 
     to those citizens who cannot find a job due to cheaper 
     foreign labor? Who will speak of the real cost of illegal 
     immigration to our states? And while many non-citizens are 
     good neighbors, who will stand for justice for Americans 
     victimized by people here illegally who do not uphold our 
     values and laws? And who will prevent more needless crime and 
     death?
       The Church is called to serve all people, and our 
     Government leaders are elected to defend and uphold the 
     Constitution and the rule of law. Though there are tragic 
     stories on every side of illegal migration, for our elected 
     officials, responsibility to oaths must prevail. Law and 
     order sustain stability and peace. A nation of wise rule 
     grows strong enough to sustain care for the vulnerable in our 
     midst.
       While some faith groups use selective Bible words for open 
     borders and amnesty, we consider the whole counsel of 
     Scripture. We find that the Bible does not teach open 
     borders, but wise welcome. We are to welcome the lawful 
     foreigner, who, like a convert, comes as a blessing (eg.s 
     Ruth and Rahab) We also find Nehemiah building walls to 
     protect citizens from harm. In Isaiah 1, we see God 
     condemning the destruction of borders and indigenous culture.
       All lives matter. The lives of North, Central and South 
     Americans matter. The lives of Africans, Asians, Europeans 
     and people from the Middle East matter. In Scripture, we 
     learn that God placed us each in a family, a land, an epic 
     story of creation, the fall and redemption. The Bible 
     envisions a world of beautiful and unique nations, not a 
     stateless ``open society'' run by global oligarchs. Each of 
     us is called to be a blessing where God has placed us in the 
     world.
       In policy decisions ahead, while treating undocumented 
     people kindly, we ask that you would first and foremost honor 
     often forgotten American citizens whose families have served 
     our nation for many generations, and the patient people who 
     have applied lawfully to come here and to become citizens of 
     the United States. These lives also matter. These people also 
     dream. Gratefully Yours,
       Names are listed alphabetically and for identification 
     purposes only.
         David Barton, Founder, WallBuilders; Timothy Barton, 
           President, WallBuilders; Paul Blair, President, 
           Reclaiming America for Christ; Lt. Gen. William G. 
           Boykin (Ret.), Executive Vice President, Family 
           Research Council; Mark Christian M.D., Executive 
           Director, Global Faith Institute; Phil Cohn, President, 
           Christ for All Peoples; Steven Deace, CRTV host and 
           Conservative Review contributor; Maria Espinoza, Co-
           founder & National Director, The Remembrance Project; 
           Becky Gerritson, President, Wetumpka TEA Party (AL), 
           Founder, Born Free American, LLC; E.W. Jackson, Bishop; 
           Founder, Exodus Faith Ministries; Jerry Johnson, Ph.D, 
           President, National Religious Broadcasters (NRB); Kelly 
           Kullberg, American Association of Evangelicals (AAE); 
           Eric Metaxas, Host of The Eric Metaxas Show; Samuel 
           Rohrer, Pastor; President, American Pastors Network 
           (APN), Former State Representative, Pennsylvania; Rick 
           Scarborough, Ph.D, Founder, Vision America Action; 
           Aubrey Shines, Bishop, International Communion of 
           Evangelical Churches Pastor, Glory to Glory Ministries, 
           Tampa, Florida; Elizabeth Yore, Esq., International 
           Child Advocate; John Zmirak, Ph.D, Journalist; author, 
           The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 
20 State attorneys general in strong opposition to what the President 
has done.

                                              State of California,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                    Sacramento, CA, July 21, 2017.
     Re June 29, 2017 letter from Ken Paxton re Texas, et al., v. 
         United States, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00254 (S.D. 
         Tex.).

     Hon. Donald J. Trump,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We write to urge you to maintain and 
     defend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or 
     DACA, which represents a success story for the more than 
     three-quarters of a million ``Dreamers'' who are currently 
     registered for it. It has also been a boon to the 
     communities, universities, and employers with which these 
     Dreamers are connected, and for the American economy as a 
     whole.
       Since 2012, nearly 800,000 young immigrants who were 
     brought to this country as children have been granted DACA 
     after completing applications, submitting to and passing a 
     background check, and applying for a work permit. In the case 
     of young adults granted DACA, they are among our newest 
     soldiers, college graduates, nurses and first responders. 
     They are our neighbors, coworkers, students and community and 
     church leaders. And they are boosting the economies and 
     communities of our states every day. In fact, receiving DACA 
     has increased recipients' hourly wages by an average of 42 
     percent and given them the purchasing power to buy homes, 
     cars and other goods and services, which drives economic 
     growth for all.
       In addition to strengthening our states and country, DACA 
     gives these bright, driven young people the peace of mind and 
     stability to earn a college degree and to seek employment 
     that matches their education and training. The protection 
     afforded by DACA

[[Page 12955]]

     gives them dignity and the ability to fully pursue the 
     American dream. For many, the United States is the only 
     country they have ever known.
       The consequences of rescinding DACA would be severe, not 
     just for the hundreds of thousands of young people who rely 
     on the program--and for their employers, schools, 
     universities, and families--but for the country's economy as 
     a whole. For example, in addition to lost tax revenue, 
     American businesses would face billions in turnover costs, as 
     employers would lose qualified workers whom they have trained 
     and in whom they have invested. And as the chief law officers 
     of our respective states, we strongly believe that DACA has 
     made our communities safer, enabling these young people to 
     report crimes to police without fear of deportation.
       You have repeatedly expressed your support for Dreamers. 
     Today, we join together to urge you not to capitulate to the 
     demands Texas and nine other states set forth in their June 
     29, 2017, letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. That 
     letter demands, under threat of litigation, that your 
     Administration end the DACA initiative. The arguments set 
     forth in that letter are wrong as a matter of law and policy.
       There is broad consensus that the young people who qualify 
     for DACA should not be prioritized for deportation DACA is 
     consistent with a long pattern of presidential exercises of 
     prosecutorial discretion that targeted resources in a 
     constitutional manner. Indeed, as Justice Antonin Scalia 
     recognized in a 1999 opinion, the Executive has a long 
     history of ``engaging in a regular practice . . . of 
     exercising [deferred action] for humanitarian reasons or 
     simply for its own convenience.'' Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-
     Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483-84 (1999). DACA 
     sensibly guides immigration officials' exercise of their 
     enforcement discretion and reserves limited resources to 
     address individuals who threaten our communities, not those 
     who contribute greatly to them.
       Challenges have been brought against the original DACA 
     program, including in the Fifth Circuit, but none have 
     succeeded. On the other hand, in a case relating to Arizona's 
     efforts to deny drivers' licenses to DACA recipients, the 
     Ninth Circuit stated that it is ``well settled that the [DHS] 
     Secretary can exercise deferred action.'' Ariz Dream Act 
     Coalition v. Brewer, 855 F.3d 957, 967-968 (9th Cir. 2017). 
     The court also observed that ``several prior administrations 
     have adopted programs, like DACA, to prioritize which 
     noncitizens to remove.'' Id. at 976.
       As the Fifth Circuit was careful to point out in its ruling 
     in the Texas case, the Deferred Action for Parents of 
     Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (``DAPA'') 
     initiative that was struck down is ``similar'' but ``not 
     identical'' to DACA. Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 
     174 (5th Cir. 2015). Indeed, as DHS Secretary Kelly pointed 
     out in a press conference the day after his June 15 
     memorandum explaining that DACA would continue, DACA and DAPA 
     are ``two separate issues,'' appropriately noting the 
     different populations addressed by each program. Notably, 
     only a fraction of the 25 states which joined with Texas in 
     the DAPA case before the Supreme Court chose to co-sign the 
     letter threatening to challenge DACA.
       Among other significant differences, DACA has been 
     operative since 2012 while DAPA never went into effect. More 
     than three-quarters of a million young people, and their 
     employers, among others, have concretely benefitted from 
     DACA, for up to five years. The interests of these young 
     people in continuing to participate in DACA and retain the 
     benefits that flow from DACA raise particular concerns not 
     implicated in the pre-implementation challenge to DAPA. 
     Further, the Fifth Circuit placed legal significance on the 
     ``economic and political magnitude'' of the large number of 
     immigrants who were affected by DAPA, Texas, 809 F.3d at 181; 
     thus, it is notable that many fewer people have received DACA 
     (about 800,000) than would have been eligible for DAPA (up to 
     4.3 million).
       One additional, but related, issue concerns DHS's current 
     practices regarding DACA recipients. A number of troubling 
     incidents in recent months raise serious concerns over 
     whether DHS agents are adhering to DACA guidelines and your 
     repeated public assurances that DACA-eligible individuals are 
     not targets for arrest and deportation. We urge you to ensure 
     compliance with DACA and consistent enforcement practices 
     towards Dreamers.
       Mr. President, now is the time to affirm the commitment you 
     made, both to the ``incredible kids'' who benefit from DACA 
     and to their families and our communities, to handle this 
     issue ``with heart.'' You said Dreamers should ``rest easy.'' 
     We urge you to affirm America's values and tradition as a 
     nation of immigrants and make clear that you will not only 
     continue DACA, but that you will defend it. The cost of not 
     doing so would be too high for America, the economy, and for 
     these young people. For these reasons, we urge you to 
     maintain and defend DACA, and we stand in support of the 
     effort to defend DACA by all appropriate means.
           Sincerely,
         Xavier Becerra, California Attorney General; George 
           Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General; Matthew Denn, 
           Delaware Attorney General; Karl A. Racine, District of 
           Columbia Attorney General; Douglas S. Chin, Hawaii 
           Attorney General; Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney 
           General; Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General; Janet T. 
           Mills, Maine Attorney General; Brian Frosh, Maryland 
           Attorney General; Maura Healey, Massachussets Attorney 
           General; Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General; 
           Hector Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General; Eric T. 
           Schneiderman, New York Attorney General; Josh Stein, 
           North Carolina Attorney General; Ellen F. Rosenblum, 
           Oregon Attorney General; Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania 
           Attorney General; Peter Kilmartin, Rhode Island 
           Attorney General; TJ Donovan, Vermont Attorney General; 
           Mark Herring, Virginia Attorney General; Bob Ferguson, 
           Washington State Attorney General.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, how did we get here? In December of 2010, 
the House passed the DREAM Act right here on this floor. Almost all of 
the Democrats voted for it, and a handful of Republicans, too. The goal 
was to legalize immigrants who had grown up in the U.S., achieved 
education, and had no way of getting legalization status unless 
Congress took action.
  Way back in 2001, I had introduced the first bill to legalize 
immigrant youth. So it took almost 10 years until it passed in the 
House in 2010. And later that same week, there was a vote in the 
Senate. Fifty-five out of 100 Senators voted for cloture on the DREAM 
Act to legalize the status of undocumented immigrant youth.
  We know you need 60 votes in the Senate to move something forward, so 
the DREAM Act was blocked, even though it had a majority of the votes 
of the Senators because of a filibuster led by Republicans.

                              {time}  1515

  Not just any Republican led the filibuster, but the leader of the 
opposition to the DREAM Act was none other than the Attorney General of 
the United States, Jeff Sessions. So yesterday the President, unwilling 
to go out to the cameras and announce he was killing the DACA program 
himself, sent Jeff Sessions out to tell 800,000 immigrants: We don't 
want you here anymore.
  Included in that announcement was a halfhearted sales pitch for 
Congress to pass legislation. But remember, when Sessions had a chance 
to do exactly that, he led the fight to stop it. That is hypocrisy on 
steroids. So President Obama finally took the only action he could take 
2 years later and crafted a narrowly defined program call DACA that has 
never been successfully challenged in court.
  DACA recipients are teachers, nurses, and one is even a Chicago 
policeman who straps on his gun and badge to protect people every day 
in my city of Chicago. During Hurricane Harvey, DREAMers with DACA were 
first responders and volunteers and those who gave their lives to save 
others, like Alonso Guillen of Lufkin, Texas.
  Look, we want a clean DREAM Act, an up or down vote.
  Democrats, let's be clear. This is a crisis that requires swift 
passage of legislation to fix it, as big a priority as anything else we 
need to pass this month. Our votes are needed on the debt ceiling, 
Democrats, and on this bill and on the CR. What are we getting for our 
votes, Democrats?
  When the CEO of Microsoft says that you can only take my DREAMers 
with DACA by coming first through me, that is a challenge to every 
policymaker in this Chamber and especially to my Democratic colleagues.
  When will we throw down and say: No, you cannot have our votes unless 
you give us the DREAM Act? When, Democrats?
  When will we say: You cannot have our vote unless we can bring 
800,000 young lives along with us? When, Democrats?
  Let's demand a vote on the DREAM Act. We can pass it right here, 
right now, and give our young people, the future of our Nation, the 
safety and security they need and deserve to contribute to the United 
States of America.

[[Page 12956]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. It is the only country they have known. They are 
American in everything but a piece of paper, and we should all be 
ashamed of ourselves by not allowing a vote. 800,000 young people, 
once, twice, three times registered with the government, and what do 
they get? Six months. Pack your bags and leave.
  They have pledged allegiance to only one flag, the United States of 
America and this country. This cowardly action turns its back on them. 
I say no CR. I say no debt ceiling. Let's have a vote first on the 
DREAM Act.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think my colleague is confused about where he is 
on this issue, and I don't think any amount of talking on the floor is 
going to change his mind on this issue. I would say that the underlying 
bill, which makes in order over 140 amendments so that we can have a 
conversation about different ideas and different outcomes and lets the 
people's voice be heard, is the right way to craft legislation. With 
the support of this body and this bill, we will move on to that 
underlying debate, and we will have that voice heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the gentleman neglected to 
mention that there were 227 amendments, Democratic and Republican 
amendments, that were denied yesterday. The frustration that we have 
over here is that we are going through an exercise with these 
appropriations bills knowing that they are going nowhere and that we 
are going to have to deal with a short-term continuing resolution, and 
there will probably be a big omnibus that will be passed at the end and 
which might not reflect any of the deliberations that we are doing on 
the appropriations matters in the next couple of days.
  It is a little bit frustrating because we have other things to do. 
What we are saying is let's make this week a week of consequence, and 
let us bring up the DREAM Act.
  President Trump did something horrible yesterday. He basically pulled 
the rug right from underneath 800,000 good, decent, and law-abiding 
people, citizens in this country, good people who are American in every 
way except they don't have a piece of paper. They were brought here, in 
many instances, when they were infants. They now have businesses, are 
leading relief efforts in Texas, and serve in our military. And he 
pulled the rug right from underneath them all. It is a cruel, awful, 
and nasty thing to do.
  Listening to the rationale of this White House, this kind of 
schizophrenic tirade that we have seen unfold where 1 minute he is 
against the DREAMers, then he loves the DREAMers, then he is against 
the DREAMers, then he loves them, all of this kind of rambling that we 
have seen out of the White House hasn't changed the fact that he has 
thrown 800,000 lives in turmoil. People now have to live in fear and in 
uncertainty, and it is just a rotten thing to do. What we are saying is 
let's fix it.
  My friends say they didn't like what President Obama did through 
executive order. We tried to legislate. We did, in 2010, pass the DREAM 
Act here in the House. Republicans did their best to make sure we 
couldn't bring it to the floor in the Senate, but we tried that way. 
Then President Obama, thank goodness, stepped up to the plate and put 
forward an executive order which has protected 800,000 people.
  My friends say that they like the DREAMers and they want to help 
them. Well, let's help them. You guys are in charge. You can do 
anything you want. All we are asking for is a vote--that is it, a vote. 
The way we can ensure a vote is to defeat the previous question so we 
can bring up the DREAM Act.
  If you don't have the courage to bring it up yourself, then vote to 
defeat the previous question and we will bring it to the floor. We will 
have the debate, and you can vote any way you want.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President, and to direct their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank you for that admonition.
  Mr. Speaker, these are very serious issues that my friends on the 
other side were trying to have a debate on the appropriations bills. My 
friends have a very legitimate concern about an immigration issue, 
characterized with terms like ``cruel'' and ``nasty'' and ``rotten'' 
and ``no courage.''
  I would say to my friends we can try to belittle each other into a 
compromise. I have not seen that work before. We can try to insult each 
other into a solution. I have not seen that work before.
  I have seen my colleagues coming down the other side of the aisle, 
Mr. Speaker, one after the other to tell a compelling story about a man 
or a woman they know who they believe would make an amazing United 
States citizen, who they believe would add value to our communities, 
and who they believe is serving admirably in our church and is working 
admirably in our community. They have a story to tell, and they should 
tell it.
  Guess what? I have got a few of those stories to tell myself. But I 
would say to my friends, I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that the insults 
and the acrimony are going to get us where any of us wants to be.
  For my friends who believe differently, I would tell you I think we 
have tried that path before, and it didn't take us where we want to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my friend doesn't like words like 
``cruel'' when it comes to the President's actions with regard to the 
DREAMers.
  A man named Jesus Contreras, a Houston paramedic, helped rescue flood 
victims after the storm, Harvey, hit Texas. Now he faces deportation if 
stripped of his DACA protections. I don't know what you call that. I 
call it cruel. I can't imagine why anybody would want to take away this 
man's ability to be able to live his life in the only country he knows, 
a man who is saving lives.
  This is just one of many stories. We are telling these stories 
because we are hoping that maybe it might move some of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle. Maybe it might move the leadership to 
allow us to schedule a vote and actually fix this and remove the level 
of uncertainty and fear that, now, 800,000 people have to deal with 
because of what the President did yesterday and because of the 
inaction, over the years, of this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for 
the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, 
the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Laura Flores, who are just as 
American as you and me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously announced, the unanimous 
consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
Record a letter of support for revoking President Trump's threat to 
deny 800,000 DREAMers legal status in this country and to support his 
executive order affirming DACA for so many young people across this 
Nation--4,400 in Ohio, for example--who are following the rules, who 
came here as children, who are Americans as apple pie and only want a 
chance to succeed in our country like Linda who was brought here from 
Palestine when she was 8 years old. She is studying now in our area in 
a very difficult STEM program and is working her way through college 
through Work-Study in order to

[[Page 12957]]

make a firm contribution to our Nation in the future and to the future 
of whatever family she establishes.
  Why should they be denied this opportunity and made to feel so put 
upon by the Government of the United States?

                                                  August 14, 2017.
     President Donald J. Trump,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Trump: As immigration law teachers and 
     scholars, we write to express our position that the executive 
     branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for 
     Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal 
     analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question 
     that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial 
     discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience 
     in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, 
     administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations 
     and case law. As the administration determines the future of 
     DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is 
     critical.
       DACA 2012 was announced by the President, and implemented 
     in a memorandum by the Secretary of Homeland Security, on 
     June 15, 2012. It enables qualifying individuals to request a 
     temporary reprieve from removal known as ``deferred action.'' 
     Deferred action is one form of prosecutorial discretion in 
     immigration law and has been used for decades by the 
     Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (and formerly the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)) and over 
     several administrations.
       Whether a requesting individual receives deferred action 
     under DACA 2012 is at the discretion of DHS. Qualifying 
     individuals may request DACA 2012 if they came to the United 
     States before the age of sixteen; are currently in school or 
     have graduated; have continuously resided in the United 
     States since June 15, 2007; have not been convicted of a 
     felony, ``significant misdemeanor,'' or three or more non-
     significant misdemeanors; do not otherwise pose a threat to 
     public safety or national security; and otherwise warrant 
     protection as a matter of discretion. Individuals who are 
     granted DACA 2012 receive a two-year period in deferred 
     action and also gain eligibility to apply for employment 
     authorization.
       The legal authority for DACA 2012 originates from the U.S. 
     Constitution. Article II, Section Three (the Take Care 
     Clause) states in part that the President ``shall take Care 
     that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' Inherent in the 
     function of the ``Take Care Clause'' is the ability of the 
     President to target some immigration cases for removal and to 
     use prosecutorial discretion favorably in others. As 
     described by the U.S. Supreme Court: ``[W]e recognize that an 
     agency's refusal to institute proceedings shares to some 
     extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in 
     the Executive Branch not to indict--a decision which has long 
     been regarded as the special province of the Executive 
     Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the 
     Constitution to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully 
     executed.'''
       As early as 1976, former INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen 
     executed a legal opinion that identified the Take Care Clause 
     as the primary source for prosecutorial discretion in 
     immigration matters. He wrote: ``The ultimate source for the 
     exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the Federal 
     Government is the power of the President. Under Article II, 
     Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive power is vested 
     in the President. Article II, Section 3, states that the 
     President `shall take care that the laws be faithfully 
     executed.'''
       The U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized the role of 
     prosecutorial discretion in the immigration system. In 
     Arizona v United States, the Court noted that ``[a] principal 
     feature of the removal system is the broad discretion 
     exercised by immigration officials . . . Federal officials, 
     as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to 
     pursue removal at all . . .''
       Congress created the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
     Act or INA) in 1952 and it remains the primary statutory 
     authority for immigration law today. Importantly, Congress 
     has delegated most discretionary immigration functions to 
     DHS. Section 103 of the Act provides that ``[t]he Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration 
     and enforcement of this Act and all other laws relating to 
     the immigration and naturalization of aliens . . .''
       Congress has repeatedly acknowledged that the Executive has 
     power to grant ``deferred action'' for certain categories of 
     people such as victims of crimes and human trafficking. 
     Additionally, previous administrations have announced 
     deferred action programs to protect qualifying individuals. 
     For example, under the George W. Bush administration, U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services (part of DHS) announced 
     a deferred action program for students affected by Hurricane 
     Katrina and later developed a program for the widows of U.S. 
     citizens. Moreover, Congress also recognized legal authority 
     for immigration prosecutorial discretion in INA Sec. 242(g), 
     which bars judicial review of three specific prosecutorial 
     discretion decisions by the agency: to commence removal 
     proceedings, to adjudicate cases, and to execute removal 
     orders.
       Another important legal source for deferred action is Title 
     8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 274a.12(c)(14) 
     dates to 1981 and is the product of notice and comment 
     rulemaking. This regulation specifically identifies deferred 
     action by name and allows individuals granted deferred action 
     to apply for work authorization upon a showing of ``economic 
     necessity.'' Over the last two decades, thousands of 
     individuals have applied for and received work authorization 
     based on a deferred action grant.
       There are also agency guidance documents related to 
     deferred action issued by DHS (and formerly INS) over the 
     last four-plus decades. The 1976 legal opinion by former INS 
     General Counsel Sam Bernsen cites to the Take Care Clause of 
     the U.S. Constitution, as well as statutory and case law from 
     as early as 1825 to affirm the exercise of prosecutorial 
     discretion in immigration. It was around this time when INS 
     published its first guidance on deferred action in the form 
     of an ``Operations Instruction.'' This ``Operations 
     Instruction'' stated ``(ii) Deferred action. In every case 
     where the district director determines that adverse action 
     would be unconscionable because of the existence of appealing 
     humanitarian factors, he shall recommend consideration for 
     deferred action category.'' Since 1975, deferred action has 
     been identified in several subsequent guidance documents. 
     Guidance documents are common in administrative law and are a 
     recognized form of agency action under the Administrative 
     Procedure Act.
       At tension with the aforementioned body of law is a letter 
     sent by ten state Attorneys General to the administration 
     requesting that DACA 2012 be rescinded. This letter refers to 
     DACA 2012 as ``unlawful'' and does so without citing to the 
     foundational legal authorities behind deferred action. 
     Furthermore, the letter conflates deferred action, ``lawful 
     presence'' and work authorization in ways that are legally 
     unsound and unclear. Finally, the letter itself shoehorns 
     arguments into Texas v. United States, a lawsuit that never 
     included the core of DACA 2012, and instead involved policies 
     that are at this point in time moot. Moreover, a previous 
     lawsuit challenging DACA 2012 failed on jurisdictional 
     grounds and would inevitably inform any future challenge.
       While the scope of this letter is to describe the legal 
     foundation for DACA 2012, it is important to highlight the 
     history and inevitability of prosecutorial discretion in 
     immigration enforcement. Prosecutorial discretion exists 
     because the government has limited resources and lacks the 
     ability to enforce the law against the entire undocumented 
     population. Recognizing this resource limitation, Congress 
     has charged the Secretary of DHS with ``establishing national 
     immigration enforcement policies and priorities.'' 
     Prosecutorial discretion and policies like DACA 2012 also 
     have a humanitarian dimension, and such factors have long 
     driven deferred action decisions. Finally, DACA 2012 has been 
     an unqualified policy success, allowing over three-quarters 
     of a million recipients to continue their education, receive 
     professional licensing, find employment, and pay taxes into 
     Social Security and other tax coffers.
       This letter outlines the legal foundation for DACA 2012 and 
     confirms that maintaining such a policy falls squarely within 
     the Executive's discretion. The legal authority for the 
     Executive Branch to operate DACA 2012 is crystal clear. As 
     such, choices about its future would constitute a policy and 
     political decision, not a legal one. As the administration 
     decides how best to address DACA 2012, we hope that the legal 
     foundation and history for this policy is addressed wisely 
     and that decisions on the future of DACA 2012 are made 
     humanely.
       *All institutional affiliations are for identification 
     purposes only and do not signify institutional endorsement of 
     this letter.
       Thank you for your attention.
         Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia Esq.*, Samuel Weiss Faculty 
           Scholar & Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Center 
           for Immigrants' Rights Clinic, Penn State Law; Jill E. 
           Family, Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government, 
           Widener University Commonwealth Law School; Michael A. 
           Olivas, William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law, 
           University of Houston Law Center; Stephen Yale-Loehr, 
           Professor of Immigration Law Practice, Cornell Law 
           School; Hiroshi Motomura, Susan Westerberg Prager 
           Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles.
         Lenni Benson, Professor of Law, Director Safe Passage 
           Project Clinic, New York Law School; Roxana C. Bacon, 
           Adjunct Professor, University of Miami School of Law; 
           Renee C. Redman, Adjunct Professor of Law, University 
           of Connecticut School of Law; Kristina M. Campbell, 
           Professor of Law, UDC David A. Clarke School of Law; 
           Caitlin Barry, Director, Farmworker Legal Aid Clinic, 
           Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law; 
           Jessica Anna Cabot, Clinical Teaching Fellow, 
           University of Connecticut School of Law.
         Sarah Song, Professor of Law and Political Science, U.C. 
           Berkeley School of

[[Page 12958]]

           Law; Geoffrey Hoffman, Director, University of Houston 
           Law Center Immigration Clinic University of Houston Law 
           Center; Randi Mandelbaum, Distinguished Clinical 
           Professor of Law Rutgers Law School; Stephen Legomsky, 
           John S. Lehmann, University Professor Emeritus, 
           Washington University School of Law; Maryellen 
           Fullerton, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Polly 
           J. Price, Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law, Emory 
           University School of Law.
         Linda Bosniak, Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law 
           School; David Baluarte, Associate Clinical Professor of 
           Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law; 
           Jennifer Lee, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, 
           Temple University Beasley School of Law; Karen Musalo, 
           Bank of America Foundation Chair in International Law 
           Professor & Director, Center for Gender and Refugee 
           Status, U.C. Hastings College of the Law; Melynda 
           Barnhart, Visiting Associate Professor, New York Law 
           School; Janet Beck, Visiting Assistant Clinical 
           Professor, University of Houston Law Center.
         Kevin Ruser, Professor of Law, University of Nebraska 
           College of Law; Dr. Barbara Harrell-Bond, Emerita 
           Professor, Refugee Studies Centre, University of 
           Oxford; Deborah M. Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II 
           Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North 
           Carolina School of Law; Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia 
           Hernandez, Associate Professor of Law, University of 
           Denver Sturm College of Law; Miriam Marton, Assistant 
           Clinical Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College 
           of Law; Michael J. Wishnie, William O. Douglas Clinical 
           Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Hiroko Kusuda, 
           Clinic Professor, Loyola New Orleans College of Law;
         David Abraham, Professor of Immigration and Citizenship 
           Law, University of Miami School of Law; Elissa 
           Steglich, Clinical Professor, University of Texas 
           School of Law; Marisa Cianciarulo, Associate Dean for 
           Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Chapman 
           University; Benjamin Casper Sanchez; Director, James H. 
           Binger Center for New Americans, University of 
           Minnesota Law School; Leti Volpp, Robert D. and Leslie 
           Kay Raven Professor of Law, U.C. Berkeley School of 
           Law; Michael J Churgin, Raybourne Thompson Centennial 
           Professor in Law, University of Texas at Austin.
         Enid Trucios-Haynes, Professor of Law, Brandeis School of 
           Law, University of Louisville; Christopher N. Lasch, 
           Associate Professor, University of Denver Sturm College 
           of Law; Ruben G. Rumbaut, Distinguished Professor, 
           University of California, Irvine; Maureen A. Sweeney, 
           Associate Professor, University of Maryland Carey 
           School of Law; Alina Das, Professor of Clinical Law, 
           New York University School of Law; Violeta R. Chapin, 
           Clinical Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law 
           School; Kate Griffith, Associate Professor, Cornell 
           University School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
         Stephen Wizner, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor, 
           Emeritus and Professorial Lecturer, Yale Law School; 
           Peter Margulies, Professor of Law, Roger Williams 
           University School of Law; Prerna Lal, Staff Attorney 
           and Clinical Supervisor EBCLC, a clinic of Berkeley 
           Law, U.C. Berkeley School of Law; Theo Liebmann, 
           Clinical Professor of Law, Hofstra Law School; Sylvia 
           Lazos, Justice Myron Leavitt Professor, William S Boyd 
           School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas; Rachel 
           E. Rosenbloom, Professor of Law, Northeastern 
           University School of Law.
         John A Scanlan, Emeritus Professor of Law, Maurer School 
           of Law, Indiana University-Bloomington; Denise Gilman, 
           Director, Immigration Clinic University of Texas Law 
           School; Stella Burch Elias, Professor, University of 
           Iowa College of Law; Jennifer Moore, Professor of Law, 
           University of New Mexico School of Law; Charles Shane 
           Ellison, Special Assistant Professor of Law in the 
           Immigrant and Refugee Clinic, Creighton University 
           School of Law; Marissa Montes, Co-Director, Immigrant 
           Justice Clinic, Loyola Law School;
         Howard F. Chang, Earle Hepburn Professor of Law, 
           University of Pennsylvania Law School; Estelle M. 
           McKee, Clinical Professor, Cornell Law School; Laila L. 
           Hlass, Professor of Practice, Tulane University School 
           of Law; Stewart Chang, Associate Professor of Law and 
           Director of the Center for International and 
           Comparative Law, Whittier Law School; Sarah Sherman-
           Stokes, Associate Director of the Immigrants' Rights 
           and Human Trafficking Program, Boston University School 
           of Law; Sabi Ardalan, Assistant Clinical Professor, 
           Harvard Law School.
         Charles H. Kuck, Adjunct Professor, Emory Law School; 
           Rebecca Sharpless, Clinical Professor, University of 
           Miami School of Law; Jennifer Nagda, Lecturer, 
           University of Pennsylvania Law School; Linda Tam, 
           Clinical Instructor, U.C. Berkeley School of Law; 
           Philip L. Torrey, Managing Attorney, Harvard 
           Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law 
           School; David B. Thronson, Professor of Law and 
           Associate Dean for Experiential Education, Michigan 
           State University College of Law.
         Veronica T. Thronson, Clinical Professor of Law, 
           Director, Immigration Law Clinic, Michigan State 
           University College of Law; Peter L. Markowitz, 
           Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law; Christina 
           Pollard, Visiting Assistant Professor, University of 
           Arkansas School of Law; Laura A. Hernandez, Professor 
           of Law, Baylor Law School; Rebecca Kitson, Adjunct 
           Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of 
           Law; Irene Scharf, Professor of Law, University of Mass 
           Dartmouth School of Law; Maria Woltjen, Lecturer, 
           University of Chicago Law School.
         Michelle A. McKinley, Bernard B. Kliks Professor of Law, 
           University of Oregon School of Law; Gabriel J. Chin, 
           Edward L. Barrtt Jr. Chair & Martin Luther King Jr. 
           Professor of Law, U.C. Davis School of Law; Ericka 
           Curran, Immigration Clinic Professor, Florida Coastal 
           School of Law; Jennifer Lee Koh, Professor of Law, 
           Western State College of Law; Anil Kalhan, Associate 
           Professor of Law, Drexel University Kline School of 
           Law; Kari Hong, Assistant Professor, Boston College Law 
           School; Holly S. Cooper, Lecturer and Co-Director of 
           the Immigration Law Clinic, U.C. Davis School of Law.
         Julia Vazquez, Directing Attorney & Lecturer of Law, 
           Southwestern Law School; Anita Sinha, Assistant 
           Professor of Law, American University, Washington 
           College of Law; Victor C. Romero, Professor of Law, 
           Penn State Law; Alan Hyde, Distinguished Professor, 
           Rutgers Law School; Kit Johnson, Associate Professor of 
           Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; Mary 
           Holper, Associate Clinical Professor, Boston College 
           Law School; Jon Weinberg, Professor of Law, Wayne State 
           University.
         Gloria Valencia-Weber, Professor Emerita, University of 
           New Mexico School of Law; Sarah Paoletti, Practice 
           Professor of Law and Director, Transnational Legal 
           Clinic, University of Pennsylvania School of Law; 
           Monika Batra Kashyap, Visiting Assistant Professor of 
           Law, Seattle University School of Law; Margaret H. 
           Taylor, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University School 
           of Law; Kathleen Kim, Professor of Law, Loyola Law 
           School Los Angeles; Susan Hazeldean, Assistant 
           Professor, Brooklyn Law School.
         Joanne Gottesman, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, 
           Immigrant Justice Clinic, Rutgers Law School; Sabrina 
           Rivera, Staff Attorney/Adjunct Faculty, Western State 
           College of Law; Lynn Marcus, Professor of the Practice; 
           Co-Director, Immigration Law Clinic, University of 
           Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; Raquel E. 
           Aldana, Associate Vice Chancellor for Chancellor for 
           Academic Diversity and Professor of Law, U.C. Davis 
           School of Law; Andrew Moore, Associate Professor of 
           Law, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.
         Jayesh Rathod, Professor of Law, American University, 
           Washington College of Law; Mariela Olivares, Associate 
           Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law; 
           Muneer I. Ahmad, Clinical Professor of Law and Deputy 
           Director for Experiential Education, Yale Law School; 
           Sheila Velez Martinez, Jack and Lovell Olender 
           Professor of Asylum, Refugee and Immigration Law, 
           University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Richard A. 
           Boswell, Professor of Law, U.C. Hastings College of the 
           Law; Ediberto Roman, Professor of Law & Director of 
           Immigration and Citizenship Initiatives, Florida 
           International University.

  Ms. KAPTUR. So with this unanimous consent request, I stand on behalf 
of those 4,400 Ohioans as well as 800,000 young Americans who are 
DREAMers and will inject new energy and new possibility into our 
country, help to fund programs like Social Security which they are 
paying into if they are working, and make their contribution to our 
country's future.
  It is really an honor to rise on her behalf and ask for Congress to 
act immediately to pass legislation to protect these young people whose 
economic and cultural contributions will only make our Nation stronger. 
They will not displace anyone--any person--who has an application 
currently pending before our immigration service, but

[[Page 12959]]

they will wait in line like everyone else because they are fair people 
and they deserve to be treated fairly by the Government of the United 
States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the materials will be 
included in the Record.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Time will be deducted from the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article about 
Alonso Guillen, a DREAMer who died trying to rescue Harvey flood 
victims.

                   [From the LA Times, Sept. 4, 2017]

          `Dreamer' Dies Trying To Rescue Harvey Flood Victims

                       (By Molly Hennessy-Fiske)

       Alonso Guillen drove more than 100 miles south from his 
     home in Lukfin, Texas, last week, determined to help those 
     trapped by Hurricane Harvey flooding in the Houston area.
       But he and another man disappeared after their boat 
     capsized in a flood-swollen creek Wednesday, and relatives 
     began searching for their bodies.
       On Friday, searchers found the body of Tomas Carreon, 25, 
     of Lufkin. On Sunday, relatives spotted Guillen's body.
       ``He was floating in the water,'' his brother Jesus 
     Guillen, 36, a Lufkin truck driver, said in Spanish during a 
     phone interview.
       Luis Ortega, 22, of Lufkin, who survived the boat accident, 
     told searchers the men had been swept away by a powerful 
     current. Ortega barely escaped by grabbing a floating gas 
     tank, then a tree.
       Relatives said Guillen, a Mexican national, was a 
     ``Dreamer'' enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood 
     Arrivals program, which President Trump is said to be poised 
     to scrap, though he may leave it intact for six months to 
     give Congress time to find a legislative solution. (Ortega is 
     a U.S. citizen, as was Carreon, Guillen's brother said.)
       Guillen moved to Lufkin at age 14 from just across the 
     border in Piedras Negras, Mexico. He later graduated from 
     Lufkin High School, attended St. Patrick's Catholic Church, 
     worked in construction and at a local club, Rodeo Disko, and 
     radio station, SuperMix 101.9 FM.
       He was known as ``DJ Ocho,'' who mixed country and hip-hop, 
     followed Texans football and the Houston Astros, played 
     softball and soccer, sported Cowboy hats and red, white and 
     blue sunglasses.
       He used the station to organize fundraisers for those in 
     need. ``It didn't matter what situation it was,'' said friend 
     Linda Alvarez.
       Guillen masterminded the rescue trip to the Houston area 
     just like one of his radio station fundraisers: on the fly, 
     with friends' help. After the storm hit, they borrowed a boat 
     and drove south to save strangers.
       Like many in Texas, Guillen's family has mixed immigration 
     status and is divided by the border. His mother, a Mexican 
     national, still lives in Piedras Negras, Mexico, with one of 
     his brothers. His father is a legal resident, and his brother 
     Jesus is a U.S. citizen.
       Alonso Guillen applied for DACA, an Obama-era program that 
     protected from deportation about 800,000 immigrants brought 
     to the country illegally as children. He applied because so 
     many of his family and friends were in the U.S., and that's 
     where he saw his future, his brother said.
       ``His dream was to open a restaurant, something the whole 
     family could enjoy and where they could come together,'' his 
     brother said.
       ``He was trying; he was always updated with the news about 
     the Dreamer program. He was ready to get it fixed and done,'' 
     friend Manny Muniz said of Guillen's immigration status.
       Muniz, a fellow disc jockey, met Guillen a few years ago in 
     the midst of a more minor crisis: He had booked a gig and 
     didn't have any speakers. Guillen lent him some, and they 
     started working together.
       After the storm struck, Guillen started posting weather 
     reports on Facebook.
       Early last week Guillen told Muniz he was headed to 
     Houston, ``to go save lives, go help people, volunteer his 
     time.''
       Muniz said part of the reason Guillen applied for DACA and 
     wanted to become a legal resident was that he longed to be 
     able to cross the border legally to visit Mexico, especially 
     his hometown.
       Instead, Guillen will be buried this week in Lufkin. He is 
     survived by an 8-year-old daughter, Mariana, who lives in 
     Guanajuato, Mexico, his brother said.
       Guillen's family is planning his funeral at St. Patrick's 
     Catholic Church. Guillen's mother may not be allowed to 
     attend. The U.S. government has not granted her permission to 
     cross the border for the service, relatives said.
       ``We hope that she can come, that they allow her to come,'' 
     said Jesus Guillen's 14-year-old daughter, Zorayda.
       U.S. Customs and Border Protection tweeted condolences to 
     Guillen's family Monday, calling him ``a rescue volunteer who 
     died during Hurricane Harvey'' and promising to allow 
     Guillen's mother to cross the border to attend his funeral.
       Jesus Guillen said he hopes the DACA program will not be 
     dismantled.
       ``It gives people like my brother opportunities to be 
     better, to have strength and believe in themselves and become 
     what they want to be,'' he said.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter to 
Members of Congress from The United States Conference of Mayors 
strongly objecting to what the President did.

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                Washington, DC, September 5, 2017.
     An Open Letter to the Congress on Dreamers from America's 
         Mayors

       Dear Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the 
     U.S. Senate: We write on behalf of the nation's mayors to 
     urge you to quickly pass bipartisan legislation that would 
     enable Dreamers--people who have lived in America since they 
     were children and built their lives here--to earn lawful 
     permanent residence and eventually American citizenship if 
     they meet certain criteria. We pledge to work with you in 
     this effort and to do whatever we can to assist you in seeing 
     it enacted into law.
       This June at the 85th Annual Meeting of The United States 
     Conference of Mayors, we adopted strong policy supporting 
     permanent legal status for Dreamers and extension of the DACA 
     program We did this because it is the right thing to do--for 
     Dreamers, for our communities and for our country.
       DACA has benefitted nearly 800,000 undocumented youth since 
     it began in 2012. With work authorization and without the 
     fear of deportation, these young people, who have done 
     nothing illegal, have been able to participate in and 
     contribute to our country, our cities and the nation's 
     economy:
       Eighty-seven percent of DACA recipients are employed by 
     American businesses, and six percent have started their own 
     businesses, leading to higher wages and better economic 
     outcomes.
       DACA recipients contribute 15.3 percent of their wages to 
     taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare, and DACA 
     recipients are investing in assets like houses, and starting 
     new businesses, bringing significant tax revenue to cities 
     and states.
       It is expected that DACA recipients will contribute $9.9 
     billion in tax contributions over the next four years, and at 
     least $433.4 billion to our gross domestic product (GDP) over 
     the next decade.
       There is broad public support for Dreamers:
       Sixty-four percent of Americans support letting 
     ``Dreamers'' remain in the U.S.
       Seventy-one percent of Americans feel undocumented 
     immigrants working in the U.S. should be offered a chance to 
     apply for legal status.
       Seventy-five percent of Americans who voted for the 
     President support Dreamers.
       Because of the Trump Administration's decision to terminate 
     DACA in six months, this legislation must be passed as 
     quickly as possible so that the benefits to Dreamers, to our 
     cities, and to our nation can continue. It would remove 
     Dreamers' fears of deportation and allow them to contribute 
     even more to the country they love, which for many is the 
     only country they have known. They would be able to reach 
     their full potential in many ways, including serving in the 
     military. The U.S. Conference of Mayors pledges to work with 
     you to make this happen.
           Sincerely,
     Mitchell J. Landrieu,
       Mayor of New Orleans, President.
     Eric Garcetti,
       Mayor of Los Angeles, Chair, USCM Latino Alliance.
     Jorge Elorza,
       Mayor of Providence, Co-Chair, Immigration Reform Task 
     Force.
     Tom Tait,
       Mayor of Anaheim, Co-Chair, Immigration Reform Task Force.
     John Giles,
       Mayor of Mesa, Trustee.
     Tom Cochran,
       CEO and Executive Director.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, next, I include in the Record an article 
that appeared on the National Public Radio web page, entitled, 
``Microsoft President to Trump: To Deport a DREAMer, You'll Have to Go 
Through Us.''

                       [From NPR, Sept. 5, 2017]

 Microsoft President to Trump: To Deport A DREAMer, You'll Have To Go 
                               Through Us

       America's business leaders are speaking out against 
     President Trump's move to end DACA.
       The president of Microsoft, Brad Smith, took a notable 
     stand. He said not only will his company lobby for a 
     legislative solution but also that Microsoft is calling on 
     Congress to make immigration the top priority, before tax 
     reform. And he is calling on other business leaders to follow 
     suit.

[[Page 12960]]

       ``There is nothing that we will be pushing on more strongly 
     for Congress to act on,'' Smith said in an interview with 
     NPR. ``We put a stake in the ground. We care about a tax 
     reform bill. The entire business community cares about a tax 
     reform. And yet it is very clear today a tax reform bill 
     needs to be set aside until the DREAMers are taken care of. 
     They have a deadline that expires in six months. Tax reform 
     can wait.''
       Smith also said if the government moves to deport DREAMers 
     who are Microsoft employees, ``it's going to have to go 
     through us to get that person.''
       This is the second time in a week that Smith has spoken 
     out. Last Thursday, Smith and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella 
     both issued statements calling on the administration to 
     preserve DACA. Nadella, a first-generation immigrant from 
     India, struck a personal note: ``I am a product of two 
     uniquely American attributes: the ingenuity of American 
     technology reaching me where I was growing up, fueling my 
     dreams, and the enlightened immigration policy that allowed 
     me to pursue my dreams.''
       Meanwhile, in a letter to employees this morning, Apple CEO 
     Tim Cook said more than 250 Apple workers are affected by the 
     DACA repeal and that he has been hearing from them all 
     weekend.
       ``I want to assure you that Apple will work with members of 
     Congress from both parties to advocate for a legislative 
     solution that provides permanent protections for all the 
     Dreamers in our country,'' Cook said.
       Dozens of CEOs including Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Reed 
     Hastings from Netflix, Randall Stephenson from AT&T and Tim 
     Sloan of Wells Fargo wrote a letter addressed to the 
     president asking him to preserve the program.
       The leaders argued that all DACA recipients grew up in 
     America and give back to the community and pay income taxes. 
     They said: ``More than 97 percent are in school or in the 
     workforce, 5 percent started their own business, 65 percent 
     have purchased a vehicle, and 16 percent have purchased their 
     first home. At least 72 percent of the top 25 Fortune 500 
     companies count DACA recipients among their employees.''
       In a public post, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said about 
     Trump's announcement: ``This is a sad day for our country'' 
     and that he and his immigration advocacy vehicle at Fwd.US 
     will be ``doing even more in the weeks ahead to make sure 
     Dreamers have the protections they deserve.''
       Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google (an arm of Alphabet), did 
     not make quite the same commitment on Twitter. But he took a 
     moral stand, writing, ``Dreamers are our neighbors, our 
     friends and our co-workers. This is their home. Congress 
     needs to act now to #DefendDACA. #WithDreamers.''
       When President Trump was first elected, leaders in the tech 
     industry were reluctant to criticize campaign pledges of his 
     that went against their values and interests. They took a 
     wait-and-see approach and grappled with how to be a 
     successful multinational in an increasingly nationalistic 
     world. Tuesday morning's outpouring illustrates a clear shift 
     in business leaders' willingness to speak out against 
     decisions by the administration.
       Microsoft's Smith says in the beginning of 2017, business 
     leaders looked around and wondered how they would navigate 
     this new unpredictable environment. They feared being 
     attacked by the commander in chief on social media. Now, 
     Smith says, ``I don't think people get up in the morning 
     worrying about tweets. We have much bigger problems to worry 
     about than that.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 
500 business leaders in support of DACA who oppose what the President 
did yesterday and who are upset at Congress for its inaction.

         Open Letter From Leaders of American Industry on DACA

      August 31, 2017
      To: President Donald J Trump
      To: Speaker Paul Ryan; Leader Nancy Pelosi; Leader Mitch 
         McConnell; and Leader Charles E. Schumer
       As entrepreneurs and business leaders, we are concerned 
     about new developments in immigration policy that threaten 
     the future of young undocumented immigrants brought to 
     America as children.
       The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, 
     which allows nearly 800,000 Dreamers the basic opportunity to 
     work and study without the threat of deportation, is in 
     jeopardy. All DACA recipients grew up in America, registered 
     with our government, submitted to extensive background 
     checks, and are diligently giving back to our communities and 
     paying income taxes. More than 97 percent are in school or in 
     the workforce, 5 percent started their own business, 65 
     percent have purchased a vehicle, and 16 percent have 
     purchased their first home. At least 72 percent of the top 25 
     Fortune 500 companies count DACA recipients among their 
     employees.
       Unless we act now to preserve the DACA program, all 780,000 
     hardworking young people will lose their ability to work 
     legally in this country, and every one of them will be at 
     immediate risk of deportation. Our economy would lose $460.3 
     billion from the national GDP and $24.6 billion in Social 
     Security and Medicare tax contributions. Dreamers are vital 
     to the future of our companies and our economy. With them, we 
     grow and create jobs. They are part of why we will continue 
     to have a global competitive advantage.
       We call on President Trump to preserve the DACA program. We 
     call on Congress to pass the bipartisan DREAM Act or 
     legislation that provides these young people raised in our 
     country the permanent solution they deserve.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a statement 
signed by over 1,300 Catholic educators who call on President Trump and 
his administration to save DACA and protect the DREAMers.

   [From Faith in Public Life, Ignatian Solidarity Network, and the 
                                Jesuits]

Over 1,300 Catholic Educators Call on Trump Administration to Save DACA 
                          and Protect Dreamers

       Dear Gen. Kelly: As educators at Catholic institutions, we 
     write to convey profound concern for our vulnerable immigrant 
     students. In your new position as Chief of Staff, you are now 
     one of the most prominent Catholics in the Administration. 
     Your direct line to President Trump and recent experience as 
     Secretary of Homeland Security provides an opportunity for 
     you to be an influential champion for the children and youth 
     who are the next generation of American leaders. We ask that 
     you protect the dignity of our nation's immigrant youth by 
     advocating for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
     (DACA) program until Congress passes the Dream Act.
       We stand with our students who are DACA beneficiaries. 
     Their perseverance, hard work and hopefulness is an example 
     to us as teachers. We witness the obstacles they overcome 
     each day as they pursue their dream of a better life for 
     themselves and their families. In facing adversity and 
     uncertainty with grace and hope, they embody the best of our 
     schools, our country and the Catholic tradition.
       It is a moral and policy failure when our government 
     targets children and young adults who simply aspire to live 
     the American dream. Breaking up families and communities 
     undermines the best values of our nation.
       Bishop Joe S. Vasquez, Chair of the Migration Committee at 
     the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Bishop of Austin, 
     Texas, said recently in a statement.
       ``These young people entered the U.S. as children and know 
     America as their only home. The dignity of every human being, 
     particularly that of our children and youth, must be 
     protected.''
       We join Bishop Vasquez in urging you to uphold the DACA 
     program. On several occasions, you have expressed that you 
     would not make changes to DACA. We strongly encourage you to 
     maintain DACA as an essential program for the well-being of 
     young people and our communities.
       Please know we are praying that you use your power 
     prudently and that we remain committed to constructive 
     dialogue.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts 
I am prepared to close when he is. I have no further speakers 
remaining.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, with regard to the underlying bill that is being 
brought before the House today, a whole bunch of appropriations bills 
bunched together in an unprecedented way and, I would say, in an 
undemocratic way as well--nobody has had a chance to read these bills, 
over 1,300 pages--I don't think anybody in this Chamber has read them 
all.
  Close to 1,000 amendments were submitted. They were all asked to be 
submitted before we came back into session while people were still on 
work recess. I don't think Members have had a chance to review all of 
the amendments. As I said, hundreds of good amendments have already 
been rejected.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, I invoked Senator John McCain's 
name. He recently wrote a piece in which he called upon Congress to go 
back to regular order. I agree with him. We ought to go back to regular 
order. That is what the Speaker of the House promised when he took the 
gavel, we would have regular order. This is not regular

[[Page 12961]]

order. This is not the way we should decide spending matters.
  I will tell you right now that there will be lots of mistakes in this 
legislation that is being rushed through--if it even goes anywhere--
because we are now being told we are going to have to do a continuing 
resolution, and chances are we are going to end up having to do a long-
term spending bill. But process matters, and when you bunch things 
together and when you rush things like this, mistakes are made.
  As I said in my opening, we are going to ask for people to vote 
``no'' on the previous question. If you vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to bring up Representative Roybal-
Allard's bill, which is the DREAM Act, which would actually solve the 
dilemma that we face. It would solve the dilemma that 800,000 good 
people in this country are now facing as a result of President Trump's 
cruel decision yesterday to repeal DACA, to end DACA.
  These are people who, as you have heard from all my colleagues as 
they have told their stories, are working in this country. They are 
leading efforts to rescue people in hurricane-ravaged Texas. They are 
paramedics and they serve in our military.

                              {time}  1530

  These are good people. This is their country. They were brought here 
as infants. This is the only country they know. The fact that we are 
treating these good people in such a terrible way, every one of us 
should be ashamed. That is not who we are. We keep on saying that every 
time the White House does something else that we find offensive. We 
keep on saying: That is not who we are; that is not who we are.
  Well, at some point, we have to prove it. We have to show it.
  If we believe DREAMers are a valuable part of our community, then we 
need to protect them. This is a way to do it today. There is no need 
for compromise and more discussion. It is very simple: you either 
support the DREAMers or you don't. That is it. That is the only 
question at hand. If you want to load it up with all kinds of other 
extraneous materials, that is not a fair thing to do. That is not what 
these people deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are 
hearing from their constituents. I know they are hearing from their 
churches, synagogues, and mosques that we need to protect these people. 
Well, let's do it. The DREAMers don't need your words. They don't need 
your sympathies. They don't need your empathy. They need your vote.
  We have an opportunity today, by voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, to have a vote today on whether to protect the DREAMers. It 
is that simple. Some of my colleagues on the Republican side have 
spoken very eloquently about the DREAMers. If you mean it, then give us 
your vote. If you mean it, do less talking and give us the vote. That 
is what we are asking for today.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let us help these great people. 
Let us help these people who have been such a valuable part of our 
community. Let us treat them with the dignity and respect that they 
deserve. Let us recognize that they view this country as their home. We 
should view this country as their home as well.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question. If that doesn't work, then vote 
``no'' on this lousy rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I fear you are going to have to use that admonition a 
great deal in the coming days, and I regret that.
  I regret that folks have begun to confuse civility with weakness. My 
experience is, when you are strong, you don't have to insult the people 
around you. When you are strong, you don't have to call folks around 
you names. Civility and weakness are confused. In fact, more often than 
not, there is a loss of civility when folks feel at their weakest.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle right now, Mr. Speaker, 
with good reason, feel very restricted. Being in the minority in the 
House of Representatives is a hard place to be. For my friend from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, being in the minority on the Rules 
Committee is among one of the hardest places to be. So I don't fault 
him for his frustration one little bit. If I was in his shoes, I would 
be frustrated as well.
  Let me be clear: we are in this position with DACA today for one 
reason and one reason only, and that is because instead of leading the 
Congress and leading the Nation, President Obama chose to act alone in 
a way that he knew would not be permanent.
  The instability that you see today is the result of folks acting in a 
way that was not stable. The confusion that you see today is the result 
of an administration that committed itself to that confusion instead of 
committing itself to consensus.
  I have been in this Congress for 7 years, Mr. Speaker. That is 7 
years. For 4 of those 7 years, the United States Senate was led by the 
Democratic Party. Not once in those 7 years has an immigration bill 
come to my desk from the United States. Not once. I know, as we sit 
here right now, the House Judiciary Committee has acted on immigration 
bill after immigration bill after immigration bill.
  Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker: the situation that the DREAMers find 
themselves in today is the symptom of a Nation that does not have the 
security of its borders. Had America had security for its borders, we 
would not have allowed these families to put their children in these 
positions.
  Today, we have an amazing opportunity to have this debate. I tell you 
that our President is in a unique position to lead us.
  It frustrates me so much, Mr. Speaker, that folks want to assume the 
worst about one another and that the media is all too anxious to report 
the worst about one another. The President could have just canceled the 
DACA program. He could have instructed DHS to start proceedings today. 
He didn't. It wouldn't have been the right thing. It wouldn't have been 
the prudent thing to do. He didn't do it.
  What did he do?
  He said: I have read this thing called the United States 
Constitution. It turns out that only one group in the land has the 
opportunity to write the laws. It is me and my friend from 
Massachusetts. It is the majority leader from Kentucky and the minority 
leader from New York across the way.
  He said: Congress, there is only one way this should have even been 
done. It should have been done in the Halls of Congress. That is not 
the way President Obama chose to do it. He should have done better. He 
didn't. We can do better. Let's do.
  Now, to the sky-is-falling reports that came out one right after the 
other almost with glee from the fourth estate, the President spoke 
again to say: Listen, you know what? If Congress doesn't get it right, 
I may have to act myself.
  I hope he doesn't. I think that folks have too little confidence in 
what we can do together when we set our minds to it, but we do have to 
ask ourselves, watching the display here on the floor today, watching 
the displays we have had here on the floor in the past: Do we have a 
serious group of men and women here who want to work together on 
solutions? Or do we have a group of men and women here who want to just 
get the next headline, who want to just send out that next tweet, who 
just want to just make that next front page story of hysteria?
  I believe the former is true. I know the men and women on this floor, 
Mr. Speaker, not the caricature of the men and women that you read in 
the newspaper, but the real men and women on this floor, who each come 
here every single day to diligently serve the almost 700,000 men and 
women that they report to back home. And I am proud to do it.
  I plea, Mr. Speaker, for you to use your leadership to not allow us 
to devolve into the name calling and the

[[Page 12962]]

acrimony that the fourth estate would like to suggest characterizes 
this Chamber, but to lead us to the sincere debate of caring about 
people, caring about the rule of law, caring about families.
  Let me just say, the best part of this job is the casework that each 
one of us does back home. You all know it. People think the job happens 
in Washington, D.C. It doesn't. It happens one family at a time back 
home.
  You have heard the comments on the floor of the House today, Mr. 
Speaker. I have families in my district separated from one another. You 
want to talk about uniting families? I have families separated from one 
another standing in line to come to this country legally.
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker: How many folks have you heard standing up for 
my constituents whose families have been separated because they have 
been standing in line to get here for more than a year? How many folks 
have stood up for them? Not one.
  What about those families standing in line 2 years, Mr. Speaker? I 
have got them in my district, too.
  What about those families who have been separated for 3 years and 
standing in line trying to get to America the right way? Who is 
standing up for them? I don't hear those calls on the floor of the 
House. I have got them in my district, too.
  What about 4 years, Mr. Speaker; 5 years, Mr. Speaker; 6 years, Mr. 
Speaker? If you wanted to bring your adult child in from Mexico, you 
had to file in the 1990s for their number to be coming up today. That 
is crazy. It is crazy.
  Where is the conversation about reforming the system that got us here 
to begin with? I applaud my friend for trying to solve the symptom. I 
beg my friend to work with me to cure the disease.
  We have a President who can lead us in that direction, Mr. Speaker. 
He has the credibility of being tough on borders and he has the heart 
of someone who wants to keep families united. We have an opportunity, 
Mr. Speaker. We can take it or we can reject it. I believe we are going 
to take it.
  But that is not for the business today. The business today is an 
appropriations process. My friend from Massachusetts called it 
unprecedented. He is right. I take no small amount of pleasure in 
talking about how right he is. I have been in this body for 7 years and 
we don't generally get the appropriations bills done before the end of 
the year, Mr. Speaker. Deadlines don't tend to mean anything to us. We 
are about to make that happen.
  Mr. Speaker, 1997 was the last time Congress funded the government 
ahead of schedule, before the deadline. It has taken a continuing 
resolution every other year since 1997. We have an opportunity this 
year to do it. I don't know if we will take it or not. I hope that we 
will.
  We can't solve everything every day, but we can solve something every 
day. We can make something better for someone every day.
  If you support this rule, we will bring to the floor four 
appropriations bills and 119 amendments, give or take. We are up in the 
Rules Committee right now making even more amendments in order, Mr. 
Speaker, to have even more voices be heard, to have even more 
opportunity to make a difference for the families that we all represent 
back home.
  Support this rule. Be proud of this rule. Be proud of the work the 
Appropriations Committee did. Mr. Speaker, you don't hear it on the 
floor of the House, but it so frustrates me. If you had been in the 
Rules Committee last night, you would have seen Democrats and 
Republicans sitting side by side talking about the amazing work they 
did together on the appropriations process in the Appropriations 
Committee, talking about the great admiration and respect that they had 
for one another because of the work they do together on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  We don't hear that here on the floor of the House, and we should. We 
should hear more of that. We should hear more about the good work we 
are doing together. If we support this rule, Mr. Speaker, we will get a 
chance not to hear about it, but to experience it, to do it.
  I know my colleague from Massachusetts and I have another 6, 7, 8 
hours of Rules Committee work to do together tonight. I know my 
colleague is going to challenge us to do even better than what we are 
doing. I am prepared to accept that challenge.
  But for today, Mr. Speaker, for this moment, I urge my colleagues to 
come to this floor; support this rule; move the appropriations process 
forward; finish the appropriations process before the September 30 
deadline; and serve your constituents back home, like I know every man 
and woman in this Chamber does.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and support for the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 500 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, 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 (HR. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children 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 the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. 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. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''

[[Page 12963]]

       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 187, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 442]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bridenstine
     Costa
     Cramer
     Cummings
     DeGette
     Garrett
     Granger
     Higgins (NY)
     Jackson Lee
     Ross
     Scalise
     Suozzi
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1608

  Messrs. McEACHIN, SCHNEIDER, and POLIS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 191, not voting 12, as follows:

                              Roll No. 443

                               AYES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur

[[Page 12964]]


     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--191

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bridenstine
     Costa
     Cramer
     Cummings
     DeGette
     Garrett
     Higgins (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Scalise
     Suozzi
     Wasserman Schultz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1616

  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.

                          ____________________