[Pages H6678-H6694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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

[[Page H6679]]

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.
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. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H6680]]

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 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

[[Page H6681]]

bills, and we will have another tranche of appropriations bills down
here later, is actually a process.
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
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.

[[Page H6682]]

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.
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.

[[Page H6683]]

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.
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

[[Page H6684]]

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 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.

[[Page H6685]]

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 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.

[[Page H6686]]

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.
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,

[[Page H6687]]

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 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

[[Page H6688]]

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 Immmigration 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 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

[[Page H6689]]

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 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.

[[Page H6690]]

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.
``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.

[[Page H6691]]

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 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.

[[Page H6692]]

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 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

[[Page H6693]]

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.''
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

[[Page H6694]]

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
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.

____________________