Surface Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2018

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee and my friend, for the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for his thoughtfulness in the aftermath of the passing of our dear friend, the former chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter. We appreciate his support. We appreciate the support of all the Republican members on the Rules Committee, especially for the Democratic staff, but we are truly grateful for all of his consideration and for all of his remembrances of our friend. We want him to know it means a great deal to all of us, so we thank him.

I also want to take this opportunity to once again wish the chairman of the Rules Committee a happy birthday. I had the honor to be with him at 1:30 in the morning yesterday and to wish him happy birthday then. So we will wish him happy birthday again at 9:30 in the morning, and we wish him many, many more.

Mr. Speaker, you know, here we are, and I am kind of at a loss for words. There is really not a lot to say. We are here, yet again, facing another manufactured and totally avoidable crisis.

You know, what on Earth will it take for the Republican leadership of this Congress to actually step up to the plate and start governing?

Because this process that is bringing us this bill today, I don't think, represents good governing.

We have seen five continuing resolutions. We have seen two government shutdowns in less than 6 months. It is mind-boggling. It takes my breath away.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, they control the White House; but the truth is that it turns out that they can't govern. Governing is hard work. It takes skill. It takes compromise. It is not all press conferences and it is not all tweets. It takes leadership.

So I would encourage our Republican colleagues to cut the nonsense and get down to business. We can't keep on embracing processes like the one that we are seeing unfold today. Give the American people the certainty they deserve, fund this government the right way. But this process that brings us this omnibus today, I think, is disappointing not just to Democrats, but to a lot of Republicans as well.

Now, as lousy as this process was to get here, there are some things in this agreement that we can be enthusiastic about. We are encouraged by increases in spending for domestic priorities, like infrastructure, education, medical research, and support for our veterans, among other things. These are things that are of great importance to Members on the Democratic side.

We are pleased that the negotiators on our side of the aisle worked diligently to remove poison pill riders, and they fought to limit the construction of the President's stupid border wall.

Our enthusiasm is tempered because of what else might be in the bill, what we might not know. It is over 2,200 pages long, and it was posted at 8 p.m. last night. I am not sure anyone in this Chamber has had the chance to actually read the entire text of this omnibus. I don't know how many inadvertent errors may be contained in this omnibus.

I worry what kind of provisions we could find tucked away in this bill in the days and the weeks to come.

This is no way to govern, Mr. Speaker. Our Republican colleague from Louisiana over in the Senate, Senator John Kennedy, said yesterday that he thinks this whole process is an embarrassment. He said: ``As bad as it looks to the American people from the outside, it is worse on the inside.''

I don't blame the Appropriations Committee. I have nothing but the highest respect for Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey. They did an incredible job, and they and their staffs deserve our gratitude. There were many sleepless nights to be able to produce a product so that we could actually move forward and not shut the government down. They did what everybody expected them to do, and I want to thank them for their work.

And to be honest with you, I don't really blame the Rules Committee. We were given this last night, and we had to come up with a process and a rule to bring it to the floor.

But I do blame the Speaker, and I do blame the Senate majority leader, and I do blame the President, because they are in charge and we shouldn't be at the brink of a government shutdown before we consider spending bills. This should have been done months and months ago.

Mr. Speaker, again, the American people deserve much better. They deserve a Congress that works for them, a Congress that is responsive to their calls for action, a Congress that listens to all voices, both Democrats and Republicans alike.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this omnibus legislation will ultimately work its way through Congress and to the President's desk to avert yet another Republican-manufactured shutdown.

But I would ask the Republican leadership of this Congress: Let's reform the way we do business around here. I don't believe that those of us in the minority expect to win all the time, but we expect to have our voices heard, and we want and we demand a fair process.

We want enough time to read bills before you bring them up for a vote. That is not too much to ask. Let's work together to bring a little bit more transparency, a little bit more sunshine, and yes, a little bit more democracy into the people's House.

This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. I don't know why it is such a radical idea that we deliberate every once in a while. Instead, we are presented with a 2,200-page bill, and we have been given summaries, but, in all honesty, none of us know what is actually in this bill and whether or not there are some things here that, quite frankly, might be very, very troubling once we begin to read this bill over the days and weeks ahead.

Let's have an honest and open debate. Let's resolve that we are not going to ever go back to this process again where we fund government hour to hour. We need to get back to important issues facing our country and the American people.

Again, I want to express my gratitude to the appropriators and to those who were in these negotiations to try to get us a bill here today, but this is a lousy process, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. We can't sanction this process.

No matter what you think about the bill, this process is something that we have to stand up and say: This is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, said that he appreciated the Speaker's listening to the different opinions of all Members here in the House.

I think the frustration here is not that we can't raise our voices, the frustration here is that we cannot bring things that we care about to the House floor for debate.

The gentleman just talked about the issue of guns. We are living in a country where we have massacres on a regular basis. The American people overwhelmingly want us to bring gun safety legislation to the floor. Things like universal background checks, for example. The leadership of this House will not let us bring those bills to the floor for debate or for a vote. They have shut us out.

So this process that has been endorsed by the Republican leadership is not open. It is very, very closed. In fact, we are on record to becoming the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. That is not something that I think the United States Congress should aspire to. Maybe that is something that the Russians might want to aspire to, but it is certainly not something that we here in this country want to aspire to.

Everybody in this Chamber has ideas. Everybody represents the same number of people. Everybody should be heard, and important legislation and important ideas ought to be brought to the floor for debate and for a vote.

If you do not want to vote for universal background checks, or if you do not want to vote to ban bump stocks, or if you do not want to vote for an assault weapons ban, then don't vote for it. But it is wrong and it undermines this institution when, on issues like that, we are told: You cannot deliberate on the House floor.

Another issue is DACA. The President of the United States single handedly ended the DACA program, and he threw the lives of hundreds of thousands of people into chaos. It was a cruel and rotten thing to do.

The President's arbitrary March 5 deadline ending this program has come and gone, and instead of leadership and compassion, all we have seen is partisan tweeting. It is maddening, and it betrays our values.

Earlier this month, President Trump tweeted: ``Total inaction of DACA by Dems. Where are you? A deal can be made.''

Well, to answer President Trump's question, the Democrats are right here, offering bipartisan solutions to protect these young Americans.

This is the 26th time that we have attempted to bring a bipartisan bill, the Dream Act, for a vote on the floor. And I am going to ask people to vote against the previous question so we can bring a solution to the floor and protect these incredible young people who have given so much to our country.

But this is the 26th time that we have attempted to do this.

And, by the way, this is not just a Democratic bill. There is bipartisan support for this. And what is particularly frustrating is that the Republican leadership of this House will not let us have that vote.

Why?

Because they know it will pass. They know it will pass. They don't want the majority to work its will in this Chamber. They have deliberately said: No. We are not allowing you to bring that to the floor.

If you want to help these people, you have to bring a bill to the floor. And if you don't want to help them, well, bring the bill to the floor and vote ``no.'' But this is ridiculous. There is bipartisan support to fix this problem, to help these people, to live up to our values in this country.

Again, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, and this bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help hundreds of thousands of young people who are American 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.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues: Give us the vote. Give us this vote. If you don't like it, then vote ``no.'' But if we were to bring this bill to the floor, I guarantee you it would pass. I think every Democrat would vote for it, and a big chunk of Republicans, maybe even a majority, might vote for this.

I don't know what the gentleman is afraid of. I don't know why this is so hard. This is the Congress of the United States. This is the place where these issues are supposed to be resolved; and, instead, all we get from the leadership of this House is obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. They block everything--block everything. Everything is closed. It is my way or the highway. Enough. These people deserve better than this institution is providing. They deserve a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would just say to my colleague from Oklahoma that I have no problem with the appropriators. I think that is what Ranking Member Lowey was talking about yesterday when she talked about the process. The appropriators have done their work. They work in a bipartisan way and it is not their fault that we are at this moment. As I said, it is not even the fault of the Rules Committee. It is the fault of the Republican leadership.

This bill that we are doing now could have been done last December, but the Republican leadership couldn't figure out a budget agreement until last month. Without top numbers, no one could move forward in the House or in the Senate.

It turned out that what was more important was a tax cut for billionaires. That was the priority. So they passed the tax cut for billionaires and we get five CRs and two government shutdowns as a result. This process cannot be explained away, cannot be justified, and cannot continue.

I probably should have had the bill in front of me here for dramatic effect, but it is 2,200 pages long. Again, it is not what I know is in the bill that I have a problem with. It is what I don't know is in the bill that concerns me. I know it concerns Democrats and Republicans alike.

I just want to go back to something the chairman of the Rules Committee referenced with regard to DACA and President Trump's, somehow, support for these incredible people.

Let's not forget there was no reason at all--none--for this President to end DACA. There was no deadline, there was no court case, there was no law that required that the program come to an end. It was just plain, old-fashioned cruelty and stupidity. That is what was at play here: red meat for the extreme rightwing base that can never get to ``yes'' on anything regarding immigration.

The way we are treating these young people is unbelievably cruel. The frustration level throughout the country is at an all-time high. Every poll I have seen, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all overwhelmingly support us helping the DACA recipients. There are unbelievably high approval ratings for moving forward and passing a bill like the Dream Act, yet we can't even get it to the House floor for a vote.

We talk about a lousy process. That is what we are also talking about.

We talked earlier about guns. We have record-high levels of gun violence in this country and we have massacres that occur on a regular basis. I am so grateful that millions of young people are going to be out on the streets protesting on Saturday, demanding that their government do something. They are frustrated that this Chamber, supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the world, can't even find the time to bring something to the floor for a debate. All we do is have moments of silence in the aftermath of massacres.

It would give me hope for the future of these young people, because they are not going to take it anymore. They are sick of the indifference. They are sick of the lack of action. They are sick of Members in this Chamber not listening to their voices.

I feel hopeful that, ultimately, we will take action and do the right thing. I will tell you right now, for those who continue to turn their backs on the demands of these young people, I don't think they are coming back here after November.

But, again, the frustration that you are hearing on our side here today--and I know that a lot of my Republican friends feel the same way--is that this place is broken. This process stinks. There has to be a better way to do this. None of us want to shut the government down.

People are going to vote how they want to on the omnibus, but I would say: Don't endorse this lousy, broken process by voting for the rule. People should vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman has any other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me close by echoing the words of our distinguished minority whip and by saying that we need a better process, and I hope my colleagues will vote against the rule.

I just want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, one of the reasons why I think there is so much polarization in this Chamber, why it is hard to kind of get things done, is because of the process. I think process matters. When people don't have the opportunity to read the bills, when people are routinely denied the opportunity to bring to the floor their ideas for debate and vote, it results in increased tensions and increased polarization; and, quite frankly, it undermines the integrity of this institution.

This is supposed to be the people's House. We all represent the same number of constituents, yet routinely the voices of the people are denied to be heard on this House floor.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring the Dream Act to the floor, we can help the Dreamers, we can help those DACA recipients who everybody says publicly that they want to help, yet, when it comes to actually helping them, all we get is obstruction from the Republican leadership here. Let's bring that to the floor. This is our 26th time trying to do it. Let's do something that will make a real difference, that will help these people.

They deserve our help. They deserve our support. They are valued members of our community. They are American in every way except they weren't born here. And Democrats, Republicans, and Independents overwhelmingly believe we ought to help them. We ought to stop playing politics with the Dreamers.

I know the President is holding them hostage and wants a ransom that gets bigger and bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Enough. Let's do what is right for these people. So vote ``no'' on the rule. Make it clear that this process is something that we cannot endorse or embrace. We want a change in process. Vote against the previous question so we can bring up relief for the Dreamers.

Finally, I just, again, plead with the Republican leadership of this House, we need to have a better process here. If you want to end the polarization, if you want to end the partisanship, you have to open this place up. I don't think that is too much to ask.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 796 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, at a late hour, the Rules Committee met, where we had expert testimony that was offered on behalf of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentlewoman from New York.

I would like to, if I could, express to my friend, Mr. McGovern, the professional nature not only that he but Judge Hastings, another member of the committee, represented the Democratic side at a time that is very difficult for them with the passing and loss of a tremendous leader in the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from New York, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter.

Mr. McGovern and Mr. Hastings not only conducted themselves, in my opinion, in a professional straightforward manner, but represented their party quite well in a time of distress and a time of need. I want to express my complete confidence not only in Mr. McGovern, but also thank Judge Hastings for his professional demeanor last night as we worked through very, very difficult issues till late in the night, till early in the morning. And compliments also to the gentlemen, the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their professional conversations that were had that were in the best interest not only of the House of Representatives but the American people. I want to thank Mr. McGovern publicly at this time for his professional cause and substance.

Mr. Speaker, today we rise in support of this rule and, of course, the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1625, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018.

Mr. Speaker, this is funding the government for the rest of the year, through September 30. This is an important measure. This is an important measure not only for the American people, but it is important for Members of Congress.

There are a lot of ways that we could stand and say what we are for or what we are against, but the bottom line is that this is a piece of legislation that has been worked on, on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats, give and take, and has been worked on the other side of the Capitol with the United States Senate.

It is in no way a perfect bill. That, I think, I learned a long time ago, is hard to get through to be signed by the President. But with that said, it yielded amazing results in a process that needed to come to a conclusion.

This 12-bill appropriations package provides funding for fiscal year 2018 at levels consistent with the bipartisan budget agreement and the National Defense Authorization Act.

After years of neglect, this body has taken the important step of reshaping and rebuilding the United States military by providing them $659.6 billion worth of funding for our national defense. But it is for more than just national defense. It is also trying to give better protection to the men and women who protect us, the men and women who, today, are in cold, lonely, hot, dangerous places around the globe.

Mr. Speaker, a much-needed $65 billion increase over 2017 fiscal year spending was essential. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. More members of our armed services gave their life in defense of this country in training exercises than they did in combat last year. This is a hardy reminder for Members of Congress and the American people to understand that our men and women not only fight hard, but they train hard. And in that defense, we need to do a better job to make sure that the equipment, the training, and the needs that they have are top flight year-round not just in combat areas, but in training missions where they are preparing to protect this country. Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way to that, and I am proud of the work that we have done.

The agreement ends, I think, the irresponsible practice of pairing dollar-for-dollar increases in defense spending with nondefense. This is a hard fight. This is a hard fight not only Republican-Democrat, but across this country. We have tried to make some balanced decisions. We have tried to err on the side of using money for the best interest of research and development and to move this country forward.

The bill strengthens missile defense. It strengthens and funds new weapons systems for the military. And it heavily increases designated counterthreats around the globe. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are facing down one of the greatest threats to the world right now, North Korea. Now is not a time to

shy away. Mr. Speaker, we will not shy away. These colors don't run.

It funds additional national security priorities, including nuclear modernization, new nuclear submarines, and other important shipbuilding and aircraft procurement for our United States military. Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and her counterpart from the appropriations committee looked at the exercise that is necessary and came up to streamline and make sure that the money that would be given would be necessary and only in defense of this Nation.

This legislation also includes a long overdue 2.4 percent pay increase for our troops. The men and women who care for our veterans know that they need the help, and their service to this country will not be without a thank-you, thus providing a record level of VA funding, while increasing oversight to make sure that the benefits and treatment of our veterans is properly taken care of.

The new Secretary Shulkin of the VA is very concerned about the duty that they have to our veterans, and he has assured us this amount of funding will allow he and the Department that opportunity to fix, correct, and, long term, know that the long-term safety for our veterans and their facilities will be accomplished.

It provides robust funding to fight terrorism. It enhances criminal law enforcement and secures our borders by increasing funding for border security and the enforcement of immigration law. This legislation also includes new infrastructure funding for highways, waterways, airways, railways, and other infrastructure priorities to ensure public safety is taken care of and to promote economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, it provides $4 billion, the largest investment to date, to combat the opioid crisis. We have spent a great deal of time not only working on this Member to Member, but also State organizations working with their members; Federal law enforcement; and the National Institutes of Health, through the direction of Dr. Shiva Singh, their chief medical officer who spent a great deal of time working with Members of Congress, opioid task forces, substance abuse task forces, and perhaps, most of all, the problems that we have that face this great Nation, where we have addiction problems. These are addressed within this spending bill.

Increase in funding by $3 billion, certainly the head of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, believes that this investment in the National Institutes of Health, including the National Eye Institute and other important parts of NIH, will receive the funding that is necessary to ensure that the men and women of this country who suffer long-term effects of aging and other medical problems, that we can address them and live up to our responsibility.

I thank Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Shiva Singh for their instruction to our important Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tom Cole for his great work at the NIH--$2.3 billion in new funding for mental health training and school safety efforts help our children to make sure that our schools are safe.

This is a brief rundown, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of work not only that we have dug in and done on a bipartisan basis, but the kind of work that I believe the American people want, need, and expect.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I not only accept his advice about process and procedure, but I certainly would join in with him to thank our appropriators, the men and women who, on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Speaker, took time to wander to the other side of the Capitol to engage their colleagues.

I can tell the gentleman, and he knows this probably on a firsthand basis, much was discussed. This was a big process. This was at the end of the year that I do agree with that should have taken place on October 1, not on March 22, that we decided where we are headed.

But the discussion, the decisionmaking, the ability for both sides, both parties, to deal on the same issues has gotten tougher and tougher.

I support our Speaker and what he is attempting to do. He has opened up the process. He has tried to make it to where the discussions take place on a bipartisan basis. And the Speaker, I believe, has tried to place before us, as Members of Congress, the opportunity to be heard, to represent our thoughts and ideas.

I didn't win some of the issues that I was for. I held some ideas out about a number of issues that we had been working on that were contained in the bills that came out of the House only to come back months later from the Senate in a different priority, in a different way, and perhaps not exactly what I would have wanted.

It would be easy for me to say, however, that the greater good of what we are attempting to accomplish is why we are here. Ultimately, we have a duty, Mr. Speaker, we have a duty and a responsibility, to ensure that which we finalize is in the best interest of the American people. The overriding concern here is to make sure that the efforts of government, albeit that we as Americans, I don't think, want to get all that we pay for from government, we still recognize that there are people in our midst that need a government--and I do, too--a government that works well and is funded properly.

Mr. Speaker, last night we had an opportunity to hear from a number of my colleagues on the Republican side, a number of Members of Congress who spent hours waiting their time before the Rules Committee, not an unusual intuitive process from a number of our Members who had questions, comments, and concerns.

I promised to address one of them. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) brought forth what was a discussion about what is known as the NICS fix, or, as we refer to it, fixing NICS, a NICS fix.

Well, this is the database that is responsible for holding names and giving approvals for those people who purchase weapons across the United States. I agreed to provide some bit of an answer today and I hope some clarity on the issue that relates back to December of 2017.

I told the gentleman last night that I believed that, while his arguments were important and I supported exactly the underlying ideas, and that is that we do not believe that agencies by themselves should have the ability to deny an American citizen the right, the constitutional right, for them to properly, legally own a weapon, as we do know and remember back during a previous administration, at least two agencies, the Social Security Administration and the Veterans Administration, developed procedures by which they believed were appropriate, but that I think have proven incorrect, to deny people a weapon based upon a criteria that they established.

This fix NICS provision was corrected and is still in law, and, to the best of my ability in double-checking, I would now like to notify the gentleman from Kentucky that I believe it is properly done.

I would not be a part of making a change in the law, as I told him, that would deny an American citizen under these two agencies without lawful consideration of a hearing and with due process, and based upon the law and constitutional requirements of our Constitution to deny someone their right to keep and bear arms.

Mr. Speaker, please consider that I appreciate the gentleman who showed up last night until late, late in the morning, and that he was doing his duty, which I respect and admire, and I am trying to respond back to him.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to digress too much, but the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to a process that just was embarrassing and did not work. I recall, last night, testimony from the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey): ``This is one of the best processes that I can recall. We have products that we can be proud of. We worked together.''

Mr. Speaker, it is hard doing business in this town. It is hard doing business because we have disagreements. But let us not also misunderstand that it was President Trump who challenged Congress when our previous administration simply went about writing their own rules and regulations that made the circumstances on our border not only more dangerous, but very costly for every single American by encouraging tens of thousands of people to travel through Central America to come to the United States, and for us to take them into the United States with illegality that has been ruled on by Federal courts in this country.

A legal and lawful process is what President Trump is attempting to have this Congress do. He understands that power under Article I and the power under Article II. I believe that President Trump personally invoked hours of his time to make sure that he properly worked with Congress--key people from the House, key people from the Senate-- televised day after day to get

closer on the issue that he felt could gain resolution. It is a hard issue. But to suggest in any way that President Trump is a culprit of anything except leading to the best I believe would be an unfair statement against his intended desire to resolve the issue.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee, under the strong leadership of the gentleman from Georgia, Rob Woodall, and the strong leadership of Tom Cole, provided evidence-based information not just to sustain the document that we are here for, but actually to continue the explanation of what we are doing and why, including the balances of budgeting and those necessary items but also the content.

Our vice chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Tom Cole, doubles in his duty to Congress, and he serves as the lead appropriator, the chairman of the subcommittee that is responsible for health, NIH, and research and development. Mr. Cole's professional attributes really shined last night as he, with great pride, discussed major, hard issues facing this Nation, facing the United States, and facing the medical community in this country. I was very proud of not only his content with the substance, but also with the delivery of the product.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) to discuss this seemingly impossible work that he made possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oklahoma an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), the Rules Committee designee to the Budget Committee, a gentleman who has served this Nation well and will continue to serve the Budget Committee well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank not only the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) but also thanks to the minority whip for coming and engaging in this issue.

Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that this last summer, last summer, we engaged in all 12 spending bills on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Appropriations Committee received over 700 thoughts, ideas, so to speak, amendments for them to consider. It was an open process. Mr. Speaker, on the floor, 232 amendments were a part of the process of the 12 bills.

Last night, Nita Lowey, the ranking member, sat before the Rules Committee at about midnight and said: It is late, but the process worked. The process worked for Democrats. The process worked for appropriators to work on a bipartisan basis, and the process worked in the United States Senate.

Mr. Speaker, two members of the Appropriations staff, Shannon O'Keefe and Nancy Fox, are sterling members of the professional staff of the House of Representatives who did one heck of a job to make sure our Rules Committee--staff and Members--got the information we needed.

I agree the process should be better. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 115-614) to accompany House Resolution 796 the Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1625 included:

A waiver of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority in excess of a 302(a) allocation of such authority.

A waiver of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation that would cause the level of total new budget authority for the first fiscal year to be exceeded, or would cause revenues to be less than the level of total revenues for the first fiscal year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years for which allocations are provided.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his gracious comments. I appreciate the time, and I appreciate the fulsome praise.

I do want to talk just a little bit about process because I think, if you are not on the Appropriations Committee, you probably haven't been able to follow a lot of this. And, frankly, this process can be made better; there is no doubt about it. I suspect, processwise, my friend from Massachusetts and I are not very far apart on where we think it ought to end up. But I do want the full body to understand what we went through to get to this point.

First, it is important to remember that all 12 subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee produced legislation last year. There were full hearings and fulsome debate, and each subcommittee reported out their product. Then the full committee dealt with each subcommittee's report and presentation, and in doing so, all amendments were open from both parties.

Eventually, of course, all those 12 were put into a single bill. There were hundreds of amendments from both sides of the aisle that were made in order in that process. That bill was brought to the House floor in mid-September, and it was passed.

So, the House effectively did all of its work. It did the hearings; it did the markups; it reported it to the floor; and it moved it across the floor. We have been waiting for about 180 days for the Senate to respond. I could point some fingers. I am not going to. They didn't get a single appropriations bill across the floor, and only a few out of the full committee.

We have finally, about 4 weeks ago, had a bipartisan negotiation at the leadership level that reset the numbers: a big increase from the Budget Control Act for defense spending. That is something Republicans very much wanted, and many Democrats did as well. And, frankly, also, an increase from nondefense discretionary spending as well--so new numbers.

At that point, we began what is a pretty normal appropriations process at the committee level. That is the so-called four-corner prospect, when the ranking member of each subcommittee and the chairman of that committee sit down with their Senate counterparts and negotiate the differences between what were effectively Senate committee bills, but bills that the House had moved fully across the floor.

There is a great deal of give-and-take in that. When you go as far as you can to the subcommittee level, you kick them upstairs to the chairman at the next level. They negotiate, and they solve those.

I can give you an example. In Labor-HHS, we had 12 issues unresolved in a $170 billion bill. That is actually awfully good. They were moved up to full committee. Nine of those issues were resolved there. Eventually, three more were kicked up to the leadership level, and they were all resolved there.

That happens for each and every subcommittee. So there is a great deal of give-and-take.

Frankly, we begin this process knowing it needs to be a bipartisan product in the end. You have to have 60 votes in the United States Senate. There are 51 Republicans. Frankly, over here, obviously, they will take both Republican and Democratic votes. So there is a good deal of give-and-take in this particular process.

At the end of the day, we have got a bipartisan bill that both the chairman and the ranking member brought before us last night. Again, as I mentioned earlier, from a Republican standpoint, you are probably most pleased with the defense number. That is something we have wanted and the administration wanted.

But in the nondefense area, there are many, many things that both sides agree on are very important for the national well-being: a $3 billion increase at the National Institutes of Health, the largest increase in a generation; substantially more money on opioids, a crisis we know affects all of our districts, $3 billion this year and $3 billion next year spread over a number of subcommittee jurisdictions.

There is a substantial increase in early childhood education and childcare, something, again, that people on both sides of the aisle feel strongly about. There is lots of money for mental health to follow up on some of the initiatives that were laid out in the 21st Century Cures Act, again, a bipartisan product. Now you are seeing bipartisan appropriations to try and match the money with the legislation that was created by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

There is money for school safety. This is probably the largest single increase we have had. I think last year under, title 4, we did about $400 million. This bill has $1.1 billion, a pretty substantial increase in something I think we all care about. So, again, it has been pretty extraordinary.

Also, I want to point out--we are all proud of our respective committees--that Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey produced an omnibus last year in April or May. They have done three supplementals for the disaster relief. They now have produced this omnibus which will fund the government for fiscal year 2018, and they are hard at work on the next one. So they have been extraordinarily productive.

My friend is right. I wish more of this work got piecemeal to the floor so we could look at each bill. Hopefully, we can do that going forward since we now have a top-line agreement between the two sides for fiscal year 2019 as to what the bill will be.

Mr. Speaker, we have the possibility of having a more regular measure. But whether that can be achieved or not, I don't know. In passing this bill, we have at least laid the groundwork for it.

I particularly want to single out Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey because they have shown how Congress can work together. They have managed all 12 of these bills--multiple bills in multiple areas--and gotten them to the floor and across the floor in a bipartisan manner.

So, if we can do the same thing in the body as a whole, I think there would be much more appreciation and understanding and, frankly, much more input. That would be a good thing. My friend is right about that. But if we are going to do that, I would also add we have to think through how many amendments there will be.

How much floor time do you want to give us?

If you are going to come down here with 200 or 300 amendments on each side of the aisle, I guarantee you that all you will be doing is appropriations for the whole year. As appropriators, we might like that. As legislators in other areas, you might not. I think there has got to be some leadership give-and-take on what the appropriate structure is going forward.

But none of that should take away, number one, that the rule itself is

bringing to the floor an extraordinarily important product. If we don't get that product passed here on a bipartisan basis and in the Senate by midnight tomorrow night, both parties will have participated in shutting down the government of the United States. I don't think that is something either of us want to do. As a matter of fact, each of us have tried this once or twice, and we now know it is not a very productive way to proceed.

I think we have got an opportunity, by passing of the rule--and I urge passage of the rule--and then the underlying legislation, to do some really good things for the American people to fulfill our obligations.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5131) to improve the effectiveness of Federal efforts to identify and address homeland security risks to surface transportation, secure against vehicle-based attacks, and conduct a feasibility assessment of introducing new security technologies and measures, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5131, the Surface Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2018, as amended.

As you may be aware, TSA was created in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11. While the impetus behind its creation was the threat to aviation security, TSA is responsible for securing all transportation modes, including surface transportation assets such as railroads, mass transit, pipelines, buses, and ports. Given the persistent threats facing aviation in the post-9/11 era, TSA's main focus has been securing the aviation sector. However, in recent years, threats emanating against surface transportation modes, especially mass transit hubs, have steadily increased.

Attacks against these surface targets often require less sophistication than attacks against aviation, making them especially attractive to lone wolves or homegrown violent extremists.

Surface transportation systems are also a very attractive target due to their large volume of daily ridership and open infrastructure. The most recent example of an attack targeting surface is the attempted suicide bombing in December 2017 at New York City's Port Authority Bus Terminal.

Given the current threat environment, a review of TSA's approach to securing all transportation modes and an assessment of the degree to which surface transportation security should be prioritized is certainly warranted. Specifically, this bill mandates a GAO review of the national strategy for transportation security, the development of risk-based priorities for all

transportation modes, and a feasibility assessment of utilizing security technologies for surface transportation assets.

Furthermore, the bill requires TSA to disseminate best practices for enhancing security against vehicle-based terrorist attacks and authorizes a surface-focused Innovation Task Force.

Finally, the bill requires a threat assessment of certain security technologies tied to foreign countries and a strategy for TSA's surface transportation inspectors. In the face of emerging threats, it is imperative that Congress ensure TSA is adequately executing its mission to protect all transportation modes, not just aviation.

I thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Protective Security, Mrs. Watson Coleman, for authoring this legislation, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Katko, for his support and leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to commend the gentlewoman from New Jersey's work on this bill and Mr. Katko, the chairman of the subcommittee.

This is obviously very important. Airports aren't the only target. We have bus transportation, we have seen those targeted in Europe; our rail centers are also targets. We have seen that in Europe, and we have seen indications of those attacks being planned here as well.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding.

Yesterday, the University of Central Florida in Orlando had a unique student body president election. The candidates were Karen Caudillo, my constituent, and Josh Bolona, both Dreamers, beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act. They ran on a platform of justice and equality, and so did I. Today we celebrate Josh Bolona's victory on becoming UCF's first Dreamer student body president.

So what a sad backdrop we have here today. President Trump declared victory for getting $1.6 billion to start his wall in a tweet late last night--$1.6 billion to start Trump's wall. So his wall gets funding, but our Dreamers get left behind. How can I, in good conscience, go home to my constituents and explain this?

I wonder aloud: When will our Dreamers be the priority? When will it be their time to shine? When will they have their moment of opportunity, a reprieve from worrying and from looking over their shoulders every day?

Mr. Speaker, when will the waiting finally stop for them and the living begin? When will the Dreamers finally get to dream?

Every week for 198 days, we have come here to ask our colleagues for their consideration of the bipartisan Dream Act. I remind you of that because it has been 198 days since the President put hundreds of thousands of Dreamers at risk of losing their jobs, careers, their families, and everything they have worked for their entire lives. Many take solace in a court injunction issued in California and New York.

As a lawyer, I can tell you these Dreamers are hanging by a thread. They are one adverse ruling away from oblivion.

What about the over 1 million Dreamers who are not part of the case? Those young people who would be entering the program, the young sisters and the young brothers of Dreamers who are in the DACA program and those Dreamers who did not apply out of concern and out of a mistrust they had for giving their information to a Federal Government that has turned their back on them? They would have no quarter under these injunctions and no rest. They have no peace.

Why can't we, once and for all, come together to give these deserving young patriots who embody our deepest values the opportunity to earn their citizenship, hardworking patriots like Josh, Karen, and hundreds of thousands of others who will have contributed an estimated $460 billion to the U.S. economy over the next decade? These young people are making positive and significant contributions to the economic growth of our country which benefits all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues across the aisle don't want deportation of Dreamers on their hands, so why not do something now, at this moment, at this time? Why not pass a law that would permanently allow these young people to build a life here, to graduate from college, to start a new business, and to show their immense gratitude to a country that gave them a chance?

Today we have the opportunity to uphold our values and pass the Dream Act so that these Dreamers and the millions of people who swore to represent them aren't worrying and wondering any longer. We are asking for one vote, just one vote, that will keep whole our principles and ideals and allow these young people to pursue the American Dream.

So for the 26th time in 198 days, I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can immediately bring the Dream Act to the floor and provide certainty for Dreamers like Karen and Josh who want to continue to work, live, and contribute to the only country they love and the only country they have ever known. I cannot afford to wait another day, nor can they.