Providing 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; 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. 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. Speaker, I have nothing but the highest respect for my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), and I know he wants this House to run better. But the fact of the matter is, I feel bad that he has to defend this lousy, restrictive, indefensible process.

As I said last night in the Rules Committee, regular order in this House is dead. The current Republican leadership has made it very clear that they have nothing but contempt for regular order, and today's appropriations package is only another example of that fact.

Instead of considering bills one by one, and allowing thoughtful debate and Member input, Republican leaders decided to call up eight appropriation bills all at once this week, and even set amendment deadlines while Members were back in their districts for the August work period.

Last night, in the Rules Committee, Republicans blocked 229 amendments from even coming to the floor on the four bills we are talking about today alone. Those are Democratic and Republican ideas that won't be heard and won't be debated. Who knows how many more they will block on the next set of appropriation bills?

That is not the open process that we were promised by Speaker Ryan. That is not regular order, my friends.

What is even worse than this terrible process is the substance of the bills that are being brought before us. They are filled with funding cuts and poison pill riders that attack women's health, attack poor people, attack healthcare rights; repeal important financial reforms that protect our constituents and our economy; undermine the Affordable Care Act; make our land, air, and water dirtier; make our roads less safe; and undermine important civil rights protections. I could go on and on and on and on.

These bills are political documents, Mr. Speaker. They are red meat for the Republican base which, I think, is at around 15 percent of the American people the last time I checked. That is right, Mr. Speaker, the majority's ideas are so unpopular that over three-quarters of the American people disapprove of what they are doing here today. That is not coming from any liberal or leftwing source. That poll was released last week by FOX News, you know, the network that you guys always watch.

We all know we will need a continuing resolution to avert a government shutdown on October 1, so why are we wasting the House's time on this partisan exercise when we should be dealing with the CR?

And oh, yes, we need to raise the debt ceiling, pass a budget, continue to fund hurricane relief, and so much more we need to do.

Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of playing to the extremes. I am sick and tired of this President picking a fight with a different group of people every week, constantly trying to divide

Americans, rather than unite us for the common good.

And the latest target are the DREAMers. The DREAMers are our coworkers, our relatives, our neighbors, and our children's classmates. They have lived nearly their entire lives in America. They are part of the very fabric of our country.

The decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is a cruel betrayal of their trust in the 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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson ) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms.

Bordallo) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), my colleague, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I know we have a new manager on the Republican side. Maybe he will yield for a unanimous consent request.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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. 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,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the gentleman neglected to mention that there were 227 amendments, Democratic and Republican amendments, that were denied yesterday. The frustration that we have over here is that we are going through an exercise with these appropriations bills knowing that they are going nowhere and that we are going to have to deal with a short-term continuing resolution,

and there will probably be a big omnibus that will be passed at the end and which might not reflect any of the deliberations that we are doing on the appropriations matters in the next couple of days.

It is a little bit frustrating because we have other things to do. What we are saying is let's make this week a week of consequence, and let us bring up the DREAM Act.

President Trump did something horrible yesterday. He basically pulled the rug right from underneath 800,000 good, decent, and law-abiding people, citizens in this country, good people who are American in every way except they don't have a piece of paper. They were brought here, in many instances, when they were infants. They now have businesses, are leading relief efforts in Texas, and serve in our military. And he pulled the rug right from underneath them all. It is a cruel, awful, and nasty thing to do.

Listening to the rationale of this White House, this kind of schizophrenic tirade that we have seen unfold where 1 minute he is against the DREAMers, then he loves the DREAMers, then he is against the DREAMers, then he loves them, all of this kind of rambling that we have seen out of the White House hasn't changed the fact that he has thrown 800,000 lives in turmoil. People now have to live in fear and in uncertainty, and it is just a rotten thing to do. What we are saying is let's fix it.

My friends say they didn't like what President Obama did through executive order. We tried to legislate. We did, in 2010, pass the DREAM Act here in the House. Republicans did their best to make sure we couldn't bring it to the floor in the Senate, but we tried that way. Then President Obama, thank goodness, stepped up to the plate and put forward an executive order which has protected 800,000 people.

My friends say that they like the DREAMers and they want to help them. Well, let's help them. You guys are in charge. You can do anything you want. All we are asking for is a vote--that is it, a vote. The way we can ensure a vote is to defeat the previous question so we can bring up the DREAM Act.

If you don't have the courage to bring it up yourself, then vote to defeat the previous question and we will bring it to the floor. We will have the debate, and you can vote any way you want.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article about Alonso Guillen, a DREAMer who died trying to rescue Harvey flood victims.

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

`Dreamer' Dies Trying To Rescue Harvey Flood Victims

(By Molly Hennessy-Fiske)

Alonso Guillen drove more than 100 miles south from his

home in Lukfin, Texas, last week, determined to help those

trapped by Hurricane Harvey flooding in the Houston area.

But he and another man disappeared after their boat

capsized in a flood-swollen creek Wednesday, and relatives

began searching for their bodies.

On Friday, searchers found the body of Tomas Carreon, 25,

of Lufkin. On Sunday, relatives spotted Guillen's body.

``He was floating in the water,'' his brother Jesus

Guillen, 36, a Lufkin truck driver, said in Spanish during a

phone interview.

Luis Ortega, 22, of Lufkin, who survived the boat accident,

told searchers the men had been swept away by a powerful

current. Ortega barely escaped by grabbing a floating gas

tank, then a tree.

Relatives said Guillen, a Mexican national, was a

``Dreamer'' enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood

Arrivals program, which President Trump is said to be poised

to scrap, though he may leave it intact for six months to

give Congress time to find a legislative solution. (Ortega is

a U.S. citizen, as was Carreon, Guillen's brother said.)

Guillen moved to Lufkin at age 14 from just across the

border in Piedras Negras, Mexico. He later graduated from

Lufkin High School, attended St. Patrick's Catholic Church,

worked in construction and at a local club, Rodeo Disko, and

radio station, SuperMix 101.9 FM.

He was known as ``DJ Ocho,'' who mixed country and hip-hop,

followed Texans football and the Houston Astros, played

softball and soccer, sported Cowboy hats and red, white and

blue sunglasses.

He used the station to organize fundraisers for those in

need. ``It didn't matter what situation it was,'' said friend

Linda Alvarez.

Guillen masterminded the rescue trip to the Houston area

just like one of his radio station fundraisers: on the fly,

with friends' help. After the storm hit, they borrowed a boat

and drove south to save strangers.

Like many in Texas, Guillen's family has mixed immigration

status and is divided by the border. His mother, a Mexican

national, still lives in Piedras Negras, Mexico, with one of

his brothers. His father is a legal resident, and his brother

Jesus is a U.S. citizen.

Alonso Guillen applied for DACA, an Obama-era program that

protected from deportation about 800,000 immigrants brought

to the country illegally as children. He applied because so

many of his family and friends were in the U.S., and that's

where he saw his future, his brother said.

``His dream was to open a restaurant, something the whole

family could enjoy and where they could come together,'' his

brother said.

``He was trying; he was always updated with the news about

the Dreamer program.

He was ready to get it fixed and done,'' friend Manny Muniz

said of Guillen's immigration status.

Muniz, a fellow disc jockey, met Guillen a few years ago in

the midst of a more minor crisis: He had booked a gig and

didn't have any speakers. Guillen lent him some, and they

started working together.

After the storm struck, Guillen started posting weather

reports on Facebook.

Early last week Guillen told Muniz he was headed to

Houston, ``to go save lives, go help people, volunteer his

time.''

Muniz said part of the reason Guillen applied for DACA and

wanted to become a legal resident was that he longed to be

able to cross the border legally to visit Mexico, especially

his hometown.

Instead, Guillen will be buried this week in Lufkin. He is

survived by an 8-year-old daughter, Mariana, who lives in

Guanajuato, Mexico, his brother said.

Guillen's family is planning his funeral at St. Patrick's

Catholic Church. Guillen's mother may not be allowed to

attend. The U.S. government has not granted her permission to

cross the border for the service, relatives said.

``We hope that she can come, that they allow her to come,''

said Jesus Guillen's 14-year-old daughter, Zorayda.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection tweeted condolences to

Guillen's family Monday, calling him ``a rescue volunteer who

died during Hurricane Harvey'' and promising to allow

Guillen's mother to cross the border to attend his funeral.

Jesus Guillen said he hopes the DACA program will not be

dismantled.

``It gives people like my brother opportunities to be

better, to have strength and believe in themselves and become

what they want to be,'' he said.

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

Open Letter From Leaders of American Industry on DACA

August 31, 2017

To: President Donald J Trump

To: Speaker Paul Ryan; Leader Nancy Pelosi; Leader Mitch

McConnell; and Leader Charles E. Schumer

As entrepreneurs and business leaders, we are concerned

about new developments in immigration policy that threaten

the future of young undocumented immigrants brought to

America as children.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program,

which allows nearly 800,000 Dreamers the basic opportunity to

work and study without the threat of deportation, is in

jeopardy. All DACA recipients grew up in America, registered

with our government, submitted to extensive background

checks, and are diligently giving back to our communities and

paying income taxes. More than 97 percent are in school or in

the workforce, 5 percent started their own business, 65

percent have purchased a vehicle, and 16 percent have

purchased their first home. At least 72 percent of the top 25

Fortune 500 companies count DACA recipients among their

employees.

Unless we act now to preserve the DACA program, all

780,000 hardworking young people will lose their ability to

work legally in this country, and every one of them will be

at immediate risk of deportation. Our economy would lose

$460.3 billion from the national GDP and $24.6 billion in

Social Security and Medicare tax contributions. Dreamers are

vital to the future of our companies and our economy. With

them, we grow and create jobs. They are part of why we will

continue to have a global competitive advantage.

We call on President Trump to preserve the DACA program. We

call on Congress to pass the bipartisan DREAM Act or

legislation that provides these young people raised in our

country the permanent solution they deserve.

Mr. 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.

May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr. Speaker.

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.

These are good people. This is their country. They were brought here as infants. This is the only country they know. The fact that we are treating these good people in such a terrible way, every one of us should be ashamed. That is not who we are. We keep on saying that every time the White House does something else that we find offensive. We keep on saying: That is not who we are; that is not who we are.

Well, at some point, we have to prove it. We have to show it.

If we believe DREAMers are a valuable part of our community, then we need to protect them. This is a way to do it today. There is no need for compromise and more discussion. It is very simple: you either support the DREAMers or you don't. That is it. That is the only question at hand. If you want to load it up with all kinds of other extraneous materials, that is not a fair thing to do. That is not what these people deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are hearing from their constituents. I know they are hearing from their churches, synagogues, and mosques that we need to protect these people. Well, let's do it. The DREAMers don't need your words. They don't need your sympathies. They don't need your empathy. They need your vote.

We have an opportunity today, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, to have a vote today on whether to protect the DREAMers. It is that simple. Some of my colleagues on the Republican side have spoken very eloquently about the DREAMers. If you mean it, then give us your vote. If you mean it, do less talking and give us the vote. That is what we are asking for today.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let us help these great people. Let us help these people who have been such a valuable part of our community. Let us treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. Let us recognize that they view this country as their home. We should view this country as their home as well.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question. If that doesn't work, then vote ``no'' on this lousy rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 500 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), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 3354, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, also known as the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act of 2018. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the second installment of the House's effort to pass all 12 appropriations bills on the floor for the first time since 2006. The overall package will consider the remaining eight bills, covering $416.3 billion in total spending. It represents many months of work by the Appropriations Committee.

Today's rule covers four divisions of the bill: the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act; the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act; the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act; and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Together, these four divisions encompass $168.2 billion of discretionary Federal spending. This represents a decrease of $7.8 billion from fiscal year 2017, as Congress seeks to fulfill its obligation to the American people to be fiscally responsible stewards of the taxpayers' hard earned money.

Most importantly, it represents the next step in fulfilling the greatest responsibility we have as legislators: to fund the Federal Government and keep it open each year to provide our constituents the services they deserve while ensuring that we appropriately prioritize where and how to spend taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies division will provide approximately $20 billion in appropriations, a decrease of $870

million from fiscal year 2017. The division will fund critical programs for farmers and ranchers, which is of critical importance to my home State of Oklahoma.

The bill also supports conservative priorities, including language rolling back regulations that harm businesses, industries, farming and ranching operations, and rural and urban communities alike. In particular, the bill includes language allowing schools to get waivers from particularly problematic Obama administration regulations governing school lunches, and prevents the Commodities Futures Trading Commission from imposing harmful de minimis levels of trading activity that would force thousands of end users to comply with onerous regulatory requirements.

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.

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

I want to begin by discussing process with my good friend from Massachusetts, where I think he makes some good points, but I think he fails to recognize the progress that this bill represents.

My good friend knows, because we have the privilege of working together on the Rules Committee, I have thought for many years, frankly, that we needed to get back to regular order. I remind this House the last time we actually operated under it in an appropriations process was in 2006. My friends were actually in the majority when we got rid of open rules on appropriations bills. My friends never brought all 12 appropriations bills to the floor and where they were subject to amendments by various Members.

I would agree with my friend, this is not a perfect process that we have. If I had my way, we would go back to the way we operated in 2006, before the last Democratic majority, actually bring the bills down individually and, frankly, give every Member an open shot at amendment. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed.

Again, my friends thought differently when they were in the majority and never made a move to restore regular order--quite the opposite. We have actually fought to do that. We did have a period of open rules on appropriations bills. We didn't get every bill down here, I regret to say, but we got quite a few of them down. But my friends decided they would engage in poison pill tactics.

I regret, honestly, personally, that my conference gave into that; were more worried about casting tough votes. I think you are sent here to cast tough votes.

So I will make this commitment to my friend. I will continue to work with him and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who would like to return to that process. However, I do recognize this is significant progress toward doing that.

This is the first time, since 2006, that all 12 bills, in one form or another, will reach this floor, and, frankly, every single Member has been free to offer amendments on any portion of those 12 bills that they care to. Now, not all of them were made in order by the Rules Committee, and I would hope we get past that again some day.

But, again, before my friends decry that too much, they need to remember the role they played in actually getting us out of that process.

I also would like to talk just briefly with my friend about his thoughts about DACA, and I am sure we will have a good discussion on that in the course of the day, and, honestly, I think the discussion is helpful.

But I think the President of the United States did the right thing when, number one, he recognized that he does not have the constitutional authority, something even his predecessor wondered about, to actually engage in law and put this issue back in the hands of the Congress. The Congress now has 6 months to deal with it. The Speaker has assured us that we will do that.

I think the appropriate way to proceed is to have the committee of jurisdiction actually hold hearings and move forward, but we will see which way we go. But I think there is a better chance for a long-term solution, as even my friend agrees, if we have a legislative fix to the problem. I think that will involve some give-and-take, but my hope is we will end up at a place where all parties are satisfied. But we will see. That is what the legislative process is all about.

Final point to make, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that what we are debating on here today, in terms of these four appropriations

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

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. Speaker, I do not yield.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the consideration of H.R. 3354, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to present H.R. 3354, the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act. This legislation moves Congress one step closer to completing its critical work on our fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills ahead of the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

Our bill respects the American people, their priorities for our Nation, and their hard-earned tax dollars, and it will help move our great country forward to a more stable and prosperous future.

This funding, totaling $1.2 trillion, supports important domestic and international programs that keep our people safe and help our economy grow and thrive, protects us from terrorists and those who want to do us harm, and assures that America has a critical role across the globe both militarily and diplomatically.

Most importantly, this bill continues the work started with the national security funding package that passed the House in July, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, and it prioritizes the safety of the American people, targeting funding towards critical law enforcement programs, securing our borders and our cyber networks, fighting terrorism, combating opioid abuse, and stemming the flow of illegal drugs and goods.

Other funds are directed to programs that provide the greatest national benefit, including those that keep our food and drug supplies safe, that support public health preparedness, fight devastating wildfires, invest in critical infrastructure, and otherwise protect and support our economy and economic freedom.

All of these investments are made responsibly. In each of our bills within this package, we have found savings, gotten rid of waste, fraud, and duplication, and increased oversight to ensure that no taxpayer dollar is misspent, but we still have more work to do. This is the next step in the process, but it is not the end.

We must also address new needs arising from terrible flooding and damage

inflicted by Hurricane Harvey, which is affecting hundreds of thousands of people across Texas and Louisiana, as well as continue all government operations until the final appropriations package can be conferenced with the Senate and signed into law.

This legislation today represents the House priorities and shows the American people that this Chamber is moving forward, governing effectively, and getting things done here in Washington.

Before I close, I would like to thank the members of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work over the past few months, and the staff that allows us to consider this bill today, especially the 12 chairs of the subcommittees. The committee drafted, considered, and marked up all 12 appropriations bills in under 2 months, a record- breaking pace, and as a result, we have a fine package of solid bills on the floor this afternoon.

I particularly would like to thank the chairs and ranking members of the committee of the bills we are considering today, as well as the ranking member of the full committee, Mrs. Lowey, for her partnership and friendship throughout this process. I would also like to extend my personal thanks to our staff on both sides of the aisle for their efforts on these bills.

This package is a product not only of the committee's work, but also of the contribution of all Members of this body. While drafting these bills that compose this package, we took Members' submissions very seriously, creating a more representative bill that reflects the will of the American people.

In July, the House took the first responsible step of providing funding for critical national security priorities. With this bill, we complete our work on all 12 of our appropriations bills for the fiscal year.

This morning, the House came together on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis to pass desperately needed emergency funding for the victims in Texas and Louisiana whose lives were destroyed by Hurricane Harvey. Funding these important responsibilities of the Federal Government is our constitutional duty to the people we serve.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.109

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.113

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.114

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.115

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.116

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.117

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.118

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.121

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.122

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.123

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.124

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.125

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.126

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.127

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.128

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.129

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.130

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.131

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.132

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.133

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.134

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.135

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.136

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.137

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.138

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06SE17.139

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, my predecessor as full chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman to thank the staff.

Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with the remarks of Ms. Kaptur.

Taunja, thank you for your service to our Nation, your help to both Republicans and Democrats, and to the Nation. We are indebted to you. Good luck to you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, who spoke so eloquently this morning.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations. As I learned this morning, he is a true son of Houston, whose eloquence and compassion we heard this morning.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.