Supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 990) supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 990, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 990 introduced by Clay Higgins to express our support for the men and women of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Recently, Democrats nationwide, from the mayor of New York City to Senators Gillibrand and Warren, have recklessly called for the abolishment of ICE, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with enforcing Federal immigration laws within our Nation's interior.

They have used rhetoric that is both bewildering and deeply troubling. New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon has gone so far as to call ICE a ``terrorist organization.'' The Democratic candidate for the 14th Congressional District of New York just yesterday stated: ``We have to occupy all of it. We need to occupy every airport. We need to occupy every border. We need to occupy every ICE office. . . . ''

What is remarkable is that these calls would undo what has been our singular bipartisan achievement on immigration over the last two decades--the creation of ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The late Barbara Jordan was one of the most distinguished persons ever to serve in this body. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and NAACP's highest honor, the Spingarn Medal for highest and noblest achievement by a living African American. She was appointed by President Clinton to be chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. Her commission found that:

Immigration law enforcement requires staffing, training,

resources, and a work culture that differs from what is

required for effective adjudication of immigration benefits.

Separating enforcement and benefits functions will lead to

more effective enforcement.

The commission is particularly concerned that although the

removal system produced more than 100,000 final removal

orders each year, the system did not have the corresponding

capacity to remove the individuals subject to those orders.

It noted that:

The system is bogged down with increasing numbers of aliens

who are put into removal proceedings, released due to a lack

of detention space, and never appear at their hearings, or

are never deported after a final order of removal is issued.

We must enable the immigration system to deliver better on

its commitment to actually remove those who are issued final

orders.

Those are the words of Barbara Jordan's Commission.

Following upon the Barbara Jordan Commission's recommendation, Sheila Jackson Lee introduced the Immigration Restructuring and Accountability Act establishing an Office of Immigration Enforcement to:

Implement the removal of deportable and inadmissible aliens

from the United States.

Ms. Jackson Lee has stated:

I have been a champion for years when it comes to

restructuring the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I

have been arguing for years that we need to separate out

services and enforcement functions of the INS.

In 2001, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner introduced the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act which proposed to abolish the INS and established separate offices for immigration enforcement and the provision of immigration benefits. The bill was a bipartisan juggernaut. It passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 32-2 and this body by a vote of 405-9.

Alcee Hastings stated during floor consideration that:

I want to commend the authors of this bill. They have

produced a bipartisan bill that is sure to improve

performance and accountability. I think Mr. Sensenbrenner and

Mr. Conyers have done an outstanding job.

The Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act was, in effect, enacted into law as part of the Homeland Security Act. In creating DHS, it transferred over the INS's functions and placed responsibility over Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the same directorate. President Bush placed the final piece of the puzzle in 2003 when he submitted a DHS reorganization plan that created the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the primary mission of:

Enforcing the full range of immigration and customs laws

within the interior of the United States.

In that bygone era, House Democrats were committed to effective enforcement of our immigration laws. This was further evidenced by the fact that in 1996, a majority of Democrats voted for Lamar Smith's omnibus immigration enforcement legislation that was to be enacted as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

That commitment has inexorably withered away. By 2005, only 36 House Democrats voted for Jim Sensenbrenner's Border Protection, Anti- Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. Just a few weeks ago, not one Democrat voted for either of two bills that would have resuscitated immigration enforcement--the Securing America's Future Act or the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act.

House Democrats once worked collaboratively with Republicans to improve the effectiveness of Federal immigration enforcement. I hope that we will resume that soon. Now it appears that they are outraged when ICE has the audacity to actually enforce the laws that we have enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote on both sides of the aisle for H. Res. 990. Let's honor the work of Barbara Jordan and our Republican and Democratic colleagues who joined together to create ICE, and the brave men and women of ICE to whom we owe so much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), who is the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out to my Democratic colleagues that every single one of them had the opportunity and every single one of them voted against H.R. 6136, which addressed this issue and a solution for DACA recipients. Every one of them voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the House majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining to close the debate for our side. I believe we have the right to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is really a very sad day in the Congress of the United States because we are ignoring the needs of children. As a mother of five children--I had five children in 6 years, so lots of little babies all around the house all the time, lots of joy--and understanding the connection between parent and child, and being a grandmother of nine now, I can't even imagine why the Republicans think it is a good idea to move forward with a bill that does nothing to unite families, to stop the separations, and to have the reuniting of families in a way that is humane--not to reunite and detain in prison, in detention, but to unite in a way that honors the humanity of America.

In church on Sunday, the sermon was about not being an enemy of humanity. Some of the activities that are happening now in relation to these children are actions that qualify as enmity to humanity.

What we have: 2,000 children remain separated from their parents, locked away in Federal custody and living in a state of terror and trauma.

This is a picture of a little boy being confronted by an armed official. Do we have any idea what the impact is on that child?

Republican leadership pushed multiple antifamily bills that would have made the horrific situation worse for children by enshrining the President's outrageous mass deportation agenda as the law of the land with his zero-tolerance policy. We should have zero tolerance for that policy.

My Republican colleagues have voted again and again against actions to force a vote on a bill that would require the government to reunite families, and now you are promoting a new political stunt, wasting the country's and the Congress' time with a meaningless vote on a nonbinding resolution that does nothing to protect the children and end the cruel crisis that President Trump has created.

This resolution does nothing to prevent the separation of babies from their mothers. You are parents. You know, in the night, if you hear a sound from the room down the hall, that connection is something beyond material. It is spiritual. It is about parent and child, mother and child, father and child, and now we are going to rip that apart.

It does nothing to prevent the separation of children with disabilities from their parents and caregivers. It does nothing to provide legal counsel to children in immigration court, including little babies who cannot even yet verbally communicate.

For example, Johan. Earlier this summer, a 1-year-old boy named Johan appeared in court without his parents--1 year old. He played with a toy. He drank from a bottle. Then he cried hysterically, because he did not have his mother or his father there to comfort or care for him. The immigration judge even reported that he was ``embarrassed to ask'' if little Johan could understand the proceedings. The judge is asking a 1- year-old child taking a bottle if he can understand the proceedings.

What sort of administration sends a 1-year-old child into a courtroom alone to make his case? This resolution is an assault to little children like Johan.

Congress should be working day and night to protect these traumatized children. Do you know the toll that you are taking on these children? I wish you would listen to the representatives of the Society of Pediatric Doctors and what they have to say about this, pediatricians, what they have to say about this.

We should be working day and night to ensure the President can never again enable children to be ripped from their parents' arms. Democrats will continue to fight for families.

Here is the thing I found very sad, because it was almost a year ago, say, 10 months ago, when I was informed by the administration that they were going to separate children from their parents. This is not something that has emerged. This is a decision that was made.

They said, these parents, especially the moms they were talking about, are unfit mothers because they have chosen to take their children across the desert, which is very dangerous. That makes them unfit.

Unfit? Really? If their choice is to stay home and be murdered, be raped, be victims of gang violence, and they are coming to find solace or refugee status? They are unfit, I was told by the administration, and we know better what is good for the children. We are going to take the children and send them to foster care or whatever--or whatever-- foster care or whatever, taking children from their parents, as a decision of national policy.

Around that same time, we had a hearing--well, it was earlier. It was on the Muslim ban, so it was more like over a year ago, and the American Association of Evangelicals testified in that hearing. It was a Democratic hearing, because the Republicans would not have that hearing. They said that the U.S. refugee resettlement program is the crown jewel of American humanitarianism, the American Association of Evangelicals--the refugee resettlement program, the crown jewel of American humanitarianism.

So how is it that it can be so obvious to so many people that we are humanitarian, that all of these children are God's children, that all of them have a spark of divinity? Mr. President, they have a spark of divinity, and you do, too.

So let us all act on our and their spark of divinity and treat them with the level of respect that they deserve and not use children as a political shield for some other agenda.

This isn't about whether you support ICE or not. By the way, I will just close on this. On this subject, I want to remind our Republican colleagues that Democrats have been strong on protecting our borders all along. You recall after 9/11, a commission was formed, the 9/11 Commission. It took a couple of years to make recommendations. It took a while to make recommendations--a distinguished nonpartisan, bipartisan commission. It presented its recommendations in the summer of 2004.

The Republicans in Congress controlled the Congress at the time, and they would not take up those recommendations, which were about protecting our country.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York may remember it, because he has been a champion on this issue for such a long time, and since his district was affected by 9/11, in the forefront of that fight for us, to form a commission to begin with but also to

fit--it took us, until the Democrats took control of the Congress, in 2006--the first bill that we put on the floor, H.R. 1 in the new Congress, was to adopt the 9/11 Commission recommendations to keep the American people safe, protect and defend, which is our oath of office.

So don't make it look like you are either for protecting the border or not. This is about being enemies of humanity, by taking children away from their parents, keeping them separated, and when they unite them, to keep them under detention. It is not the crown jewel of our humanitarianism.

I urge a ``no'' vote. I am going to vote ``present'' on it, because they will use it politically, use it politically, use it politically. Vote ``present'' or however anyone wants to vote, but understand what it is.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of anxiety out in the countryside because of trade, because of RFS, because of low prices, and because of weather in my area. What we are trying to do here is avoid another potential problem, and that is what can happen with an animal disease outbreak in this country.

In Minnesota, we suffered the biggest animal disease outbreak we have ever seen in this country when we got avian influenza in our turkey flock. It was devastating. The producers lost $113 million. We lost $3 billion in the country, and we saw the effect of not being prepared.

This isn't just a poultry problem. This also relates to foot-and- mouth disease, to PEDv, to cattle fever tick that Congressman Vela has informed me about, and to other diseases that present a serious threat for the viability of the livestock operations in the communities and supply chains across the country that depend on them.

In the House bill, we have a provision for $450 million of permanent funding over 5 years for programs, including the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine Bank. The Senate provides an authorization for appropriations, but there is no permanent funding in the Senate bill.

While the appropriations committees deserve credit because they have put some funding into these programs over the years, the problem is that APHIS and the people who deal with this at the State level can't depend on it because you never know what it is going to be from year to year because the appropriators are the ones who have to decide. We want to make this permanent, and we are hoping that the Senate will accede to our ideas.

Animal disease programs are important investments in the health of our Nation's animals, our people, and the security of our food supply. As part of their work on the farm bill, conferees should insist on 10- year mandatory funding for animal disease preparedness and response programs to provide the certainty for both the farmers, for the consumers, and for the people who deal with this at the regulatory level.

Mr. Speaker, I include my full statement in the Record.

The mood in farm country is bad. It's bad because of the Administration's trade war; it's

bad because of declines in farm income; and it's bad because of volatile weather like the floods in the southern part of my district. Farmers and ranchers are staring a historically bad year in the face, and another hit would mean devastation for many of them.

And that's exactly what an animal disease outbreak would cause. Minnesota is the nation's largest producer of turkeys. Following an outbreak of avian influenza in 2013 and 2014, it is estimated that poultry producers in my state lost $113 million in existing production, approximately $3 billion nationally, and it cost taxpayers almost $1 billion.

Hungry consumers are affected too. The price of a dozen eggs in 2015 was double what it was before the outbreak.

This isn't just a poultry problem. Foot and Mouth Disease, PEDv, Cattle Fever Tick and other diseases present a serious threat to the viability of livestock operations and the communities and supply chains across the country that depend on them. Outbreaks mean culling animals and suspending production, and because fewer animals come into processing facilities, layoffs in local communities.

Disease outbreaks also impact farmers who grow feed. One study estimates that a future outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease could cost corn growers $44 billion and soybean growers nearly $25 billion. And there's a national security aspect to animal disease preparedness. The bipartisan Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense found that our current commitment to animal disease outbreaks leaves us vulnerable to attack on our food supply.

If we are serious about addressing these outbreaks, we must invest in preparation and response tools to tackle these diseases early. That level of effort is impossible without long-term funding certainty.

Currently, the House bill provides $450 million in mandatory funding over five years for programs including the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine Bank. The Senate provides an authorization for appropriations, but no mandatory funding. While the Appropriations Committees deserve credit for providing some funding for these programs in their bills, animal health is not a short-term issue or an issue we should short change. APHIS, state officials, and producers need to know that adequate funding for these programs is going to be available for their work to pay off.

Animal disease programs are important investments in the health of our nation's animals, our people, and the security of our food supply. As part of their work on the farm bill, conferees should insist on ten- year, mandatory funding for Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Programs to provide the certainty that both farmers and consumers need. I am submitting for the Record a letter in support of these provisions from the Animal Agriculture Coalition, which represents livestock producers and animal health professionals nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Democrats introduced a bill to abolish ICE. That is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In doing so, I think we should first review the agency's record.

As it turns out, ICE agents are on the front lines in the battle against crime.

In 2016, they arrested nearly 2,000 human traffickers, criminals who are involved in modern-day slavery. You wanted to abolish that.

Last year, they arrested more than 4,800 gang members, including more than 800 members of the MS-13, one of the most vicious gangs operating today. But you wanted to abolish that and put it into our communities.

They intercepted more than 1 ton of fentanyl that was headed for our communities. Now, we all should know what fentanyl will do, because we just debated more than 50-some bills on this floor, because 172 people who are Americans will die today because of an addiction. Fentanyl is so deadly that just a few grams will kill you. But you wanted to abolish that, to allow it into our communities.

Still, the Democrats say, not only will they want to introduce it, people will cosponsor it. But there is a problem, and I actually think there are two problems with this.

The first problem is that most Americans disagree with you. They actually support ICE. According to a recent poll, just one in four Americans thinks we should abolish it.

The second problem is that Democrats don't even agree with their own bill they introduced. They lack the courage of their so-called convictions, because when we offered the ability to bring up the bill, abolish ICE, that they put into the hopper and cosponsored, Democrats said they would vote ``no.''

They wanted the glory of introducing a bill to the far left of their own party, but they didn't have the guts to accept the consequences. That is the kind of leadership that the Democrats have to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I am even more confused listening to the Democratic leadership. I was here. I was on the floor. I listened, Mr. Speaker, to the leader on the Democratic side when she said: I recommend voting ``no,'' or maybe vote ``present,'' or vote however you want.

I am not sure what position she was requesting when she said all three. And I am not sure exactly what the author wanted to do when he put his bill across the aisle and asked the other Members of his own conference to cosponsor it, when he said he would vote ``no,'' when he had the offer to bring it up on the floor. Does that mean that every bill Democrats put across they really don't want to support? I am just not sure.

Now, we are about to vote on a resolution of the opposite. We want to support the law enforcement officers of

ICE and will renounce the activist campaign against them.

The danger these officers face is no joke. So for those in the back who would like to speak, Mr. Speaker, during this, I would ask that they get quiet for one moment, because six officers of ICE lost their lives defending those.

The danger to these officers is real, and it is not a joke. Six officers have died in the line of duty:

Special Agent Brian Beliso;

Special Agent Timothy Ensley;

Special Agent Lorenzo Gomez;

Special Agent Scott McGuire;

Special Agent David Wilhelm; and

Special Agent Jaime Zapata, who was killed by cartel hitmen in Mexico.

These agents gave their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more of these agents risk their lives every day on our behalf.

I want you to pause for one moment and I want you to think about those agents, think about those families, but think about those thousands of agents who are defending our border. What do they think about a bill that comes across the desk that says you want to abolish them? How much support do you want to give them? How much support do they feel when the leadership, Mr. Speaker, of the Democratic Party says: Vote ``no,'' vote ``present,'' just vote how you want?

Well, do you know what? When they risk their lives and they stop another human trafficker of modern-day slavery and they save another child, I will vote to support them. Or when they stop an amount of drugs coming across and they save American lives, I will support them. Or when they stop MS-13 gang members from coming into any of our communities, I will support them. If only for this reason, agents deserve our gratitude and support.

Mr. Speaker, I am confused. I understand there is this growing socialist movement in the Democratic Party, but when does this socialist new Democratic Party believe we should have no borders? I guess it is today.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Americans have asked for, and that is not what America supports. But then again, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand what the other side supports when they offer a bill and they ask people to cosponsor and then they won't even vote for it.

That is why I am happy to offer Congressman Higgins' resolution and stand with the women and men of ICE, because I want a safer America. And for those who gave their life for us, I will stand with them, even if it means standing up against a new socialist Democratic Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is the legislative equivalent of fiddling while Rome is burning. Our President takes to the world stage to side with a hostile foreign power over his own intelligence services. Here at home he engages in government-sponsored child abuse in the form of a family separation policy that continues to terrorize children as young as 6 months.

This nonbinding resolution before us would do nothing to bring about a fair and just immigration system. In fact, it would do nothing at all. It is just a meaningless political stunt to change the subject from the international and domestic shame unleashed on us by President Trump.

The President imposed the family separation policy, and his administration never even considered how to ensure that the children would eventually reunite with their families. Now, nearly 3,000 children remain separated, and they do not know when, or even if, they will ever see their parents again. Many of these children were ripped from the arms of their mothers and fathers, and their anguish is unimaginable.

But this bill would do nothing to reverse this disastrous and cruel family separation policy. It would do nothing to ensure that parents and children are accurately tracked so that families can be reunited, and it would do nothing to address the horrendous conditions separated children are being subjected to.

For example, 14-month-old Baby M--we must use a pseudonym--was separated from his mother for 85 days at 14 months and he returned so full of dirt and lice that it appeared he had not been bathed the entire time he was in Federal custody. His mother Olivia

says that he is not the same since they were reunited, and he cries whenever he does not see her out of fear that he might be left alone again.

Mr. Speaker, this is a humanitarian crisis. We do not have the time to waste with political stunts like this bill while the moral fiber of our country is torn apart.

I will be voting ``present'' on this bill, because I have no desire to play the Republican's immoral games right now. We have much more important things to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking Democrat on the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, what is disgusting is for Congress to sit idly by while children are ripped from the arms of their parents and abused.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Yes, every Democrat voted against H.R. 6136, which provided for indefinite detention of entire families, among other obnoxious provisions. So did many Republicans, thank God.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the distinguished gentleman and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains for each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

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