Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Congratulations, Chairman Smith, on bringing to the floor an excellent bill. I want to also congratulate Mr. Thornberry from Texas, a responsible Member of this Congress, a responsible member of the minority, and a person who has been a strong voice on behalf of national defense.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this year's defense authorization bill. It makes smart, strategic investments in our military to keep America safe and defend our interests overseas, and it reflects core values.

We are proud to fund the Department of Defense. I have been in this body for some 38 years. I have supported every Defense bill. Now, when I say that, very frankly, we have had some political fights back and forth and there have been political votes cast where we thought that there were things being done that shouldn't be done. But I have supported a strong national defense. I supported most of Ronald Reagan's build-up which was, by the way, started by Jimmy Carter.

I have supported making sure that we had weapons we needed and the personnel we needed.

We are proud as Democrats to stand behind our men and women in uniform. As a matter of fact, some of the great victories of democracy have been led by people like Woodrow Wilson in World War I, Franklin Roosevelt in World War II, Harry Truman in Korea, and John Kennedy confronting communism and authoritarianism, the people who want to rule by armed might.

This bill, the first written by a Democratic majority in 8 years, raises military pay by 3.1 percent and recognizes the contribution of our men and women in uniform. It supports a stronger military by prohibiting funding for discrimination against transgender, that denies us the talents and courageous service of patriotic Americans.

Now, that has happened before, and Harry Truman stepped in and said that, no, we are not going to segregate our services. We are not going to discriminate against those of color in our services. He said that in the 1940s, post-World War. And there were some who said that would destroy our military effectiveness. They are saying the same thing about gays and transgender. They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

This bill cuts $17 billion. The chairman, the ranking member, and I had discussions through the years. We need to make sure that we spend our money smartly and not just blindly spend money. We need to make sure that every dollar is spent effectively, but that our national security is not in any way undermined. I believe the savings that have been effected are focused and that we are taking that money and using it for effective items and taking it away from an expensive and ineffective wall on the southern border that the President wants to spend money on.

It also acknowledges the serious national security challenges posed by climate change. Surely, we know how critical to our national security the effects of climate change are showing. We experienced that just the other day here in Washington, D.C.

It requires the Pentagon to develop a plan, along with others in our government, as to how we can confront, effectively and on behalf of our national security, climate change.

This bill also accelerates the closure--long overdue--it is not the American way to hold people without finding out whether they are, in fact, guilty or not. I have been to Guantanamo. Nobody in America ought to talk about how much it costs to incarcerate somebody in America, because it is about one-tenth or one-twentieth of what it is costing us in Guantanamo. You talk about fiscal responsibility.

I am deeply disappointed that my Republican friends are bucking a long tradition. I did not like everything in your Defense bill. I disagreed sincerely with some of the provisions that you put in your Defense bill, and I voted for the Defense bills you offered on this floor because I thought they were in the best interests of our country--not perfect--but in the best interests of our country, of our military, and of our national security.

I am sorry that that is not happening today or tomorrow or Friday when we vote on it. This bill ought to have bipartisan support. It ought to have bipartisan support for our military, and if the situations were reversed, my Republican colleagues would be accusing Democrats of not supporting our national security, not supporting our troops, not supporting the men and women who are put at the point of a spear, in harm's way, many paying the ultimate price. That is what you would have accused us of.

How sad it is that some in this House are choosing loyalty to the President and their party over a common commitment to our troops--tough words, but I think true. Republicans object to this bill because they claim it does not meet their demands for $750 billion. Until March of this year, however, they were demanding exactly the number in this bill. Some on my side of the aisle

think this sum is too high. Mr. Smith, the Speaker, and I urged our colleagues to adopt this number because it was a bipartisan number--not the perfect number.

More than 70 Republican Members out of your 194 wrote to the President citing the same number as their preferred figure for defense investment. That is the number the Pentagon used for the previous year around which it built its budget.

That is what Joseph Dunford--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, said was the number the Pentagon needed ``after scrubbing every account,'' $733 billion. That is the figure we included in this bill. That is the figure that you are prepared to vote against.

Ranking Member Thornberry, who is my friend and whom I respect and whom I have just spoken of, penned an op-ed that President Trump must ``move forward with the $733 billion budget he originally proposed for 2020.''

We took your number, and, yes, there are some things you don't agree with in this bill, but there were things we didn't agree with. Very frankly, there are very few bills that we consider on this floor that I agree with 100 percent. But we are a democratic body. We are a collective, collegial body, and we try to reach consensus.

We took your number. We took the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's number. Indeed, at the same time that Republicans are arguing that $733 billion isn't enough, the White House is calling for a continuing resolution that spends far less. A former Member of this body originally suggested sequester which would devastate our national security and our domestic security.

As Chairman Adam Smith has stated, to claim that $733 billion is an abdication of our responsibility to fund our troops is patently ridiculous and contrary to the representations that have been made on your side of the aisle.

They claim this bill is partisan. That is absurd. The bill includes more than 53 percent of the amendments offered by Republican Members--a higher figure than Democratic amendments in the bill. Chairman Smith's staff worked tirelessly and collegially with Republicans for months to ensure that the defense authorization bill would be bipartisan as this legislation has been historically.

Of course, there are provisions in this bill with which Republicans disagree. I would be shocked if that were not the case. There are probably going to be some provisions in there that I disagree with. That doesn't mean they should vote against this entire bill, however, Mr. Chairman. Democrats supported this bill when we were in the minority over the last 8 years--check the record--even when Republicans forced controversial measures into it because we believed it was important to support our military. We voted for it over serious objections on policy because we viewed it as a must-pass bill.

Where has that bipartisanship on national security gone?

Is it just a strategy to defeat this bill?

I am convinced that we are going to have 218-plus Democrats vote for this bill, Mr. Chairman. I urge my Republican colleagues to reconsider their opposition and vote for their number and put country over party.

To my Democratic colleagues, I say: This is a strong Defense bill, as good as you are going to get. It protects LGBT rights and advances family leave. It loosens the heinous restrictions on transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Opposing this bill means we will be stuck with a Senate version that omits these provisions.

I thank Chairman Smith and members of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work, and I thank the ranking member. I congratulate you both on producing a very strong, very positive bill. You did that together.

Do not abandon your work. I hope that it will pass with resounding support from both sides of the aisle. Our troops in harm's way deserve that affirmation, that trust, that faith, that commitment. Let's not let them down.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word as the designee of the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I thank Mr. Connolly, who is a leader on issues of effective government. He served as the head of government, as a matter of fact, in Fairfax County, and is one of our experts in this area.

I want to say to my friend, Mr. Graves, the issue here for me is not that we don't need to make OPM more efficient. I agree with his premise. We do need to do that.

But the reorganization that is suggested in merging the Office of Personnel Management with the General Services Administration is, in my opinion, very bad logic. The General Services Administration deals with real property, with inanimate objects; OPM deals with human resources. There is no match between those two.

Making OPM an effective, efficient organization is an objective that we ought to all share. And I know that Mr. Connolly shares that objective, and I know that Mr. Connolly, Mr. Graves, and Mr. Quigley, working together, could certainly effect that end, which I would support. But I do not support what I perceive to be a retaliatory suggestion about laying off people at OPM. In other words, if we can't merge it, we are going to lay them off.

Frankly, if there is evidence that there are too many people and enough people to do the job that is being done and that we can transfer people to other agencies that might need them, that is one thing, but I don't think that is the evidence that we see. And, clearly, there will be sufficient funds in the budget that Mr. Quigley has offered to make sure that we have an efficient, effective Office of Personnel Management.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, my perception is that there is a hostility, frankly, toward the Federal workforce in this administration. I think that is unfortunate.

Whether you think government ought to be small or large, you ought to agree on the fact that, whatever size it is, we ought to have an effective human resource agency so that the morale of our employees and the competency of our employees, the work ethic of our employees, the benefits administration for our employees is all done in an effective, efficient manner.

So I would hope that we would make sure that we don't get into this retaliatory political response rather than a substantive response. I think that is what Mr. Connolly's amendment is about.

I thank Mr. Graves for his comments, but I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Connolly amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey of the Appropriations Committee, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

Members are advised that debate on amendments to H.R. 3055, the appropriations bill, could begin as early as 3 p.m. on Monday.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate, and 12 p.m. for legislative business. Again, we will meet at 10 a.m. Tuesday and Wednesday.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business today.

The House will complete consideration of the appropriations bill, H.R. 3055, which entails Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2020.

The House will also consider H.R. 3551, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2020. That will be the tenth appropriations bill that we will consider and is another step toward the House doing its work to avoid a shutdown at the end of the fiscal year.

The House will also consider H.R. 2722, Securing America's Federal Elections Act. This legislation will protect elections for public office by providing financial support and enhanced security for the infrastructure used to carry out such elections.

Lastly, additional legislative items may also be considered, including legislation related to humanitarian assistance at the border and the legislative appropriation bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me say that I am pleased that the gentleman refers to the Antideficiency Act and that, in this instance, the administration will not spend money on an object that was not designated for by the Congress of the United States. This is for helping children.

Obviously, when it wanted to build a wall, it did exactly that. It tried to shift money that was not appropriated for. I am glad that, in this instance, we are honoring it, number one.

Number two, let me say that I think the Senate's action was helpful. It was, as the gentleman pointed out, bipartisan. I think that will probably be helpful to us here as well.

I want to say to the gentleman that I know for a fact that, certainly within the Appropriations Committee, there have been bipartisan discussions all along. There was a time when they were very close to agreement on what the bill would comprise.

It is my hope that as a result of both these actions, as I said, my expectation is that we will pass something next week. That is my hope, and I know that work is being done on it as we speak. I know it will be done over the weekend, and I am hopeful that we will get there because this humanitarian relief for the children and for adults, for giving the proper treatment to people who are in our country and in our care, is very important, and we are working very hard to get that done. My hope is that it will be done.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I understand that this is a critical issue that we need to address, but I believe that the gentleman is not accurate.

HHS employees are going to get paid. This money that is being appropriated is for the special, additional services that we need to make sure are available. I don't think there is a question of HHS employees not getting paid.

More importantly, it is an issue as to whether or not the services are going to be available to provide the humanitarian treatment that the gentleman talks about, and I think we are in full agreement.

I will say again that I think the Senate's action is helpful. It was bipartisan. Very frankly, I think it, hopefully, is going to help us get to some bipartisan agreement here.

Frankly, I will tell the gentleman, we thought we were pretty close to a bipartisan agreement with the Republicans, and the Republicans and Democrats have been working on this in the committee, as the gentleman knows. We were pretty close to agreement. We didn't get there.

They got to it in the Senate, which meant the Democrats went along with what the majority could support because they are the majority. Hopefully, we can do that here and get a bipartisan bill.

I will tell the gentleman that I am working very hard and am very focused on getting a bill done so that we do not leave here without a bill having been passed to provide this humanitarian relief that is so essential.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to make a comment on what the gentleman just said.

I think most of us are parents. I have had three 12-year-old daughters. All were 12 years of age at one point in time, and I wouldn't send them unless I thought their lives were at risk, unless I thought they were in great danger by remaining with me, unless I thought the alternative of staying was worse than the risk.

That is why they come here, because they are terrified that their child is going to be taken from them by death, not by trying to get to an America that is the light of the world, that they think is the land of opportunity. That is why they come here. That is why they take this risk.

Very frankly, we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform a long time ago so that there was a safe route and an open door and so that people seeking refuge and asylum, which is under American law, would be able to do that.

I agree. Sending these children has to be wrenching for a parent. But the alternative they find to be even more wrenching, more dangerous, and riskier for that 12-year-old child, and so they send them here. They send them here because the reputation of America is that we will treat people humanely, thoughtfully, and safely. And it is our responsibility to do that.

Madam Speaker, I want to correct myself. The gentleman was correct. I have just been informed because they are funded, the employees, specifically under that account, the gentleman is correct and I was incorrect, and apparently, they would not be paid.

Obviously, the general Labor-Health bill that we passed up until September 30 of this year funds almost all employees. But apparently, because these funds are segregated in this account, my friend is correct that they would not be paid.

In any event, while I am concerned, and maybe some of those folks live in my district, while I am concerned about them being paid, I, frankly, share my friend's concern, which is a much greater concern, that people who come here under and consistent with U.S. law, seeking asylum from the danger that they face at home, need to be treated in a humanitarian way. So I certainly agree that we want to make sure people get paid.

We shut down the government for 35 days, and 400,000 people did not get paid. Actually, 800,000 did not get paid, and 400,000 people had to work.

We offered numerous bills which, very frankly, the gentleman's party voted against on a regular basis, which would have opened up the government and paid those employees. So, I wish we had been more concerned, during those 35 days, with them getting paid.

But the real concern--and I know the gentleman and I share this view--is the humanitarian treatment of the people who are here in our care.

Madam Speaker, I would just say, as the gentleman knows because I have talked to him about it, I have been trying to get an agreement on caps since January.

I talked to Senator McConnell; I talked to Senator Shelby; I talked to Ranking Member Granger; obviously, Mrs. Lowey, the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee.

I have worked almost ceaselessly on trying to get a caps deal, which I think all of us think is absolutely essential.

Very frankly, I think there are those down at the White House--and I specifically reference the Acting Chief of Staff, Mr. Mulvaney--who believed that a caps deal was not the policy they thought ought to be proceeded on and would have preferred and talked about having either a sequester, which I think neither side thinks would make much sense, either on the defense side or the nondefense side--but that a CR was a preferred alternative and, frankly, a negotiation at the very latest moment was a strategy.

I witnessed that, as the gentleman knows, the Republican Senators tried to negotiate with the White House so that the Republican White House and the Republican Senators tried to negotiate a caps deal and could not. So, it had nothing to do with Democratic participation at that point in time.

Now, what we have done, as the gentleman knows, is we have, in effect, adopted a level of spending to which we have marked our bills. That level of spending, I will tell you, on the defense side, I have reason to believe is agreeable to many Republican leaders at the top level on the gentleman's side.

The domestic level of spending was consistent with the raise in defense and domestic, as we have done in prior deals.

The prior, most recent deal, as the gentleman knows, was reached between Speaker Ryan and Senator Murray. I would be hopeful that we would reach such a deal.

Obviously, if the gentleman reaches a deal, the President has to be part of that, because you have got to amend the sequester law by statute, and the President has to sign it.

But we are moving ahead. This is our alternative. We are going to be passing 10, 11 of our bills, we hope, next week, and we will send them over to the Senate.

The Senate will, presumably, at some point in time, act upon its bills. If there is a different number, we will have to reconcile the numbers, in conference, in the regular order, and hopefully pass those bills in time so that there will not either be the necessity for a continuing resolution, which really is a recognition of the failure to get the appropriations process done, which has happened often on both sides of the aisle, so it is not a question of just--but, that the Congress has not reached agreement, as it should have.

So, we are proceeding. We are proceeding in a timely fashion. We are going to send at least 10 or 11 bills to the Senate, and we will send the Homeland Security bill, hopefully, at some point in time, or reach agreement between the two parties, and the two houses, so that I think we have done everything we could possibly do, absent the ability of, frankly, the gentleman's side to get agreement among itself on what the gentleman thinks the cap numbers ought to be.

I was hoping, in discussion with Senator McConnell, that between the two parties we could reach agreement, but that has not happened. But, hopefully, at some point in time it will happen soon because, ultimately, it has to happen, because the sequester is not an option, and the CR ought not to be an option either.

We are doing our work, considering amendments. We are in the regular order. This is the way it should be done. I am proud that it is being done this way, and I am hopeful that it will result in agreement and a signature on appropriation bills by the President, so

we do not shut down the government or have to operate under a CR.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting the gentleman says these bills aren't going to become law.

That had no restraint on the gentleman's side of the aisle when that side was in charge in the appropriations bills the gentleman passed in a totally partisan fashion, I would observe.

We didn't think they would get past the Senate. They didn't get past the Senate. They didn't become law. There was a compromise made.

The gentleman did the same thing. Why? Because the gentleman thought that was, from a policy standpoint, the correct thing to do.

We are doing exactly the same thing. Will we have negotiations between the House and the Senate as to levels of spending and other, as the gentleman points out, provisions in the bills? Of course we will.

But the assertion that: Why are you passing bills? They won't pass the Senate. I would hope they pass the Senate. I think they are excellent bills. I think they provide for the national security, both on the defense side and on the domestic side.

Very frankly, we put defense and labor-health together. Why? Because the gentleman had made that a way to proceed.

Why did the gentleman make it a way to proceed? Because those on the other side, for the most part, are hesitant to vote for the levels that we expect are necessary for education and the health of our people.

Having said that, when the gentleman says it won't pass the Senate, the gentleman's bills didn't pass the Senate. The gentleman passed them because he thought they were good policy. We are passing them because we think they are good policy.

And I, frankly, think, but for the fact that I think the gentleman has expressed a policy on his side of, ``Don't vote for these bills,'' we would have gotten a significant number of Republican votes on a number of these bills. We did get some votes.

But let us hope that we get to a deal on what the spending levels ought to be. And, as I point out, without any Democratic participation, the Republican Senators can't get a level with the White House. They tried. They worked at it. It was publicly reported.

The gentleman has been unable to get an agreement within his own party on those levels. My view is, I think Mr. Mulvaney doesn't want a deal. Mr. Scalise says he wants a 2-year deal. I hope he is right. I hope the gentleman is right that Mr. Mulvaney will, with Mr. Mnuchin, come to grips with doing a 2-year deal to give us some degree of stability.

The gentleman is correct. He didn't have to get a budget because we made a 2-year deal. It couldn't have gotten through the Senate if we hadn't agreed on it. But we made a 2-year deal. It wasn't exactly at the levels we wanted.

Senator Murray led that negotiation on our behalf. We reached it, and we had some degree of stability. And that is why the other side was able to pass their bills without a budget, because we already had a number. They didn't need a 302a number.

Now we are getting into jargon here, but suffice it to say, yes, we are passing bills at levels we think are appropriate. Many on the gentleman's side disagree with that. The Senate may disagree.

The way we get to a resolution is we have a conference and we come to an agreement. Hopefully, that will happen, and we will not shut down the government of the United States, which we did, partially, for 35 days. That is the way this institution ought to work, and I hope it does work that way.

I agree with the Republican whip that these were productive meetings between Prime Minister Trudeau and members of his cabinet: the finance minister, the ambassador, the foreign minister was there. I think they were productive.

I think our side has made it very clear that we want to get to yes. We believe that the USMCA is an improvement over existing NAFTA, and it also accommodates for changes that have occurred over the last 30 years or so.

We very much want to see, however, that we have enforcement provisions in

the new agreement which apply to workers, their safety, their standard of living, and to the environment, as well as some concerns about pharmaceuticals and biologics.

But we want to get to yes. Our friends in labor want to get to yes. We believe this is an improvement.

I am hopeful we can get enforcement provisions. I know that Speaker Pelosi has made it very clear what we need to get to a yes, and I am hopeful we get there because, personally, I think it will be in the best interest of the country because it is an improvement over the existing NAFTA.

That doesn't mean it is perfect. None of these agreements are perfect. But it was a productive discussion and, hopefully, it will lead to solutions.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Scalise, the Republican whip, for yielding.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

Members are being advised that debate on amendments to H.R. 2740 will begin at 3 p.m. on Tuesday.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

Members are reminded that when the House is considering appropriation bills, votes will occur after 7 p.m.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes on Friday may occur between 2 and 3 p.m.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

The House will continue consideration of H.R. 2740, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020.

The House will also begin consideration of H.R. 3055, which is the Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act.

This will be the second minibus that will be coming to the floor over this work period. It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to pass all 12 appropriation bills in this work period.

This package is yet another step toward the House doing its work to avoid another shutdown, which has such a negative effect on the Nation and a negative effect on the morale of those who work for the American people in the Federal Government.

Hopefully, it will result in an agreement between the House and the Senate, and a signature of the President, which will preclude a repeat of the shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

First of all, I think there is broad agreement that there is, indeed, an emergency, that we need to act, and we need to act as quickly as possible.

As the gentleman probably knows because it was reported in the press, we had a leadership meeting with the appropriators yesterday, urging the swiftest action possible.

I will tell my friend, to put this in context, the gentleman indicates the system is broken. I would agree with that. I think everybody agrees with it. The Senate tried to fix it in 2013. We have urged for the last 6 years for a bill to be put on the floor on comprehensive immigration reform. While it may not have totally solved this issue, it certainly would have addressed this issue.

Notwithstanding that historical perspective and context, it is clear that there is an emergency and that we need to respond. I would hope that my friend would say that we would respond in the sense of the emergency that exists. I think both sides believe that we ought to deploy emergency resources to deal with the emergency.

If we can limit it to that, I suggest to my friend, we will have a lot better opportunity to get a consensus. Now, what I am saying is, I frankly think the administration conflates border enforcement and some of the things it wants to do on enforcement and humanitarian relief.

If we can pass a bill that is limited to humanitarian relief, I hope that we could pass it as soon as possible, meaning next week. I will tell the gentleman that Ms. Roybal-Allard has been working very hard to reach a consensus not only within her committee but reach a consensus with those who have a particular focus on it. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, as you know, is very concerned about the humanitarian situation at the border, as we all are.

The New York Times editorial, which I brought to the attention of my Members, and they had already seen it, I think The New York Times' premise is correct. We need to act. We need to act quickly. We are working toward that end.

I would hope that we could move as early as next week. I can't promise that, but I am hopeful that we can reach a consensus.

It would be nice if we could reach a consensus between the House and the Senate. I know the Senate talked about acting next week. We will see what they do.

I guarantee that this week, over the weekend, or the beginning of next week, Ms. Roybal-Allard and others are working to get a bill together that we believe could get a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate and the signature of the President because we need to act. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments, and I understand the deep concern. We have deep concern on this side of the aisle about the administration's attitude, for instance, when they take children from their parents and send them to far-off places and don't keep sufficient records to reunite those children.

So, yes, we share the concern about the humanitarian crisis, but we are also concerned that the administration that has done some of the things that it has done and that has made it much more difficult for people to pursue asylum to which they may be entitled under American law, we want to make sure that, in fact, we are dealing with humanitarian issues that the gentleman raises and not issues that seem to be related by this administration.

We have cause for concern and we have cause for caution, but I am hopeful, as I said, that we can get this done, because I don't disagree with the gentleman, and The New York Times and we don't disagree.

There is a very serious challenge at the border to make sure that people are safe, kept in places where they are warm and out of the elements and where they can be treated in a way that Americans would want to treat others and would want to be treated themselves. So I am hopeful that we will get this done sooner rather than later.

But Mr. Obama asked for that supplemental. The other thing he asked for for many, many years was let's get a comprehensive immigration bill passed. In my view, had that been put on the floor, it would have had a majority of votes in the House. It was never put on the floor for years--not months and not days, for years. That is part of the solution. Irrespective of that, we need to act as soon as possible, hopefully, within the week.

Much work is being done on this to resolve the concerns of those who have some of the most knowledge, and that is members of our Hispanic Caucus who live on the border, who interface on the border and who see, every day, the consequences of what is happening. They want to make sure that, yes, there is humanitarian assistance and people are treated humanely, safely, and with respect. But they don't want that money used to treat other people who are in this country in an arbitrary and capricious way.

So I want to join the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and assure him that I share his concern. We are urging everybody to work as hard as they possibly can to get to an agreement, and I am hopeful that we can do that in the very, very near future. I am told leaving here without doing that would not be acceptable.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to place in historical context, again, this House

passed a DREAM Act, and we sent it to the Senate and the Senate didn't pass it. So this House, when we were in the majority, did do that, but we couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate. We know that problem. It so happens we were in the majority, but we couldn't get 60 votes for that at that point in time.

We could go on a long time about pointing fingers at who has done what and when, but the fact of the matter is we have some people in real distress. We have some Federal employees who have a responsibility who are being greatly challenged. We need to address that, and I am urging that we do that as quickly as we possibly can.

We are about to deliver a chit, if you will, for a dinner for four at one of the famous crab houses here in Washington as the result of Louisiana's not treating the University of Maryland nearly as thoughtfully as they could have, and I lost that bet. But I appreciate my friend's wish for a happy birthday.

God has been very good to me, and I am looking forward to celebrating that birthday. My daughters were a little premature. We celebrated it last Saturday, too, so we are going to have a number of celebrations on this birthday, and then hopefully everybody will forget it, including me.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, June 18, 2019, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Yes.

No, we do not expect any business to be conducted.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I want to say I thank the chair and I thank Ms. Granger for her leadership and working with the chair, Mrs. Lowey, on getting these bills to the floor.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, albeit on leave, I am very proud of this committee. This committee is probably the most critical committee in the sense that, if it doesn't get its work done, we shut down the government. No other committee can say that, luckily.

But I am pleased, as the majority leader, to say that it has been my intent, working with the chair and the ranking member, to complete this appropriations process in a timely fashion.

Mr. Chair, the new Democratic majority began this Congress in the middle of a damaging government shutdown. Even though we had a bipartisan agreement on spending levels--which we don't yet have--and the Republicans held both Chambers of Congress and the executive, they failed a fundamental responsibility of funding all of government. And, as a result, we had a partial shutdown.

This week, the Democratic majority, working with the Republican minority in the House--and I had the privilege of serving with Ms. Granger actively on the committee--is moving the first four appropriations bills to the floor for consideration, with passage expected early next week.

It is my hope that, by moving through this process, we can help prevent a shutdown and, rationally, adopt the priorities of this country, both from a national security standpoint

and from a national security standpoint on domestic investments.

The bills that are included in this package show our commitment to a stronger military, supporting critical research to combat diseases, more educational opportunities for our people, prioritizing diplomacy and more robust water and energy infrastructure, and a more accountable government.

It is a funding package for the people. I am particularly proud of the Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies bill. In my estimate, it is the best I have had the opportunity to vote for throughout my career.

It supports a more competitive workforce, advances healthcare research and access, stands up for women's health, and invests in future generations by funding important educational initiatives; such as, full-service community schools, a Special Olympics that provides so many opportunities to those with intellectual disabilities, and after- school programming.

These are all critical programs for our national security that President Trump has proposed, unfortunately, eliminating.

Moreover, the Energy and Water bill before us supports the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration Project, which is important to our State, but also important to one of America's great estuaries.

We are doing all that while bringing the package of appropriations bills to the floor under a rule that allows for genuine bipartisan debate and amendment.

As I have said before, the House intends to do its job by passing all 12 appropriations bills before the end of June so that we have ample time to go to conference with the Senate and complete them before the end of the fiscal year.

That will be a historic step if we, together, can accomplish it. The Democratic-led House ended the Trump shutdown earlier this year. And the Democratic-led House is going to do its part to prevent another Trump shutdown in October.

Let me reiterate, though, that we want to do it in a bipartisan way. Again, I thank the chair and the ranking member for being such constructive, positive participants in this process.

The best way to accomplish our objective, though, is for House and Senate Democrats and Republicans to reach agreement before the fall on lifting the sequester caps based on the principle of parity while, at the same time, extending or eliminating the debt limit.

I talked to Senator McConnell in January. Both he and I agreed that we ought to get a caps agreement.

I regret that we have not done that, so we are proceeding under a deemed number. That is not the perfect way to do it, but it is the only way we had available to us to get our work done.

I observe that Mr. Shelby, who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for my Republican friends, indicated he thought he might well follow the House and deem numbers. As a practical matter, that is the only way to do it absent agreement.

Agreement on top-line numbers will make it easier for the House and Senate to agree on individual appropriations bills that can be sent to the President's desk.

Together, we have a responsibility to make the investments the American people have entrusted us to make. I realize that we do not all agree, but we ought to, as a democratic body, decide that we will vote on our disagreements and we will resolve those by vote, as we did when the Republican side was in charge.

And, very frankly, we disagreed with many of those bills, but they became law, five of them. And, as a result, we funded the majority of the expenditures in the last year, even though we shut down most of the agencies of government at the end of the year into this year.

So, Mr. Chair, I would urge my friends to pursue this debate in an orderly fashion, realizing that we couldn't make all 600 amendments in order, but also realizing that we will have an opportunity to debate the equities that we think are important, come to a decision, and pass those bills to the Senate.

Hopefully, the Senate will pass them, and we will have conferences. Some Members don't know what conferences are.

When I started on the Appropriations Committee in 1983, and in the 23 years thereafter--in the early years, we really had conferences, and all the members of the subcommittee were members of the conference. And we met with the Senate; we debated back and forth; and we came out with the compromised bills.

When I started on the Appropriations Committee, there were really no Republicans and no Democrats. One may think that is a surprising statement. All were advocates. Some had different points of view, but they were advocates of making sure that we funded our government in a rational, democratic way, which means the majority will rule, as it did last year.

So, I urge my colleagues: Let us do our business. We will have differences, but do not allow those differences to undermine the ability of this House to operate in a rational, constructive manner.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the gentleman from Georgia.

I have a card in my hand. This is a Member's identification. There is no designation of party on this card. This card designates 435 of us when we are at full complement as Members of the Congress, the people's Representatives. I urge all my colleagues to use this card in a few minutes on behalf of the people and on behalf of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, when Democrats won the majority in this House, we did so on a promise to the American people to hold the executive department accountable. That is our responsibility. The Constitution gives us that responsibility, and we swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That is what the committees have been doing, and it is what the whole House is doing today.

Now, the previous speaker said we have the right to ask for any information. That is accurate. What he did not then say is we have asked, and we have been refused. Not only have we been refused in the particular, we have been refused in the general because the President of the United States has directed his people not to give us any information and not to respond to any subpoenas, whatever the rationale may be.

Why?

Because he believes the House of Representatives is not acting properly.

Mr. Speaker, you imagine anybody who doesn't want to give us information would say, I am not going to give it to you because you are not asking properly?

Of course, that is what they do; and the House, on behalf of the American people, would be unable to perform its constitutional duty. This is not political. It is constitutional. It is about separation of powers. It is about responsibility. It is about accountability.

The House is exercising its responsibility to uncover all the facts and discover the truth on behalf of the American people. We represent, each us, about 750,000 people. We are not asking on our own behalf. We are asking for the people, so that the people have the information they need in a democracy to make the decisions that they are called upon to make in a very solemn exercise we call voting.

Attorney General Barr and former White House Counsel McGahn have both refused to respond to subpoenas to testify before the House, and the Attorney General refuses to allow Congress to see the full and unredacted report by the special counsel, Mr. Mueller. You can see entire pages blacked out, Mr. Speaker.

The Attorney General's efforts to prejudge the conclusions of that report before it is released, as he did, and his public mischaracterization of its conclusions are, in my opinion, evidence of the contempt with which he refuses to answer questions and respond to subpoenas. It seems contemptuous as well of the basic principles of the rule of law and checks and balances.

The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's efforts to interfere in our elections and subvert our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, you didn't have to listen too closely to Bob Mueller to understand that he believed that there was much more to be found or to miss the fact that he said to Congress: Do your duty and make sure the American people know the facts.

The American people deserve to know whether the President or anyone in his administration or inner circle of confidants were involved and tried to cover it up.

Now we have been accused of doing awful things, but I remember watching conventions where they said, ``lock her up, lock her up.'' Flynn--General Flynn--who was the National Security Advisor said: ``Lock her up.''

Well, the fact is they locked him up, and many others who were associated who lied about their involvement with the Russian Government and, yes, with other foreign countries. So there is reason for the Congress to want to get to the bottom of this serious invasion of our election process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for our Constitution and vote for this resolution. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern. I thank Chairman Nadler, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Cummings, Chairman Neal, Chairman Engel, and Chairwoman Waters, all who have jurisdiction over various facets of the information that is needed, and I thank the members of their committees for their hard work to conduct necessary oversight on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this vote is about. I presented that card. It has no party designation on it. It just has a designation of us-- each of us--as Representatives of the people. Let us make sure that today we vote for the people and stand up for our Constitution, for this House, and for the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

Members are reminded that when the House is considering appropriations bills, votes will occur after 7 p.m. and, obviously, before as well.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes on Thursday are expected to occur probably between 2 and 3 p.m. That is different, as I know most Members are used to leaving at 11. We are leaving at 10:30 today, but it will be somewhere between 2 and 3 p.m. on that Thursday.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

The House will also consider a contempt resolution. This resolution would force Attorney General Barr and former White House Counsel McGahn to comply with congressional subpoenas that have been duly issued by the House Judiciary Committee. The resolution will authorize the Judiciary Committee to pursue civil action to seek enforcement of its subpoenas in Federal court.

Madam Speaker, it also authorizes House committees that have issued subpoenas as part of their oversight and investigation responsibilities to seek civil enforcement of those subpoenas when they are ignored.

Madam Speaker, in addition to that contempt resolution, the House will consider H.R. 2740, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Legislative Branch, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2020.

This will be the first of several minibuses, Madam Speaker, that will be coming to the floor over this work period. It is my intention to pass all 12 appropriations bills through the House by the end of June. This package is the first step toward the House doing its work.

This is, as I said, the first step toward precluding the possibility of a shutdown at the end of this year, as occurred at the beginning of this year. I am hopeful that all Members will cooperate with Chair Lowey and Ranking Member Granger, who have led their committees in working extraordinarily hard, 12 subcommittees, all of which will have marked up their bills by the middle of next week and be ready for floor action. This is one of the earliest times we have considered it.

My Republican colleagues passed a number of bills, as well, in the last year. It was in the Senate that we didn't get that done. But the fact of the matter is, hopefully, we will be able to get this done.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, of course, there was no budget last year. There was a budget that was passed in the latter part of the year before, but that was for reconciliation purposes so that Republicans could pass their tax bill with less than 60 votes in the United States Senate. So I wouldn't go too far on the budget.

Republicans were in charge for 8 years, and they never had a budget. That doesn't mean we didn't pass one through the House, but there was never a budget. There was never a budget that was implemented, that I can remember, in the long term.

But that aside, as the gentleman probably knows, I, in January, started talking with his leadership, with Ranking Member Granger, with Senator McConnell, with Senator Shelby, with Senator Leahy, with Mrs. Lowey, and with our leadership about the necessity to reach an agreement on the level of discretionary spending, which we call the caps.

Clearly, as Senator McConnell pointed out in our discussions, the White House was a critical component of that because, as the gentleman knows, in order to change the sequester, which I think is one of the stupidest policies that we put in place, but in order to change the sequester, we would have to have a bill signed by the President. So, clearly, the President would have to be involved.

Unfortunately, sometime thereafter, Mr. Vought and Mr. Mulvaney suggested that we ought to go to sequester, that we ought to just march to the sequester numbers.

For the Members who may not know exactly what that means, that means a $54 billion cut in defense spending. I don't really think anybody in this House thinks that is an appropriate step for us to take, but that is what Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Vought of OMB suggested, except, by the way, they crossed their fingers to say we will use $180 billion of additional deficit spending out of the overseas contingency operations to fund defense.

In other words, yes, we will do the sequester, but it will really only have an effect on the nondefense, education, healthcare, medical research, law enforcement, et cetera. It would only have an effect on that side of the budget.

I didn't think that made much sense. And, very frankly, I think all of the people that I just mentioned that I had talked to didn't think it made sense either.

Obviously, Paul Ryan, when he was Speaker, didn't think it made sense, because he led a deal with Senator Murray to give us numbers that we thought were reasonable, and we came to an agreement.

I would hope that we could do that now. I know there are some negotiations at the top four level and in the White House that have not reached agreement yet. I think that is unfortunate.

Now, the gentleman observed that we haven't passed a budget. He is correct. But we did pass the exact same number that the Budget Committee reported out for discretionary spending, and we adopted it in the rule.

He is right; we did not adopt it in the budget as it was offered, but that wasn't necessary, because in either event, that wouldn't have solved the problem.

But we adopted the same exact number, the Democrats voted for that number, to which the committee marked its bills. As the gentleman knows, that was $733 billion on defense and $639 billion on nondefense. There was some argument on our side as to whether those numbers ought to be closer together, but that aside, that is what those bills have been.

So there is a number, and it was a number that was used by the Appropriations Committee, and it is a number that is reflected in the bills that we will be bringing to the floor.

Now, of course we could wait, as I think, frankly, the White House wants us to wait, until September, maybe September 27, 28, or 29, and then they would say: Well, we are going to do a CR at last year's numbers.

Now, that would be a little more than sequester, no doubt about that, but it would not be a number that I think the Members of this House on either side of the aisle would be happy with--maybe for different reasons but, nevertheless, not happy with.

So I am in agreement that we need to reach a number. We need to pass a bill, because, if we do not, under the law that we passed some years ago, 15 days after the first session of this Congress adjourns, sequester will automatically go into effect.

Nobody would be happy. America will not be happy. Our security will suffer and our people will suffer under those numbers. So I am in full agreement that we ought to reach a number.

Now, with respect to the appropriations bills, I think we need to move them. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of negotiation back and forth, a lot of different steps will need to be taken. But this is a first step; it is an important step; and it sets a marker as to where we are going to start negotiations.

Hopefully, those negotiations will bear fruit with the Senate and with the White House, because I know the gentleman shares my view that shutting down the government is not an option that we ought to be pursuing. Hopefully, we, through these actions, can preclude that from happening, and I think that will be a positive result.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Very frankly, the person who rejected the premise that this matter was over was Robert Mueller in a relatively short press conference in which he answered no questions, but he clearly demonstrated that he thought Mr. Barr misrepresented the fact that this was over. In fact, he said:

If we thought the President had not done anything wrong and

we were convinced of that, we would have said so. We did not

say so.

Now, having said that, this is not related to impeachment. This is related to the Congress' authority, under the Constitution of the United States, to receive information from the executive on behalf of the American people.

Now, if Mr. Barr believes that the information requested need not be submitted, then he had nothing to fear, because what we are seeking is a court ruling, an independent body's ruling as to whether or not he ought to be held in contempt and directed by a court to provide the information to the Congress of the United States, acting pursuant to its constitutional duty.

Madam Speaker, I will tell my friend that it is a sad day when the Republicans and Democrats do not stand together on behalf of not only this institution's constitutional authority, but responsibility to get the information it needs both with respect to, as, again, Mr. Mueller pointed out, the very serious issue of the Russians trying to affect our democracy and our elections.

There is no dispute of that fact. In fact, nine Russians were indicted by the Mueller special counsel for exactly that purpose.

Now, this resolution to which the gentleman refers authorizes the Judiciary Committee to pursue civil action to seek enforcement in Federal court of its subpoenas to Attorney General Barr and former White House Counsel McGahn, who is no longer a Federal employee. It also authorizes House committees that have issued subpoenas as part of their oversight and investigation responsibilities. Let me emphasize that: Investigation responsibilities, oversight. That is part of the constitutional responsibility of the Congress of the United States, which, by the way, your party pursued extraordinarily vigorously over the last 8 years of the Obama administration, and, very frankly, in previous administrations.

We are seeking civil enforcement to have a determination as to whether or not Attorney General Barr, Mr. McGahn, and indeed others, who have refused to comply with constitutionally sanctioned requests by the Congress of the United States for information on behalf of the American people. The President of the United States, like Barr, said it is over.

Mr. Mueller says it is not over. Mr. Mueller says he did not have the authority pursuant to Justice policy to go further, but he pointed out that there are other bodies that have the authority and responsibility to do so. Who is that? Us, the Congress of the United States.

Now, one of the problems that we are having is that the President has instructed almost all of government not to respond to the Congress of the United States, not to answer questions, not to testify, not to appear. I have called that perhaps the biggest coverup in the history of any President who

has, in effect, given a blanket suggestion, and in some cases order, that people ought not to testify. He said there is no reason to go any further. He has made that decision. And especially in Congress where it is very partisan, obviously very partisan. We did think this is not partisan. This is our responsibility to the American people.

By refusing to cooperate with Congress, the Trump administration has engaged in a refusal to allow the Congress to exercise its responsibility, and therefore, we are going to continue to pursue the facts on behalf of the American people. And that is what this is about. You will note that we have not sought criminal contempt. We have, however, found it to be untenable, unacceptable to have an administration, any administration, Republican or Democrat, tell the Congress whether it is a Republican Congress or a Democratic Congress that it will not respond to requests for information, to subpoenas to testify, and for other information that Congress needs. So that is what we are going to do.

Will my friend yield?

No, I do not know that.

And he said why he did not.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me deal with the question of the supplemental, first. There is a humanitarian crisis at the border. We need to deal with it. The President came down with a request some two-plus weeks ago.

The Republicans held up consideration of a disaster bill that we passed in January. Now, this dealt with natural disasters, not the humanitarian crisis at the border. I understand that.

We passed that Monday ultimately because the administration wanted to undermine very badly the American citizens who live in Puerto Rico. Finally, we got agreement that that was the right thing to do and the Senate passed it overwhelmingly, then sent it over here. We tried to pass it by unanimous consent, and your side objected. You objected three times. So we had to pass it this Monday. We did overwhelmingly. Not as many perhaps on the gentleman's side as on my side, but we passed it handily.

The fact of the matter is, we need to deal with this humanitarian crisis. We need to deal with the humanitarian crisis, and if we limit it to dealing with

the humanitarian crisis, Madam Speaker, we will do it. And, in fact, Ms. Lucille Roybal-Allard is in discussions on that now. My view is the four corners, meaning the Speaker, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, the majority leader, and Mr. Schumer are dealing with it. I hope they get it done very soon. And if they get it done we are going to move it because there is a crisis and we need to deal with it.

But I would urge my friend to urge his colleagues not to try to do some of the President's agenda unrelated to the humanitarian crisis. And if we can do that, we will get to an agreement, in my opinion.

Now let me go back to your what I believe to be inaccurate, recitation--as I believe Attorney General Barr's recitation of what the Mueller report says, and Mr. Mueller clearly made that very, very crystal clear that he had a different view as to whether that was.

Now, I have got a whole page here of things that the Mueller report says with reference to--``collusion'' is a word that the President has created. It is not collusion, not a crime, per se. Conspiracy is a crime, but the President uses this word ``collusion'' as fake news, as a distraction, as a magician's trick to look over here, not here, so that I can fool you.

I asked the gentleman to yield when he said, well, the special counsel decided to do nothing. The special counsel made it very clear that under Justice Department directives, a sitting President cannot be indicted. And Mr. Mueller said if he can't be indicted, I don't want to make an allegation, which would not be fair because he cannot be indicted, and therefore, there will be no fora on which to defend himself. But he observed there was another forum, that was inappropriate for him, that did have the responsibility and the ability to take action, and that, as I said, is us.

Now, I won't go through this list of findings that the Mueller committee or task force, the special counsel concluded, but in my opinion, and I said this in a release 2 days after, were pretty damning and at a minimum worthy of the Congress of the United States trying to get to the bottom of what Manafort and Stone and others did in reference to WikiLeaks, welcoming the Russian participation that they thought was helping them. Mueller report.

So we can go into that at great length, but the proper way to do that is to do what we are doing, ask questions, have witnesses, review documents and other communications to get to the bottom of this, and we intend to do that. And we intend to do it in a considered, focused way.

Neither the Speaker nor I, as the gentleman has read, are saying that we are seeking impeachment, but we are seeking to do our constitutional duty, our responsibility to the American people and to the Constitution to ensure that, in fact, the American people know what this administration or individuals who work with this administration or others were doing.

Madam Speaker, lastly, because we can go on at length about this, let me say that the gentleman protests too much. The Republicans control the United States Senate. Very frankly, the Intelligence Committee is working in a bipartisan fashion with Mr. Burr from North Carolina and Mr. Warner from Virginia.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman, my friend, the whip, is frustrated, I suggest he call up his friends in the United States Senate to say they ought to do this; they ought to do that; and they ought to do the other.

If they think it is the right thing to do, maybe they will do it. But we intend to do our responsibility here.

Again, I would hope that we could join together in defense of the Congress' responsibility and authority and not have any administration--Republican, Democratic, Obama, Trump, any President-- say, no, it is not going to give us any information, that some other body has disposed of that question.

Some other body is not us, and we need to move ahead on doing our responsibility.

Again, I would hope the gentleman would cooperate, but we are going to continue to do the business of the people of this country as well.

We have differences on that. We think this was a pretty historic week. We passed the disaster bill. We extended flood insurance, and we extended TANF, so neither one of them expired. Then, we passed the American Dream and Promise Act, legislation that will relieve the fears of 2-plus million people who are positive participants in the American Dream.

It was a bipartisan bill, not a lot from your side, but we think it is a historic piece of legislation. We hope the Senate takes it up.

We have been trying to get that bill on the floor for 8 years, without success. We got it on the floor. As I knew it would, it passed. I think it would have passed had we put it on the floor in the previous Congress, but we didn't get it to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with the whip toward reaching some bipartisan resolutions.

In particular, I agree with him, and I think we all agree that we want to make sure that we have the resources necessary to handle what is, in fact, a humanitarian crisis, with so many people fleeing natural disasters and man-made disasters--terror, murder, mayhem--for safety for themselves and their families, as have millions and millions and millions of people who preceded them who came to this country. Whether they came from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Central America, they came here because America had a beacon that they saw as a land of opportunity and a land of freedom, equality, and justice, a land in which they wanted to live and make better.

Madam Speaker, we will continue to do our business as well as exercise our responsibilities.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next, and that the order of the House of January 3, 2019, regarding morning-hour debate not apply on that day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. More than that, I thank her for the thousands of hours that she has put in over the years in trying to address in a positive, constructive way our broken immigration system and for her leadership in forging a bill that is a step--just a step.

I want to thank Mr. Nadler, the chairman of the committee, for ensuring that this bill came forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for a few minutes, and I have heard a number of my Republican colleagues bemoaning the fact that we could have done this in a bipartisan fashion and come with up with a much better bill. Many of those folks who said that have

been serving here over the last 8 years in the majority, and we have been pleading with them over those 8 years: Bring us a bill, a bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you so well know, you and Mr. Hurd, a Republican from Texas, worked tirelessly in fashioning a bipartisan bill, and the Republicans refused to bring it to the floor; although, in my view it had a majority of votes on this floor.

Indeed, it was about to be petitioned out of the committee and brought to the floor in a process that you can do that without the committee's voting for it. Just short of the 218 votes necessary to do that, the Republican leadership put all sorts of pressure to assure that that bill was not discharged from the committee.

So spare me the crocodile tears about a bipartisan bill. We tried to do a bipartisan bill. The Senate did a bipartisan bill in 2013, and we pleaded for the Republicans to bring it to the floor, a bipartisan Senate bill, and they refused, all the time saying the immigration system was broken. But they refused to fix it.

So, now they come to the floor, bemoaning the fact that a bipartisan bill did not come forward. If they had intended to work on a bipartisan bill, as the majority leader, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan bill would have come forward.

So sad, so unfortunate that that didn't happen.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read something:

``We're going to work something out that's going to make people happy and proud.

``They''--referring to the Dreamers--``got brought here at a very young age''--1, 2, 3 years of age.

``They've worked here. They've gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they're in never-never land because they don't know what's going to happen.''

Who said that? Donald Trump said it.

When did he say it? After he was elected, but before he was sworn in as President of the United States.

I met with the President, along with a few others, at the White House, and he said to us: ``Send us a bill,'' then he created the problem we are confronting today. And he said: ``Congress, fix it, and I will sign it.''

Well, today, Mr. Speaker, we are fixing it. And I hope that my Republican colleagues would join us and that the President of the United States would sign a bill which will take these folks out of never-never land.

The bill we have on the floor today is called the American Dream and Promise Act--the American dream and American promise.

We lift our lamp beside the golden door. That is what we have said to the world. That dream is to see hard work rewarded with opportunity.

My father came here at the age of 32 in 1934, an immigrant from Denmark. That promise is the commitment of our Founders and every generation since to ensure that this Nation makes that dream a reality for all.

Today, more than a million people who grew up in America don't know any other home, yet they live in fear of being sent to a home they never knew. They live in fear of being deported to countries they never or barely knew.

These Dreamers, these yearners for justice and opportunity, deserve to live without fear. They deserve to access the opportunities of America that they have been helping to build already--a Nation of immigrants, made great by immigrants.

This bill will remove that fear. It will give them the opportunity to stay in the country they know and love and to know their hard work and contributions will give them a chance to make it in America and that they can give back by serving in our military or creating jobs or working in their communities; that they can have a pathway to citizenship, which is in their interest and in the interest of our country.

This bill will keep the promise of our Founders and our forebears, and it will keep the promise of policymakers from both sides of the aisle who agree they should stay, along, I might add, with 86 percent of the American people.

They are American in every sense. They are patriots and dreamers.

President Trump campaigned on a promise to help Dreamers--a promise he broke. It was President Trump who created the crisis we now face by rescinding the DACA program 2 years ago and allowing the Republican- controlled House to stand in the way of a legislative solution.

Now, the Democrat-led House is taking action. With this bill, we proclaim to the Senate and President: Take the advice of the American people. Pass this bill.

For these Dreamers are, in all but a certificate of citizenship, brothers and sisters.

One of them from my district, Gabby Hernandez, is here today, Mr. Speaker, to watch us take this important vote. She arrived in this country from El Salvador at the age of 4. She attended school in Prince George's County, Maryland, which I represent, and she has been studying these last few years to be a social worker and help people in our community.

I hope we can give Dreamers like Gabby reassurance that their country, America, will not abandon them.

In addition, this bill would also allow those who have been on temporary protected status and deferred enforced departure to remain as permanent residents.

One of them has a business in my district. He employs 40 people. Forty families would be affected by his leaving. He has been here for 25 years. He is, in every sense, a member of our community.

These are people who fled a natural disaster and violence and were welcomed into our country as refugees. Here, they have helped build a stronger community and have participated in building our economy.

I am proud to represent a strong community of Liberians in my district, many of whom fled war and disease outbreak and built new lives here. We should not allow them to be uprooted from their homes a second time.

Some of them are here today in the gallery as well.

Let's show them. Let's show them that we stand together with them and cherish their contributions to America.

Whether we are Irish or Danish or Italian or Jews or Poles or Germans, all who came here in great numbers immigrated to this country and have made us great.

This bill is not perfect. No bill is perfect. But it is a step, a very important step, a down payment on fulfilling that promise.

But change happens most often in steps, and today the Democrat-led House is taking that step forward by keeping our promise to Dreamers.

I want to thank Lucille Roybal-Allard, Nydia Velazquez, Yvette Clarke, Jerry Nadler, and--yes, once again--Zoe Lofgren for all the work that they have done to get us to a place where we have a fair bill--not amnesty, a fair bill for America.

I hope my Republican colleagues will join us in voting for this bill. Together, let's send a message of inclusion and acceptance of these Dreamers, whose dreams are the same as ours, whose patriotism is the same as ours, and whose Nation is the same as ours.

Vote ``aye.'' Vote for America.

Reserving the right to object, Madam Speaker.

I was seeking recognition.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I asked to be recognized before the gentleman objected. Do I not have precedence of recognition?