Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on my colleagues to please join the Urban Agriculture Production Act of 2017, a bipartisan measure that bolsters local farming and inspires communities to create food production systems that stimulate development and healthy eating. There are more than 23 million people in food-desert neighborhoods across our country where there are no stores within 1 mile to buy healthy food. Without healthy options, people are relegated to eating unhealthy, processed, junk food because that is all that is available and affordable. Communities that lack access to fresh, nutritious, affordable foods are also facing growing epidemics of obesity-related diseases such as hypertension, high blood pressure, and diabetes. This bill is a step to correct this unacceptable trend. Community gardens, greenhouses, farmers' markets, hoop houses, and other local food initiatives tend to be the best outlets to purchase local fresh foods. Our bill builds on these local successes by expanding local farming in nontraditional agricultural areas like our cities and towns. Mr. Speaker, urban food production should be part of America's solution for healthier communities. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to unleash the power of our communities to produce healthier foods for the future. Let's make it happen.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this vital agreement brokered between the President and Congressional leaders. This is a must pass bill to bring much-needed relief to those devastated by Hurricane Harvey and those who will be hit by Hurricane Irma. Indeed, it allows for a short-term extension of the debt ceiling to avoid default and keeps our government functional at a time of natural disaster and ongoing crisis. Thank you to the President and our Leadership for pulling the nation back from the brink again. I hope that it will bring a return to bipartisan compromise and regular order. We must move away from the destabilizing cycle of moving from one manufactured crisis to the next, with no adopted budget for FY 2018 resulting in arbitrary spending allocations passed down from the Majority's Leadership. Congress should provide the American people with a 2018 final budget to assure a government funded at a level that provides stability and security. Let's put politics aside and pass this bill. Then, let us embark on bipartisan negotiations to develop a new budget agreement which allows for adequate caps for both defense and non-defense spending. I urge my colleagues to support this package for the benefit of our nation.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, President Trump promised to fix our trade deficits and bring back American jobs. Seven months into this administration, wages are flat and workers continue to get pink slips. The administration has not made its promises on NAFTA come true, and as of June, the end of June, the decision on steelworkers has not been done. President Trump made promises to working people and spoke endlessly about trade during the campaign, and now he has an opportunity to rewrite those economic rules for NAFTA on this continent. He could make it work for working people rather than for transnational corporate interests at the expense of everyone else. We should fix NAFTA's lax labor standards, and the citizens of our continent would benefit. Our people have had hundreds of thousands of jobs outsourced to Mexico. Workers in Mexico earn about $3.95 an hour in the auto plants, about one-ninth of average workers here north of the border. Meanwhile, our trade deficits have been increasing across the board with Mexico, which translates into more outsourced jobs and, of course, more trade deficits with the world. The June 2017 trade deficit on this chart confirms the year-to-date goods and services deficit increased by over 10 percent over last year. America can create good jobs here at home, but it can't happen without fixing trade agreements that are seriously out of balance, starting with NAFTA. Mr. President, please fix NAFTA.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Urban Agriculture Production Act of 2017. Across America, too many of our urban neighborhoods are absent of stores where community members can purchase fresh, healthy foods. There are more than 23 million individuals residing in these so called ``food desert'' neighborhoods, where there are no stores within one mile in which they can buy healthy food. Without healthy options, people are forced to eat unhealthy, processed, junk food, because that is all that is available and affordable. This bill is a step to correct this unacceptable trend. I am pleased to recognize and support the growing resurgence of locally grown and produced product. I see it in my own district at places like the Toledo Farmers Market, the Robert J. Anderson Urban Agriculture Center and Farm, and the Old Brooklyn Cheese Company in Cleveland, Ohio. Individuals, non-profits, and co-ops are stepping up and taking action to address the challenge of access to healthy food, by developing local food sources like community gardens to provide fresh, affordable produce throughout underserved communities. Not only are they growing product to provide to communities though, they are engaging and encouraging community participation all throughout the process. They are teaching community members how to farm. The Urban Agriculture Production Act encourages economic development in undernourished, underserved communities by furthering the mission of local farming. It shore ups the Department of Agriculture and their programs to support urban farmers and inspire communities to create self-sufficient food production systems that stimulate development and healthy eating options. All throughout our urban communities, there is an abundance of unused land and space that are conveniently located in neighborhoods that are ripe for agriculture development. We must support and encourage the means to develop these plots so they become local sources of wholesome food options. Community gardens, Greenhouses, Farmers' Markets, and other local agriculture initiatives have tremendous power to help diversify American food production. They can also help the nation rely less on foreign imports and create American jobs that cannot be outsourced. Moreover, communities that lack access to fresh, nutritious affordable foods are facing growing epidemics of obesity related diseases. We must get serious about addressing nationally recognized increases in preventable disease in all our communities, but especially in those communities that have limited food options. Prevention is paramount, and encouraging a balanced diet while also providing access to healthier foods, through agriculture, is an obvious solution. The Urban Agriculture Production Act of 2017, therefore, sets out to spur the development and expansion of community agriculture in typically non-traditional agricultural production areas, like our cities and towns who face food insecurity, access, and nutrition challenges. Mr. Speaker, urban farming, and food production should be part of our solution to support healthier dietary options and improve the overall health of urban communities. The Urban Agriculture Production Act is the appropriate means to further develop alternative, urban agricultural production and to help meet communities' food production needs for the future.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter of support for revoking President Trump's threat to deny 800,000 DREAMers legal status in this country and to support his executive order affirming DACA for so many young people across this Nation--4,400 in Ohio, for example--who are following the rules, who came here as children, who are Americans as apple pie and only want a chance to succeed in our country like Linda who was brought here from Palestine when she was 8 years old. She is studying now in our area in a very difficult STEM program and is working her way through college through Work-Study in order to make a firm contribution to our Nation in the future and to the future of whatever family she establishes. Why should they be denied this opportunity and made to feel so put upon by the Government of the United States? August 14, 2017. President Donald J. Trump, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear President Trump: As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012. In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution, administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical. DACA 2012 was announced by the President, and implemented in a memorandum by the Secretary of Homeland Security, on June 15, 2012. It enables qualifying individuals to request a temporary reprieve from removal known as ``deferred action.'' Deferred action is one form of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law and has been used for decades by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (and formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)) and over several administrations. Whether a requesting individual receives deferred action under DACA 2012 is at the discretion of DHS. Qualifying individuals may request DACA 2012 if they came to the United States before the age of sixteen; are currently in school or have graduated; have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007; have not been convicted of a felony, ``significant misdemeanor,'' or three or more non- significant misdemeanors; do not otherwise pose a threat to public safety or national security; and otherwise warrant protection as a matter of discretion. Individuals who are granted DACA 2012 receive a two-year period in deferred action and also gain eligibility to apply for employment authorization. The legal authority for DACA 2012 originates from the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section Three (the Take Care Clause) states in part that the President ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' Inherent in the function of the ``Take Care Clause'' is the ability of the President to target some immigration cases for removal and to use prosecutorial discretion favorably in others. As described by the U.S. Supreme Court: ``[W]e recognize that an agency's refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict--a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' '' As early as 1976, former INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen executed a legal opinion that identified the Take Care Clause as the primary source for prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters. He wrote: ``The ultimate source for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the Federal Government is the power of the President. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive power is vested in the President. Article II, Section 3, states that the President `shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' '' The U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized the role of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration system. In Arizona v United States, the Court noted that ``[a] principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials . . . Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all . . .'' Congress created the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act or INA) in 1952 and it remains the primary statutory authority for immigration law today. Importantly, Congress has delegated most discretionary immigration functions to DHS. Section 103 of the Act provides that ``[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens . . .'' Congress has repeatedly acknowledged that the Executive has power to grant ``deferred action'' for certain categories of people such as victims of crimes and human trafficking. Additionally, previous administrations have announced deferred action programs to protect qualifying individuals. For example, under the George W. Bush administration, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (part of DHS) announced a deferred action program for students affected by Hurricane Katrina and later developed a program for the widows of U.S. citizens. Moreover, Congress also recognized legal authority for immigration prosecutorial discretion in INA Sec. 242(g), which bars judicial review of three specific prosecutorial discretion decisions by the agency: to commence removal proceedings, to adjudicate cases, and to execute removal orders. Another important legal source for deferred action is Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 274a.12(c)(14) dates to 1981 and is the product of notice and comment rulemaking. This regulation specifically identifies deferred action by name and allows individuals granted deferred action to apply for work authorization upon a showing of ``economic necessity.'' Over the last two decades, thousands of individuals have applied for and received work authorization based on a deferred action grant. There are also agency guidance documents related to deferred action issued by DHS (and formerly INS) over the last four-plus decades. The 1976 legal opinion by former INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen cites to the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as statutory and case law from as early as 1825 to affirm the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in immigration. It was around this time when INS published its first guidance on deferred action in the form of an ``Operations Instruction.'' This ``Operations Instruction'' stated ``(ii) Deferred action. In every case where the district director determines that adverse action would be unconscionable because of the existence of appealing humanitarian factors, he shall recommend consideration for deferred action category.'' Since 1975, deferred action has been identified in several subsequent guidance documents. Guidance documents are common in administrative law and are a recognized form of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. At tension with the aforementioned body of law is a letter sent by ten state Attorneys General to the administration requesting that DACA 2012 be rescinded. This letter refers to DACA 2012 as ``unlawful'' and does so without citing to the foundational legal authorities behind deferred action. Furthermore, the letter conflates deferred action, ``lawful presence'' and work authorization in ways that are legally unsound and unclear. Finally, the letter itself shoehorns arguments into Texas v. United States, a lawsuit that never included the core of DACA 2012, and instead involved policies that are at this point in time moot. Moreover, a previous lawsuit challenging DACA 2012 failed on jurisdictional grounds and would inevitably inform any future challenge. While the scope of this letter is to describe the legal foundation for DACA 2012, it is important to highlight the history and inevitability of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement. Prosecutorial discretion exists because the government has limited resources and lacks the ability to enforce the law against the entire undocumented population. Recognizing this resource limitation, Congress has charged the Secretary of DHS with ``establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.'' Prosecutorial discretion and policies like DACA 2012 also have a humanitarian dimension, and such factors have long driven deferred action decisions. Finally, DACA 2012 has been an unqualified policy success, allowing over three-quarters of a million recipients to continue their education, receive professional licensing, find employment, and pay taxes into Social Security and other tax coffers. This letter outlines the legal foundation for DACA 2012 and confirms that maintaining such a policy falls squarely within the Executive's discretion. The legal authority for the Executive Branch to operate DACA 2012 is crystal clear. As such, choices about its future would constitute a policy and political decision, not a legal one. As the administration decides how best to address DACA 2012, we hope that the legal foundation and history for this policy is addressed wisely and that decisions on the future of DACA 2012 are made humanely. * All institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only and do not signify institutional endorsement of this letter. Thank you for your attention. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia Esq.*, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar & Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic, Penn State Law; Jill E. Family, Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government, Widener University Commonwealth Law School; Michael A. Olivas, William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Houston Law Center; Stephen Yale-Loehr, Professor of Immmigration Law Practice, Cornell Law School; Hiroshi Motomura, Susan Westerberg Prager Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles. Lenni Benson, Professor of Law, Director Safe Passage Project Clinic, New York Law School; Roxana C. Bacon, Adjunct Professor, University of Miami School of Law; Renee C. Redman, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law; Kristina M. Campbell, Professor of Law, UDC David A. Clarke School of Law; Caitlin Barry, Director, Farmworker Legal Aid Clinic, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law; Jessica Anna Cabot, Clinical Teaching Fellow, University of Connecticut School of Law. Sarah Song, Professor of Law and Political Science, U.C. Berkeley School of Law; Geoffrey Hoffman, Director, University of Houston Law Center Immigration Clinic University of Houston Law Center; Randi Mandelbaum, Distinguished Clinical Professor of Law Rutgers Law School; Stephen Legomsky, John S. Lehmann, University Professor Emeritus, Washington University School of Law; Maryellen Fullerton, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Polly J. Price, Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law. Linda Bosniak, Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School; David Baluarte, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law; Jennifer Lee, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Karen Musalo, Bank of America Foundation Chair in International Law Professor & Director, Center for Gender and Refugee Status, U.C. Hastings College of the Law; Melynda Barnhart, Visiting Associate Professor, New York Law School; Janet Beck, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center. Kevin Ruser, Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law; Dr. Barbara Harrell-Bond, Emerita Professor, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford; Deborah M. Weissman, Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, Associate Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Miriam Marton, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law; Michael J. Wishnie, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Hiroko Kusuda, Clinic Professor, Loyola New Orleans College of Law; David Abraham, Professor of Immigration and Citizenship Law, University of Miami School of Law; Elissa Steglich, Clinical Professor, University of Texas School of Law; Marisa Cianciarulo, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Chapman University; Benjamin Casper Sanchez; Director, James H. Binger Center for New Americans, University of Minnesota Law School; Leti Volpp, Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law, U.C. Berkeley School of Law; Michael J Churgin, Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor in Law, University of Texas at Austin. Enid Trucios-Haynes, Professor of Law, Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville; Christopher N. Lasch, Associate Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Ruben G. Rumbaut, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Irvine; Maureen A. Sweeney, Associate Professor, University of Maryland Carey School of Law; Alina Das, Professor of Clinical Law, New York University School of Law; Violeta R. Chapin, Clinical Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School; Kate Griffith, Associate Professor, Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Stephen Wizner, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor, Emeritus and Professorial Lecturer, Yale Law School; Peter Margulies, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law; Prerna Lal, Staff Attorney and Clinical Supervisor EBCLC, a clinic of Berkeley Law, U.C. Berkeley School of Law; Theo Liebmann, Clinical Professor of Law, Hofstra Law School; Sylvia Lazos, Justice Myron Leavitt Professor, William S Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas; Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law. John A Scanlan, Emeritus Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University-Bloomington; Denise Gilman, Director, Immigration Clinic University of Texas Law School; Stella Burch Elias, Professor, University of Iowa College of Law; Jennifer Moore, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law; Charles Shane Ellison, Special Assistant Professor of Law in the Immigrant and Refugee Clinic, Creighton University School of Law; Marissa Montes, Co-Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic, Loyola Law School; Howard F. Chang, Earle Hepburn Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Estelle M. McKee, Clinical Professor, Cornell Law School; Laila L. Hlass, Professor of Practice, Tulane University School of Law; Stewart Chang, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law, Whittier Law School; Sarah Sherman- Stokes, Associate Director of the Immigrants' Rights and Human Trafficking Program, Boston University School of Law; Sabi Ardalan, Assistant Clinical Professor, Harvard Law School. Charles H. Kuck, Adjunct Professor, Emory Law School; Rebecca Sharpless, Clinical Professor, University of Miami School of Law; Jennifer Nagda, Lecturer, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Linda Tam, Clinical Instructor, U.C. Berkeley School of Law; Philip L. Torrey, Managing Attorney, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School; David B. Thronson, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Experiential Education, Michigan State University College of Law. Veronica T. Thronson, Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Immigration Law Clinic, Michigan State University College of Law; Peter L. Markowitz, Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law; Christina Pollard, Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas School of Law; Laura A. Hernandez, Professor of Law, Baylor Law School; Rebecca Kitson, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law; Irene Scharf, Professor of Law, University of Mass Dartmouth School of Law; Maria Woltjen, Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School. Michelle A. McKinley, Bernard B. Kliks Professor of Law, University of Oregon School of Law; Gabriel J. Chin, Edward L. Barrtt Jr. Chair & Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, U.C. Davis School of Law; Ericka Curran, Immigration Clinic Professor, Florida Coastal School of Law; Jennifer Lee Koh, Professor of Law, Western State College of Law; Anil Kalhan, Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University Kline School of Law; Kari Hong, Assistant Professor, Boston College Law School; Holly S. Cooper, Lecturer and Co-Director of the Immigration Law Clinic, U.C. Davis School of Law. Julia Vazquez, Directing Attorney & Lecturer of Law, Southwestern Law School; Anita Sinha, Assistant Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law; Victor C. Romero, Professor of Law, Penn State Law; Alan Hyde, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers Law School; Kit Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; Mary Holper, Associate Clinical Professor, Boston College Law School; Jon Weinberg, Professor of Law, Wayne State University. Gloria Valencia-Weber, Professor Emerita, University of New Mexico School of Law; Sarah Paoletti, Practice Professor of Law and Director, Transnational Legal Clinic, University of Pennsylvania School of Law; Monika Batra Kashyap, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law; Margaret H. Taylor, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University School of Law; Kathleen Kim, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School Los Angeles; Susan Hazeldean, Assistant Professor, Brooklyn Law School. Joanne Gottesman, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic, Rutgers Law School; Sabrina Rivera, Staff Attorney/Adjunct Faculty, Western State College of Law; Lynn Marcus, Professor of the Practice; Co-Director, Immigration Law Clinic, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; Raquel E. Aldana, Associate Vice Chancellor for Chancellor for Academic Diversity and Professor of Law, U.C. Davis School of Law; Andrew Moore, Associate Professor of Law, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. Jayesh Rathod, Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law; Mariela Olivares, Associate Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law; Muneer I. Ahmad, Clinical Professor of Law and Deputy Director for Experiential Education, Yale Law School; Sheila Velez Martinez, Jack and Lovell Olender Professor of Asylum, Refugee and Immigration Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Richard A. Boswell, Professor of Law, U.C. Hastings College of the Law; Ediberto Roman, Professor of Law & Director of Immigration and Citizenship Initiatives, Florida International University.

Ms. KAPTUR. So with this unanimous consent request, I stand on behalf of those 4,400 Ohioans as well as 800,000 young Americans who are DREAMers and will inject new energy and new possibility into our country, help to fund programs like Social Security which they are paying into if they are working, and make their contribution to our country's future. It is really an honor to rise on her behalf and ask for Congress to act immediately to pass legislation to protect these young people whose economic and cultural contributions will only make our Nation stronger. They will not displace anyone--any person--who has an application currently pending before our immigration service, but they will wait in line like everyone else because they are fair people and they deserve to be treated fairly by the Government of the United States.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Ranking Member Lowey for yielding me time. Thank you to all members of the committee for the long hours you have dedicated to these bills, certainly our chairman, Rodney Frelinghuysen. The artificially low allocations you were given have resulted in a package that I cannot support, but I want to note your efforts to find compromise where it was possible. Though the House passed the Energy and Water bill as part of July's Christmas tree minibus, I am back down here today because the Republican majority has harmed the Department of Energy's funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, or, as they call it, the ATVM. It has been gutted as a pay-for to cover another shortsighted Republican cut to a Federal Emergency Management program. Today's rule allowed this boneheaded Republican action, plotted just weeks ago before Mother Nature's catastrophic fury hit Texas with Hurricane Harvey. It doesn't look good to the American people when the majority cuts programs that are desperately needed. It doesn't serve America's future if money is pulled from developing engine technologies to increase fuel economy of cars, expand domestic manufacturing, and create good-paying American jobs. Unless you live under a rock, you know these initiatives are both popular and effective and necessary: 61 percent of Republicans in Ohio support the requirement of getting to an average of 40 miles per gallon in new cars by 2025, with 73 percent of the public, overall, supporting that. The Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicle program supported Ford's development of the EcoBoost engine, which is built in Ohio at Brook Park, in my own district. Advanced Vehicle Research supported the development of all-electric vehicles, from Nissan's Leaf in Tennessee to Tesla's Model S in California. It supports America's competitiveness in a fiercely competitive and tough global marketplace that is, many times, not on the level. We should support innovation and collaboration, not eliminate job- creating programs. I will fight to preserve this program in the final spending package.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, thus, I encourage all my colleagues to oppose this sort of backward maneuver and oppose the final bill. In closing, I would like to say, and to acknowledge publicly, a very big thank you and congratulations to Taunja Berquam on her upcoming retirement from Congress. I know she will have a bright future ahead. After her distinguished and exemplary service with the Army Corps of Engineers, including in Iraq, she dedicated over a decade of her brilliant life and mind to the important task of managing the Appropriation's Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee accounts during my tenure as ranking member, as well as for Representative Peter Visclosky before me. Taunja's high-minded commitment to democratic principles is unyielding. Our committee is losing a trusted and honorable adviser. Her expertise and no-nonsense approach served our members, the staff, and the American people extraordinarily well. Taunja, you will be missed, and you can leave knowing that you made a positive difference for America's future in nuclear readiness, in our energy future security, and in vital Army Corps development from coast to coast. We thank you.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, during World War II, a wise admonition from our military read: ``Loose lips sink ships.'' In other words, beware of unguarded talk. Of late, our world has witnessed an unprecedented escalation in tension with North Korea and its deranged tyrant, including North Korea's recent firing of a missile over Japan. Yet President Trump's reaction to the ongoing North Korean crisis has been an unguarded yielding of dangerous words of war. His improvised remarks have stunned experts, allies, and even his own advisers. Instead of thorough diplomatic pressure and international consensus building, President Trump has done the opposite. His unpredictable rhetoric lacks strategic thought. It puts American troops stationed in South Korea and our regional allies at greater risk. This administration is understaffing the State Department, weakening its ability to handle the sort of diplomacy I am speaking of. In the President's 2018 budget, the State Department is really an afterthought, with major accounts cut to the bone. Thankfully, there are voices of reason, including the respected Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record their statement against fear-mongering and advising dialogue is more productive than rhetoric, and connection more transformative than threats of destruction. LCWR Assembly Statement on the US--DPRK Crisis This week, while tensions between the governments of the United States and the People's Republic of Korea quickly escalated, approximately 650 members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious meeting in Orlando, FL issued a public statement imploring President Donald J. Trump to engage in dialogue and negotiation: At this critical moment for our country and global community, we--the approximately 650 members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious gathered in assembly--have discerned the Gospel call to embody love for the sake of the world. We believe that love is more powerful than fear, dialogue more productive than rhetoric, and connection more transformative than threats of destruction. We call on President Trump to engage in constructive dialogue and negotiation to resolve the current crisis between the governments of the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in a manner that guarantees the peace and security that all people seek. We commit ourselves to promote nonviolence and a compassionate response to the thirst of the world for integrity and communion.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a Toledo area legend as he celebrates his 90th birthday, Yehia ``John'' Shousher. An American of Lebanese heritage, a proud U.S. citizen and indefatigable Ambassador of Goodwill, Mr. Shousher has been a one-of-a-kind Arab American leader in Greater Toledo since he adopted the community as an immigrant to our nation. Yehia, who with his brother ran a real estate investment company and J-S Vending, has been a leader in the Toledo community for decades as a civic-minded businessman as well as a Multi-Faith and Multi-Cultural Ambassador. Yehia has served as an administrator, public relations representative, and fund-raiser in the Muslim community for many years. His generosity has been felt in many homes and organizations in our community. At the same time, he has also focused his efforts on building back hope in his ancestral land of Lebanon. He worked to establish student exchanges, village development and medical education throughout Lebonon's Bekaa Valley. Yehia was one of the founders of the first mosque in Toledo, which was established in 1954 on East Bancroft Street. After the membership of the Mosque on East Bancroft Street outgrew the location, Yehia helped secure and plan the 48-acre campus that has become one of the icons of Perrysburg Township: the mosque and Islamic Center of Greater Toledo, which opened in 1983. The Center has been a fulcrum of the Muslim and Interfaith communities, working to promote freedom and tolerance of religion and, together with his cherished wife Emney, Yehia has been an integral part of its inner workings and work in the larger community. Always involved in events which promote cooperation among the faith and ethnic traditions in our community, Yehia's dedication to cultural diversity was recognized when he became a 2013 inductee into the Heroes of Compassion Gallery for Toledo. Yehia's commitment to the Toledo community has been passed on to his children, Hussein, Lila, Mona and Mariam, his 10 grandchildren and his six great-grandchildren. When I think of John, I see him carrying the flag of Lebanon at the annual Multi Faith Council's parade of nations at the University of Toledo on Martin Luther King holiday. I see him hospitably greeting guests with his wife Emney at events throughout our community welcoming new citizens. He has been instrumental in inviting religious leaders and public officials from throughout the world to visit Toledo and built our community into a place of gracious welcome. I see him setting up exchange programs for students from Arab speaking countries to transmit the learning and values of a free society. He graciously took the time to include me on unforgettable travels with his family through the village of his ancestors and adjoining territories. The memories of that journey greatly inform my work. Yehia with Emney at his side, and their bright smiles, have been indefatigable forces for good in our community for nearly a century. We wish them well in the coming years and consider our community fortunate to have them among us. The Quran 7:199 teaches, ``Show Forgiveness, Enjoin Kindness, Avoid Ignorance.'' Yehia ``John'' Shousher has spent his life on this earth demonstrating this message through word and deed. His legacy is writ large in his faith community, his family, the land of his birth and our region. We celebrate with Yehia as he reaches this milestone birthday of his 90th year. We take this moment to thank him for all he has done for so many in our community, for his leadership, for his efforts to promote mutual understanding and tolerance of diverse cultures and foster acceptance of our differences. Best wishes to both John and Emney as he celebrates this special milestone.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Mrs. Desiree Langston Carn, a revered member of our Toledo community. Mrs. Carn passed from this life on June 26, 2017 surrounded by her family. Desiree Langston Carn graduated from Jesup W. Scott High School in 1973 and earned her Bachelor's Degree from the Ohio State University and a Master's Degree from Bowling Green State University in guidance and counseling. She served the Toledo community and touched the lives of countless students as a Counselor, retiring after 34 years from the Toledo Board of Education. Her compassion, her smile, and her words of wisdom guided many young people on paths forward. Desiree had a beautiful voice which she used in worship at Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church in Toledo. So special was her gift, that a citywide musical celebration was held at the church as part of her homegoing. Desiree leaves to cherish her memory her husband, Ernest Carn, Jr., her sons Jamal and Jasyn, her five grandchildren, her mother, Elzena Langston, her brother Calvin Thompson, her sister Antoinette Langston, and many loving relatives. We offer them our prayers and hope that they find comfort in the wonderful memories of what Desiree had meant to each of the people who shared in her life. Psalm 59: 16-17 sings, ``But as for me, I shall sing of Your strength; Yes, I shall joyfully sing of Your loving kindness in the morning, For You have been my stronghold and a refuge in the day of my distress. O my strength, I will sing praises to You; For God is my stronghold, the God who shows me loving kindness.'' Desiree Langston Carn shared this message through her angelic voice. Now she joins the Angels in song. Desiree led a full life and gave so much to all those who knew her. Her legacy grows in the wisdom she shared and the hope she inspired in the young people she counseled. Her voice still shines as it is carried forth.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friends, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Huizenga and, I have no doubt, many fellow travelers from the Great Lakes delegation on both sides of the aisle. I find it somewhat unusual that it is the last amendment this evening after midnight. I wish it had come up about 6 o'clock on the evening news. This is an issue we know well, as Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Mitchell, and certainly our chairman, Mr. Simpson, has heard a great deal about this now, and our ranking members on the full committee as well. We introduced a bill last month with the same ultimate effect of preventing the spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes represent a $7 billion fishery, deeply threatened by these critters, Asian carp, that shouldn't even be in this country but began their movement up the Mississippi River when they were brought in to do bottom cleaning in Mississippi in the special fish tanks that were set up down there many years ago as bottom feeders. There was some type of storm and they hopped out. The walls were breached, and they began their journey up the Mississippi until now. They are within just a few miles of Lake Michigan. Just a few weeks ago, a 28-inch Asian carp was caught beyond the protective barriers, which is a temporary solution, only 9 miles from Lake Michigan. Yet, even in this time of greatest danger, the Brandon Road Study, which Congressman Mitchell outlined, which merely identifies options for preventing Asian carp from reaching the Great Lakes, has not been released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This amendment would prevent the administration from expending any more funds to further delay the release of this study for public comment. My colleagues should know that this study is already completed. After working on it for years at a cost of nearly $7 million, it now sits on a shelf at the Corps, and they are unwilling to release it for reasons we do not understand. Asian carp represent a serious economic and environmental threat to the entire Great Lakes. These mean critters are voracious eaters. They destroy native species and overwhelm their new ecosystems. They have gotten into the Ohio River, and they have gotten into rivers near Peoria. They eat up everything in their sight. They completely upend native ecosystems, and it is truly terrifying what they will do to our lakes, as you can see in this photograph. They are prolific, they are large, and they are predatory. We should be aggressively pursuing action to prevent the spread of the Asian carp to the Great Lakes, yet the roadmap to getting there is locked in bureaucratic purgatory. Finally, I would like to point out that this is not a partisan issue. Our substantively similar bill has 15 Republican and 16 Democratic cosponsors, who represent the vast majority of the Great Lakes coastline. In these hyperpartisan times, our constituents are united in their love for the Great Lakes, their desire to protect them, and their understanding of how vital they are to the future of this country and continent. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment from all of my colleagues in order to save the national treasures that are the Great Lakes. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Mitchell and Congressman Huizenga for taking the lead this evening from the great Wolverine State--and we Buckeyes don't often say that, do we--for embracing what is truly important to all of us, and I urge my colleagues to support the Mitchell-Huizenga amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Trump administration released its NAFTA renegotiating objectives, which laid out its plan for how to fix that bad trade deal for America's workers, but it lacks specifics. Yes, America needs a better deal, better jobs, better wages, for a better future for our people and the people of our continent. As renegotiations begin in August, let us remember the devil is in the details. The President's rhetoric alone is not enough. Action is what creates jobs. Nearly 30 years ago, NAFTA was sold as the epitome of a modern trade agreement. Its supporters promised U.S. job growth. They guaranteed trade balances and even surpluses. They said there would be increased economic trade flexibility for North American industries and new buyers of American goods. But guess what. Those promises didn't materialize. Instead, U.S. workers faced enormous job loss, declining wages, sublevel wage competition from desperate millions in Mexico, whose workers have no rights. The recent tragedy in San Antonio with all of those desperate workers in that truck is the tip of an iceberg of labor exploitation on this continent that was caused by NAFTA, enhanced by NAFTA. It is so ugly. The cold, critical measure of the job-hemorrhaging truth this country has passed since NAFTA's passage is our trade balance. That is how many more products and services our country exports rather than imports from offshore sweatshops. That translates into jobs. Since the inception of NAFTA, our trade deficit has ballooned to unprecedented levels. This chart basically goes through what has been happening recently. Each month and each year, we go deeper and deeper into trade deficit, not just with Mexico, but a number of other countries. But there has not been a single year of trade balance with Mexico since NAFTA's passage, just more job dissolution and job loss. Just in May, the United States experienced an overall $46 billion trade deficit with the world, of which NAFTA is a part. But since NAFTA's passage--get this--our country has accumulated nearly $2 trillion net negative balance with Mexico and Canada, and that translates into lost jobs here at home, and the American people know it. This import deficit supports millions of jobs abroad, not U.S. workers. It means less money left in the wallets of hardworking Americans as consumer dollars feed the greed of rapacious corporate interests that feed on desperate workers. Look at NAFTA's job numbers. Between 1997 and 2010, our country bled over 696,000 manufacturing jobs to Mexico alone. You would recognize the names of the firms. It is an alphabet soup of companies: AlliedSignal, Lucent Technologies, Mr. Coffee, Rockwell Automation, UTC Aerospace Systems, Weyerhaeuser, and so many more. Unfortunately, the Midwest has suffered the most from this job hemorrhage. For Ohio, the trade deficit with Mexico alone resulted in tens of thousands of lost jobs. Ohio workers have had their net incomes go down by $7,000 per family since NAFTA's passage. Neighboring Michigan lost over 300,000 jobs since 2000 alone to Mexico. There is little doubt the original NAFTA agreement failed to create a modern opportunity for America's workers. It undercut them. Today, the Trump administration has a chance to change this. President Trump campaigned and promised to build high-quality jobs and bring them back to the United States. How can a renegotiated NAFTA do this? It must include the most modern and enforceable continental labor agreements to yield rising standards of living so wages and job training across borders are equalized. If NAFTA were working, more good U.S. jobs could be created, outnumbering job losses. Mr. Trump promised a good deal for Americans as a candidate. Now he has to deliver on that promise. The old expression, ``Don't tell me what they say, show me what they do,'' will be the true test of this administration's renegotiation of NAFTA. The President must take bold action in renegotiating NAFTA, and it must resolve in reversing these negative balances and making them positive. He must stand up for America's workers, for their jobs, not just for global corporate interests, whose shareholders have been making a fortune off the backs of desperate labor. Making America Great Again was more than a slogan to the people in Ohio and the greater Midwest, looking to shake up what was called the swamp. We need a better deal for America, better jobs, better wages for a better future, and we can start by renegotiating NAFTA.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Lowey for the time, and I also thank Chairman Frelinghuysen on his maiden voyage--not his first voyage, but his first as chair of the full committee--and the members of our fine subcommittee, and especially the staff. I want to thank Chairman Simpson for his fine leadership and value the hard work that he put into this bill and his congeniality throughout the process. I also want to thank our staff on both sides of the aisle for the many hours of hard work and dedication: Taunja Berquam on our side, Donna Shahbaz for the majority, and TJ Lowdermilk on my own staff. I appreciate that the chairman has allowed robust funding to the Corps of Engineers, which translates into real jobs from coast to coast. I also am pleased that this bill restores the more than $900 million that the administration proposed to cut from the science account and provides reasonable funding for energy-saving weatherization in both cold and hot climates across our Nation. Unfortunately, the artificially low allocation has forced the chairman to make deep cuts to some of the most important programs in the bill, most notably the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Too many here in Washington have been fooled by the rhetoric that poses a false choice between the environment and the economy. But, today, 288,000 Americans work in auto industry supply chain jobs manufacturing the parts that make vehicles cleaner and more fuel efficient. In addition, 360,000 people work in the solar industry. The single fastest growing job in America is wind turbine technician. An investment in clean energy is an investment in American jobs and our future. The response of this bill? An 83 percent cut from the Vehicle Technologies Office--now that is a backwards move; A 60 percent cut to the Advanced Manufacturing Office--and this Member is unwilling to see that turn to the Chinese; A 57 percent cut to solar energy--one of the fastest growing job sectors in our country; A 65 percent cut to wind energy; and ARPA-E, the most complex new energy technologies, zero; the program is eliminated. These cuts cede the future to offshore competitors who are hacking into our intellectual property and the bank accounts of firms involved in these industries hundreds of times a month trying to coopt their energy technology that American taxpayers have helped to develop. In an era where Wall Street chases short-term quarterly profits and ever-improving earnings reports, we owe it to our constituents and to our progeny to play the long game--making investments that may take decades to pay off, but they will. The longtime horizon in large initial capital investments of the energy sector for America means that, more than any other, path-breaking energy research needs Federal support until it becomes commercially viable because energy research is complex. Though energy is an overlooked ingredient in economic supremacy, those nations that master its dimensions are leading in economic growth. For decades, American Presidents have made statements targeting energy independence. That makes national security sense. But this year, that target is finally in sight. A recent Energy Information Administration report expects the United States to be a net energy exporter by 2026. The Department of Energy deserves great credit for bringing us to this point. Beginning back in the old 1970s and eighties when this all got started, it took 30 years of Department of Energy support in concert with the private sector to unleash the fracking revolution that has helped change our world dramatically. Where was that technology developed? At the Department of Energy, and it didn't happen in a year or 2. It took years. The next revolution will be the clean energy revolution. We must not forfeit that game. Finally, I would like to raise my concerns over the controversial riders that threaten not only the ultimate enactment of this bill, but also our most precious resource: water. Exempting the repeal of the Clean Water Rule from the Administrative Procedure Act cedes far too much authority to the executive branch and is something that I cannot support. For that reason, and for the draconian cuts to clean energy, I must urge my colleagues to oppose the Energy and Water portion of this spending package. When those concerns are rolled together with busting the spending caps and building an expensive border wall that doesn't keep us safe or solve our immigration needs, I believe that there is no excuse for any Democrat to support the overall bill before us.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in very reluctant opposition to this amendment. I agree with the goal. I agree with the fine Congressman's goal of getting that lock modernized, improving the access, and securing the Great Lakes region for generations to come. My problem lies in the offset coming out of the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy accounts. So I would only ask the gentleman to consider advising his colleagues, who will go into conference, if we could find a different offset, it would sure be a lot more comfortable on this side of the aisle. I want to congratulate him for his amendment and, again, reluctantly rise in opposition. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. May I inquire of the gentleman, where does the offset come from?

Ms. KAPTUR. Well, that changes my position.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

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

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to Congressman Mike Simpson and all the members of our subcommittee on both sides of the aisle for completing our work on time and for reaching agreement on many of these amendments that will save the Members angst tonight, and, hopefully, we won't have to work beyond midnight. I want to say, with the mark that we have received, we continue to move America forward on energy independence. We know that by 8 or 9 years it is projected that America will finally be exporting more energy than we are importing, and we will be 100 percent energy- efficient and energy-independent here at home. That is quite an accomplishment thinking back to the period of time in our Nation's history in the last century when we, as a nation, were subjected to rising oil prices because of embargoes, particularly in the Middle East, and we fell into deep recession here in our country back in the 1970s; and subsequent to that, every time gasoline went over $4 a gallon. So when we consider the Energy and Water bill, I think we all have to pat America on the back for having had consistent enlightened leaders on both sides of the aisle who understood what was important in the Nation's best interests. So as we consider this bill today--there were particular amendments on subjects that range as far afield as the Soo Locks and the Energy Information Administration, which we will get into in a moment, water projects that are some of the biggest job creators across this country--let's not lose sight of the big frame. The big frame really is that this is a bill that makes America more secure and that allows us to make progress here at home from coast to coast. All of our ports and all of our water infrastructure that is so vital not just west of the Mississippi, but the Great Lakes region and our coasts, some of the challenges we face in the Everglades, these are issues that all of America cares about, particularly when it is in your own backyard. This is a really important bill for the country. It is not the largest bill that is considered as part of the appropriations process, but it is one that is extraordinarily important. And, of course, over half of our budget deals with our nuclear weapons complement and making sure that that great asset that we have is maintained, is the finest in the world, and is the best managed. So this subcommittee has quite a jurisdiction from coast to coast. I really want to compliment all the Members who worked so very hard to bring our bill to the floor on time, within the mark that we were given. I thank staffs on both sides of the aisle as we proceed forward here. I know that the efforts in this bill to fund the future and new energy sources that are coming forward are in America's national interests. We look at the field of solar, for example. We have over 300,000 people working in the solar energy field, actually more than work in the coal fields now. Some of those solar companies are in districts that I represent. This is a new industry. Renewables now comprise 10 percent of all the energy that the country produces, and this has been a major accomplishment in just the last few decades. A lot of photovoltaic research goes back to the 1980s. We are now looking at wind energy, the fastest growing job sector in America. It is really for wind technicians. I thank the members of our committee on both sides of the aisle for appreciating the opportunity to grow this massive industry, including with investments such as LEEDCo in the State of Ohio; capturing the Saudi Arabia of wind, which is Lake Erie's complement. So we feel a sense of accomplishment tonight as we bring this bill to the floor and we look at the horizons ahead. We know that we have to deal with the other body, we have to compromise out any of our differences, but I have a hunch that we are going to be able to do that very well. I thank all those who may be listening this evening, particularly those who are working in our National Labs, the finest labs in the world that are inventing the future from coast to coast. Over a dozen and a half of those labs have America's best scientists working on not just energy research, but derivative spinoffs in the commercial sector that eventually benefit the entire country. As I mentioned, the natural gas discovery that has really been responsible for leading us toward energy independence was made possible by the fracking technology developed over many years at the U.S. Department of Energy. So as you look at gas prices going down at the pump and you look at the competition in the energy industry, we have a lot of people, many unsung heroes across our country in these labs who work tirelessly on behalf of the American people. Some are retired and some are still in place, but we owe them a deep debt of gratitude for serving the American people so nobly. We are going to have several other amendments that come before us tonight. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman if he wishes to make a statement.

Ms. KAPTUR. I think it is fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that you do such a fine job and move the bill along that people were anticipating their amendments would come up later in the evening. But, as usual, this is not just an energy efficient committee, but a very efficient committee. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Congressman Beyer, and I have an amendment at the desk.