Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cole amendment. I am a great admirer of the gentleman from Oklahoma. We have worked together on several bipartisan letters to Speaker Ryan asking that the Speaker bring to the House floor an AUMF to address the fight against the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. I value the gentleman's leadership and desire to find common ground with Members on both sides of the aisle. But it is frustrating, Mr. Chairman, to know that this amendment was made in order while every other amendment to require the House to take concrete action on these wars were denied their right to debate. Maybe my good friend from Oklahoma is right and Congress has to take baby steps. It needs yet another report on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Its Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services need to be ordered to hold hearings with the Secretaries of Defense and State to review these matters. But what then? According to this amendment, nothing. Now, I have had my fill of Congress doing nothing. I admire the gentleman from Oklahoma. I support his amendment. But I am sick and tired of reports. After 16 years in Afghanistan, we need a debate on the future of U.S. military engagement there, and we need it now. The gentleman said ``sooner or later.'' Well, after 16 years, we have already arrived at sooner and later. After 6 years of military operations in Iraq and Syria, we need to vote on an AUMF to address the fight against the Islamic State, and we need it now. How much longer will Congress keep sending our brave servicemen and - women to war while it sits on its hands back here in Washington safe and sound? So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, but I demand that the House Republican leadership find the courage to act on these matters now. Our troops and their families deserve more than silence from a Congress that has no qualms about sending them to war but fails to have the political courage to take a vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy hearing the gentleman talk about this. When we agree on things, it is always pleasant. I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for this amendment because I think it is important that we move forward, even if it is a small step forward. As I said initially, I am frustrated. I know Mr. Schiff is frustrated, and a lot of other people are frustrated who had amendments that were perfectly germane to this bill that I think should have been debated and that many of us think they are long overdue. Mr. Chairman, 16 years in Afghanistan is an awful long time. Some of us fear that these wars are becoming endless. They are essentially on automatic pilot. We don't give the attention that I think is appropriate to what is happening, especially given the fact that so many brave men and women have their lives on the line on behalf of our country. But beyond that, this AUMF in Afghanistan that has now been going on for 16 years has also been used to justify what we are doing in Syria, what we are doing in Iraq, in Somalia, and I could go on and on. This is ludicrous. As the gentleman from Oklahoma knows, before we began to get sucked in militarily in Syria, some of us tried to have a debate on an AUMF in Syria, because we thought the time to debate an AUMF, the time to debate military action, actually should be before we get involved. Once we are involved, it is a lot harder to have these debates and to raise the questions that are so important as to whether or not some of these interventions are actually the right thing to do. But we skirted that issue, and we continue to put this on the back burner. As I said, I have no objection to this amendment. I support this amendment. I just think we are at a point where we should be doing much more. We are much further along than to just require a report or to mandate hearings. I am concerned that after these reports and these hearings are done, then what? The gentleman's amendment doesn't require that Congress take up an AUMF or that we actually have to have a vote in so many days or so many months. So I look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure that not only are these reports and these hearings conducted as we all want them to be, but to continue to press this leadership to do the right thing: to not give away Congress' constitutional responsibilities and to do what is right by the men and women who sacrifice so much for our country. There are only a small group of people who are directly impacted by these wars, and that is the men and women who are fighting and their families. The rest of us are asked to do basically nothing. I think that Congress has shirked its responsibility. We can't tolerate that. I hope there is a big, strong bipartisan, if not unanimous vote, for the gentleman's amendment, but this is just the first teeny step in what we need to do. I promise him that he has my cooperation in any efforts to get it to the point where we actually debate these wars and develop AUMFs where people, as he said, can vote for them or against them. My view of what we should be doing, I know, is very different from the gentleman from Oklahoma, and perhaps even different from the gentleman from California, but that is the kind of genius and the wonder of this place. We can all have different points of view, and we can even differ, but at the end of the day, the majority decides. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Cole amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When asked about this process that we are now dealing with this morning, with respect to the Hartzler amendment, Speaker Ryan said: ``It's a free process. It's open process. She can bring an amendment to the floor if she wants to.'' Really? This is an open process? She should be able to bring an amendment that we all think is discriminatory and, quite frankly, bigoted, to the floor; yet amendments that we have tried to bring to the floor that deal with the issue of war and whether or not we should be in these endless wars are denied. What kind of free process is that? Maybe it is a free process in Russia, but it is not a free process in the United States of America. This process is a sham. Fifty-two percent of the amendments that were brought before the Rules Committee were rejected. You might want to defend that process, but I don't. The gentleman says that mission creep has occurred, and that we have a responsibility here in this House. You are absolutely right we have a responsibility. When are we going to live up to it? And the Cole amendment, which I am happy to support, is a report. We have had reports up to here that have been brought before the NDAA process over the years. Enough. Time to do our job. This is why people are cynical about Washington when they hear this kind of doubletalk. Yeah, we get it. We are worried about mission creep. Congress ought to do its job. And so what are we going to do? Not do our job, but we will issue a report. Come on, enough. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's Leveraging Effective Apprenticeships to Rebuild National Skills Act, H.R. 2933, which will promote effective apprenticeships that will give students and workers the skills they need to find well-paying jobs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss that proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I agree with the gentleman from Alabama. This bill is about our national security and about protecting our country, which makes it all the more puzzling that the Republicans think this is an appropriate place to be debating amendments on transgender issues. But anyway, they are in charge, so they can do whatever they want to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), and I also congratulate him on becoming a new dad.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take 1 minute to address something the gentleman from Alabama raised a while ago, and that is: Why would we be raising the issue of apprenticeships and workforce training as part of the Defense Authorization bill. There are a couple of reasons why. One is because we are routinely blocked from bringing any meaningful legislation to the floor, and we are routinely blocked from bringing amendments to the floor that I think can help with this issue. The gentleman mentioned the action we took in a bipartisan, unanimous way on the issue of Perkins loans and a few other programs. Those are important. But it is the beginning. We need to do much, much more in this country. We need to be able to prepare a workforce that can meet the needs of our manufacturers and be there for the jobs of tomorrow. That is why we brought this up. That is why we are bringing it up in this fashion. I would just go one step further to say, when we talk about national security, I think we ought to broaden that definition to include not just the number of bombs we have, but the quality of life that our people in this country enjoy: whether or not people have the security of a job, whether they can afford a college education for their kids, whether they can afford to buy a home, whether they can afford to put food on the table. We live in the richest country in the world, and there are 42 million Americans who are hungry, and yet we somehow can't get the political will to address that problem or fix some of these challenges. We are going to take any opportunity we have to bring to the floor serious ideas that we think will benefit the American people, uplift the American people, and that is why I think that this bill that we are trying to bring up, H.R. 2933, authored by my colleague, Mr. Pocan, is appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is a theme that is developing on the Republican side. We can always take it up at another time, at another time in the future. We can do the NDAA bill and this. That is the whole point of defeating the previous question. You can still debate the National Defense Authorization Act, and you can bring up this other thing that we think is of great value to workers in this country. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It is that same thinking when it comes to war. As I began this debate talking about the war in Afghanistan and the fact that it is the longest war in American history, we don't even talk about it here. We don't even debate it here. We ought to respect the men and women who we put in harm's way enough to make it a priority in this Chamber, and we don't even talk about it. We can't even bring amendments to the floor to deliberate on that. What we are told is: Well, we will vote on a study, another study. After 16 years? That is the best we can do? Or we are told that it falls under the jurisdiction of another committee. Well, my friends on the Republican side are in charge. I am sorry to say that, but you are. And I don't know what is standing in your way from asking the committees of jurisdiction or multiple committees to come together and to actually present to this Chamber an AUMF for these wars. There is nothing, other than the fact that you want to avoid an uncomfortable vote for your Members. Well, that is just too bad. War is a big deal. It ought to be a big deal, and we ought to treat it more seriously than we are. And I will repeat what I said at the beginning of this debate: What the Rules Committee did last night was shameful; blocking germane amendments, blocking serious amendments, to address an issue that, quite frankly, we should have been talking about a long time ago. Again, I regret that this is the rule that my Republican friends have come up with. They can say they are proud of it. Quite frankly, I am ashamed of it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Congressional Record a letter from 14 conservative and liberal national organizations opposing a defense bill that busts the budget caps. July 10, 2017. Dear Representative McGovern: As organizations representing Americans across the political spectrum, we are writing to voice our strong opposition to attempts by Members of Congress to increase the Pentagon's fiscal year 2018 budget above both the budget caps set by the Budget Control Act and the President's budget request. The Pentagon is currently funded at a higher level than at almost any time since World War II, and the budget problems it faces should be solved by better fiscal management, not by adding more money to an already bloated and wasteful department. The challenges facing our military are partially the result of years of failing to make the necessary, tough choices our nation's security requires. Rather than prioritizing basic needs of the warfighter, lawmakers have pursued huge, expensive weapons systems that fail to meet technical specifications and may never be ready for combat. Waste and unnecessary overhead abound, with a Defense Business Board study showing that the Department of Defense could save up to $125 billion over five years just by eliminating excess bureaucracy and inefficiencies. Claims of a so-called ``readiness crisis'' are exaggerated. As former DoD Comptroller Robert Hale said in February, these claims are just the services ``putting their worst foot forward'' in the hopes of securing funding increases. General David Petraeus has also said that this idea of a readiness crisis is a myth. By opposing important cost-saving measures like base realignment and closure which could save several billion dollars a year just by closing excess infrastructure, Congress is demonstrating that it is not prioritizing fiscal responsibility or making the choices that will actually keep us safe. Moreover, the Pentagon cannot be sure what it is spending as it is the only federal agency that has never passed an audit. Budgets necessitate tradeoffs. Pentagon spending increases shortchange other important priorities, from domestic needs including education, health and nutrition and affordable housing, to paying down the national debt. Further increasing the Pentagon's budget by tens of billions of dollars without a clear strategy will do little to solve national security challenges. Rather, it will simply guarantee further wasteful spending at the Pentagon. We hope that you will oppose any attempts to increase the Pentagon's budget for fiscal year 2018. Sincerely, American Friends Service Committee; Center for International Policy; Coalition on Human Needs; Council for a Livable World; Freedom Works; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Iraq Veterans Against the War. National Coalition for the Homeless; Taxpayers Protection Alliance; Taxpayers United of America; The Libertarian Institute; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; Win Without War; Women's Action for New Directions.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, the majority on the House Rules Committee once again decided to exclude from debate 230 amendments to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act. That means that half of the amendments submitted were rejected. I can never understand why these amendments are denied the chance to be debated by the full House. When I first came to Capitol Hill as an aide to our former friend and colleague, Congressman Joe Moakley, the Defense Authorization bill would often take up to a week for debate. But even back then, it was one of the largest and most complex bills debated, and certainly one of the most important from a national security point of view. The NDAA rule was also structured back then, but more in terms of the amount of time permitted for debate. And many amendments receive 1 hour, half an hour, 20 minutes, even 2 hours of debate. Why? Because they were about the important decisions and priorities facing our national defense policy at the time. But that is not the case today. Amendments are lucky to get 10 minutes of debate equally divided if they are lucky enough to be debated at all. And the Defense bill takes up a total of maybe 2 days' worth of debate, if that. No wonder, no wonder Members are frustrated by this process. This year, like every year for the past several years, important issues, especially on war and peace, were left on the chopping block by the Republicans. They decided that the House should not debate two bipartisan amendments that would make sure that nothing in the NDAA could be construed as authorization to use force against the governments of North Korea or Syria. The Republican majority decided it is okay to debate a bigoted amendment that prohibits medical treatment for transgender servicemembers who are in transition, but they will not let the House debate an amendment that just calls for a study, Mr. Speaker, on blood donations from gay men. Mr. Speaker, did you know that there is a provision in the NDAA that sets up an entire new military service branch, the Space Corps? The Pentagon doesn't want it; the Air Force doesn't want it; they say it is premature, but an amendment by Mr. Turner, a Republican, to require the Pentagon to report on the need to establish a Space Corps is not included in this rule. I guess the Republican leadership doesn't want the House to have a say and a debate on such a major change. Mr. Amash led a bipartisan amendment to block the sale of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia. Last year, this amendment failed by just a handful of votes. I guess that is why the Republicans on the Rules Committee aren't about to let it come up for a debate and a vote this year. When it comes to sending our uniformed women and men into war, into danger, where their very lives are at risk, the Rules Committee decided that such amendments were not worth the House's time to debate. Last night, Republicans on the Rules Committee denied the opportunity for debate on a bipartisan amendment offered by myself and Representatives Walter Jones, Barbara Lee, Tom Massie, John Garamendi, Dan Kildee, and Peter Welch. The amendment is very straightforward. If the President decides to increase the level of U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2018, then he would report to Congress on the purpose and mission of those troops, how many were required, and how long they would be there, and then Congress would vote to approve or disapprove that escalation. This would give the American people the voice they deserve when it comes to sending our men and women in uniform into battle. Mr. Speaker, the President and General Mattis just decided to send an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, on top of the 8,400 U.S. troops already there. That will bring the total number of American troops there to more than 12,000. Now, if they should decide that they want even more troops in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2018, Congress should know why, and vote on it. We can't keep giving the administration a blank check and allow America once again to go down the slippery slope of incremental escalation over the next year or two. Congress needs to step up to the plate and either approve or disapprove any renewed escalation in Afghanistan. Isn't that amendment worth debating? We are in year 16 of the war in Afghanistan. It is the longest war in American history. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Afghanistan is the longest war in U.S. history. The costs are already in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the human cost to our troops, our veterans, and their families have been enormous, yet Congress has not taken a single vote, has not taken a single stand on this war for 16 years. Most of the Members of this House weren't even here when that one and only vote was taken. So in the absence of debating an updated AUMF for Afghanistan, the very least we can do is debate whether we will once again escalate our military footprint in Afghanistan, but the Republican leadership of this House doesn't agree. Each year, the Republican leadership does everything it can to stop any debate on these wars, and this year is no different. They will allow some amendments on reports and a sense of Congress here and there, but any amendment of substance that requires Congress to act is denied. Mr. Speaker, I want to advise my colleagues of one thing, and that is, we are not an advisory commission. We are a legislative body. We need to start doing our job. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with a report, but it won't be the first time we have seen a report, whether on Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. Even the underlying bill calls for a strategy report on Afghanistan and other conflicts, but Congress avoiding taking any responsibility for continuing to send our servicemen and -women into harm's way is absolutely shameful. Mr. Speaker, it is cowardice. Every day, military families say good-bye to their loved ones as they go into battle, placing themselves in harm's way to keep our country safe, and Congress does nothing. All we do is kick the can down the road and call for another report and then another report. Mr. Speaker, we don't even act when the President actually does send us an AUMF, the way President Obama did on Iraq and Syria and the war against ISIS. We did nothing. We said we didn't like it, but we did nothing. The Republican leadership complained that they didn't like it, but then they never even tried to act on it or to write their own AUMF. They would rather just stand on the sidelines, complain and criticize, but do nothing, absolutely nothing, except stop other Members from taking any action that might require the House to debate these wars. Shame on all of us for allowing this to continue over and over and over and over again. Now, I am guessing that whenever the House takes up the Defense appropriations bill, the Republican leaders will find a way to make sure that the bipartisan-supported provision in that bill to sunset the 2001 AUMF on Afghanistan and vote on a new one within 8 months will somehow disappear without a single Member of the House at large having a chance to vote on it. Maybe we will get another report. And so it goes on and on. Mr. Speaker, there is nearly $700 billion authorized in this bill for wars, for weapons systems, for military equipment, and for personnel, all because Congress refuses to make hard choices. We can never seem to find the money to take care of our own neighborhoods and schools. We can't find the money to provide our citizens with better, more affordable healthcare, or make sure that all our families can put food on the table. We don't invest nearly enough in our roads and our bridges, railways and transit systems. There is never enough money to invest in a 21st century manufacturing base, provide training to support the jobs of the future, or raise the Federal minimum wage to a livable wage. We are told we don't have the money to take care of our parks or to make sure that our air and water are drinkable and breathable. We can't even seem to find the money to take care of our senior citizens and our children, but when it comes to spending on war or building more nuclear weapons, then magically we find trillions of dollars to operate and spend. We need to pay more attention, Mr. Speaker, to the choices we make each year on how much spending our Nation really requires for its national defense. I believe, at a minimum, Mr. Speaker, that Congress needs to debate and vote on whether to keep sending more and more of our military men and women to fight in endless wars. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues, what the Rules Committee did last night by shutting out debate was shameful.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act this week, I would like to draw attention to one provision that was left out of the bill: the Military Hunger Prevention Act. It is shameful that military families like lower ranking enlisted servicemembers with larger households are among the 42 million Americans suffering from food insecurity. While up to 22,000 military households rely on SNAP, many military families are unable to receive modest benefits due to an unintended provision that counts certain housing allowances as income when determining eligibility for SNAP. To address this issue, I have joined with my friend, Representative Susan Davis, on the bipartisan Military Hunger Prevention Act. I am disappointed that this commonsense technical fix was left out of this year's NDAA, and I plan to continue working with my colleagues and our advocacy partners like MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger to move this legislation forward. We owe it to the families who have sacrificed so much for our country to do all that we can to end hunger now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 1997, Britain transferred sovereignty over Hong Kong to China. Under a ``one country, two systems'' arrangement with London, Beijing promised to allow universal suffrage as an ultimate aim, along with other freedoms. But 20 years later, that promise remains unfilled. Last March, a new chief executive was elected, not by the people of Hong Kong, but by a committee whose members have close ties to the Chinese Government. Human rights groups have documented an erosion of press freedom and growing threats to judicial independence. Hong Kong's freedoms are at grave risk. This Saturday, Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit Hong Kong to mark the 20th anniversary of the handover. Some protesters have already been detained, including Joshua Wong, who I have met, and newly elected legislator, Nathan Law. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this Chamber to hold China to its word and speak out in support of democracy and autonomy for Hong Kong.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are trying to bring this to the floor by way of defeating the previous question is because the Republican majority in this House had basically locked everything down so we can't get important bills to the floor. We can't even get amendments to the underlying bill that we are debating here today. It is really unfortunate and sad for this institution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I, again, would simply say that if we really want to do something about immigration, we ought to come together, like the Senate did not long ago, and pass comprehensive immigration reform. But, apparently, that is not in the DNA of the current leadership of this House. Instead, we have bills that demagogue the immigration issue, that demean immigrants, that cause hysteria, and I find that very unfortunate. This bill is a bad idea. It falls in the same category as that other bad, stupid idea of building a wall across our country. What we ought to be doing is serious legislating, enough demagoguing, and let's get back to doing the people's business, and that includes comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. Speaker, as I said, we need to fix our immigration laws. When a mother in the Philippines has to wait 25 years or more for a visa to reunite with her son in the United States, is that system working? No. To lose the entire childhood and young adulthood of your son? What mother wouldn't try to enter the United States some other way, in fact, any way that she could in order to be with her child? When your daughter is threatened with rape and murder if she doesn't become a sexual slave to gang members; when your son and the entire family is threatened with death if the boy doesn't join the gangs, wouldn't you run away and try to find safety someplace else? And when the family arrives at the U.S. border and they actively seek out the U.S. Border Patrol and voluntarily surrender to them and ask for safe refuge and asylum, is that really entering our borders illegally? You know, when you have been an upstanding member of the community for 10, 15, 20 years or more in the United States, and you get pulled over because the tags have expired on your car, or your license, do you really deserve to be deported, to tear apart your family, to leave behind the businesses that you have spent a lifetime creating? And does anyone in this Chamber honestly think that if this father or mother is deported, that they won't do everything they can to try to come back to be with their kids? I mean, these are real stories. It is not fiction. They are not fantasies. It is real. And if you listened to people in your community, you would know these stories. If you paid attention to your local police, you would know why it is so damaging to turn them in to ICE, because they rely on these community members to inform them of criminal activities in their community. The police don't want to do what you are asking them to do. Why would you force this on them? And why would you punish them by taking away essential Federal funding to help them protect the citizens of this country? This is a bad idea. I guess, maybe it is a good press release. Maybe Steve Bannon thinks it is a good idea. Maybe it is a good sound bite for Trump. Who knows what the rationale behind this is. But it is not sensible. It is not thoughtful. So if you want to get serious about these issues, you know, come together, like the Senate did, in a bipartisan way, and come up with comprehensive immigration reform. That is our duty. That is our job, as Members of Congress, not this garbage. This is a waste of time. This is an insult to the American people. We ought to be able to do better. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this. I urge them to defeat the previous question so we can have a debate and vote on whether or not to increase the minimum wage to $15 to give people a raise. Again, we have to do that because this House is being so tightly controlled that you can't get anything to the floor. I would remind my colleagues that the underlying bill that we are talking about here today on immigration is under a closed rule. We will have another closed rule tomorrow. So much for democracy. So much for deliberative process. So much for openness. There is no such thing here. I mean, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die, where everything gets shut down. We need to do better. This process stinks, and this bill is lousy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and if it gets to the point we have to debate this, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the entire Congress from the American Immigration Lawyers Association in opposition to this bill; a letter from Amnesty International in opposition to this bill; and a letter from Church World Services in opposition to this bill. Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004), June 27, 2017. As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends that members of Congress reject these bills which are scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27 and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance public safety,'' they will do the just the opposite: undermine public safety and make it even harder for local law enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In addition, the bills which were made public less than a week before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary Committee, include provisions that will result in violations of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. At a time when over 9 out 10 Americans support immigration reform and legalization of the undocumented, Republican leadership is asking the House to vote on enforcement-only bills that will lead to more apprehensions, deportations, and prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and their families who have strong ties to the United States. Instead of criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants, Congress should be offering workable reforms that will strengthen our economy and our country. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with local policing: H.R. 3003 would amend 8 Sec. U.S.C. 1373 to prevent states or localities from establishing laws or policies that prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The bill dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from restricting the sharing and exchange of information with federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's citizenship or immigration status. Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS from honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed ``sanctuary cities'' if the individual being sought by local law enforcement has a final order of removal. Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with federal immigration efforts are penalized with the denial of federal funding for critical law enforcement, national security, drug treatment, and crime victim initiatives, including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and Byrne JAG programs that provide hundreds of millions of dollars to localities nationwide. In an effort to force localities to engage in civil immigration enforcement efforts, including those against nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it far more difficult for many localities, including large cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from the country as opposed to criminal prosecution. H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in the Fourth Amendment: By prohibiting localities from restricting or limiting their own cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, H.R. 3003 effectively compels localities to honor ICE detainer requests--a controversial and constitutionally suspect practice that is nonetheless widely-used by ICE. Federal courts have found that ICE use of detainers violates the Fourth Amendment, and that localities may be held liable for honoring them. The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown. Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or being punished as a ``sanctuary city.'' Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and private contractors with immunity if they are sued for violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer the financial burden of litigation by substituting the federal government for the local officers as the defendant. If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly detained. The bill goes even further by creating a private right of action allowing crime victims or their family members to sue localities if the crime was committed by someone who was released by the locality that did not honor an ICE detainer request. H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment: H.R. 3003 would compel states and localities to utilize their local law enforcement resources to implement federal civil immigration enforcement in violation of the Tenth Amendment's ``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment does not permit the federal government to force counties and cities to allocate local resources, including police officers, technology, and personnel, to enforce federal immigration law. The federal government also cannot withhold funds from localities refusing to participate in federal efforts if the programs affected are unrelated to the purpose of the federal program, or if the sanctions are punitive in nature. H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process: H.R. 3003 would increase the use of detention without ensuring those detained have access to a bond determination. Under the bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including those who have overstayed their visa would be subject to detention without a custody hearing. The bill also establishes that DHS has the authority to detain individuals ``without time limitation'' during the pendency of removal proceedings. These provisions would dramatically expand the federal government's power to indefinitely detain individuals, and would likely result in ever growing numbers of undocumented immigrants held in substandard detention facilities. Kate's Law, H.R. 3004 H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in federal law for illegal reentry (NA 276; 8 U.S.C. 1326). The number of people prosecuted for illegal reentry has grown steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each year, and such cases comprise more than one quarter of all federal criminal prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds sentencing enhancements for people who are convicted of minor misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve public safety and will undermine due process and protections for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of people who pose no threat to the community and who have strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their loved ones. H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon people with minor offenses: H.R. 3004 would add sentencing enhancements for minor misdemeanor convictions, including driving without a license and other traffic-related offenses. Under the current version of INA Sec. 276, if a person is charged with reentering the U.S. after being removed, their punishment is enhanced by up to ten years only if they have been convicted a felony or three or more misdemeanors involving drugs or violence. Under H.R. 3004 someone who has been convicted of any three misdemeanors regardless of severity would be subject to a term of up to ten years. This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are trying to reunite with family members and have other strong ties to the United States. Currently half of all people convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock up non-violent people. H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at the border: H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA 276 to punish not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to reenter the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to cross the border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the border'' to mean ``the physical act of crossing the border, regardless of whether the alien is free from official restraint.'' That means that people who present themselves at ports of entry to request asylum and are taken into custody by CBP to await a fear screening would be subject to criminal charges based on a past removal, even though they are seeking refuge in the U.S. H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements for people with multiple entries: The bill would also create new sentencing enhancements for people who have reentered the U.S. multiple times, even if they have no other criminal convictions. If someone has been removed three or more times, and is found in the United States or attempts to cross the border again, H.R. 3004 law would provide for sentencing enhancements of up to ten years. The bill makes no exception for bona fide asylum seekers, which means that people who are seeking refuge in the U.S. from atrocities abroad could be subject to a lengthy prison sentence under these provisions. H.R. 3004 would undermine due process by blocking challenges to unfair removal orders: The bill will prevent an individual from challenging the validity of a removal order, even it was fundamentally unfair in the first place. The Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez,481 U.S. 828 (1987) that due process requires that a challenge be allowed if a deportation proceeding is used as an element of a criminal offense and where the proceeding ``effectively eliminate[d] the right of the alien to obtain judicial review.'' This provision in H.R. 3004 is likely unconstitutional and will cause grave injustice to defendants, such as asylum seekers who were deported without the opportunity to seek asylum.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we do defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to bring up Representative Bobby Scott's Raise the Wage Act, H.R. 15, which would finally give workers the raise they deserve, and increase the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour within 7 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.