Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) in order to respond.

Mr. McGOVERN. Again, Mr. Speaker, our objection is that Washington doesn't always know best. We ought to trust our local law enforcement officials, our local police as to what is effective in terms of protecting the citizens of our community. To introduce legislation that would essentially punish our local police for doing what they think is in the best interest of their communities, this bill should be renamed ``punish our local police,'' because that is what it does. I can't believe that we are going down this road. Maybe it is a nice sound bite, maybe it is a nice press release, maybe it fits in with the Trump campaign rhetoric on immigrants and immigration; but this is just a lousy idea. And I think if we did hearings on this bill, if we actually spent some time being thoughtful about this issue, my colleagues would come to that conclusion. Again, I would say that what we should be talking about is fixing our broken immigration system. We need comprehensive immigration reform. The Senate, in a bipartisan way, stepped up to the plate and did it. It is about time Members of this House have the guts to bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor and fix our broken immigration system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a letter to every Member of Congress from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in opposition to this bill; a letter to all of us from the ACLU in opposition to this bill; a letter to every Member of Congress from the National Task Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence that is in opposition to this bill; as well as a letter to Members of Congress from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA in opposition to this bill; and a letter from NETWORK, which is a lobby for Catholic social justice in opposition to this bill. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC, June 27, 2017. Oppose the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national advocacy organizations, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004, ``Kate's Law.'' These two bills may sound ``tough,'' but they would ultimately make the problems with our national immigration system even worse than they already are. H.R. 3003 would unnecessarily and unwisely penalize states and municipalities that are attempting to strike the delicate balance between cooperating with federal immigration authorities, on one hand, and respecting the constraints imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution, on the other. At the same time, it would do nothing to address the constitutional concerns raised by the use of immigration ``detainer'' requests, concerns that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) itself has recognized in the past. Among its provisions, H.R. 3003 would eliminate various federal law enforcement grants to states and municipalities, such as the ``Cops on the Beat'' program, unless jurisdictions comply with all DHS detainer requests. It aims to overturn local policies adopted by over 300 jurisdictions across the country that have determined, as a matter of constitutional law and sound public policy, including community policing efforts, that they cannot hold individuals beyond their release dates solely on the basis of a DHS detainer request. The senseless and tragic 2015 killing of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco has renewed the debate over so-called ``sanctuary cities.'' Yet the term suggests, incorrectly, that certain states and municipalities are refusing to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities. The truth is that state and local law enforcement agencies (``LEAs'') throughout the country already aid in the identification of individuals who are subject to immigration enforcement action through the sharing of fingerprints of those who are taken into custody. LEAs with limited detainer policies have determined, however, that they cannot continue to detain individuals for immigration enforcement purposes, under the Fourth Amendment and pursuant to numerous court rulings, unless DHS obtains a judicial warrant, as all other law enforcement agencies are required to do. H.R. 3003 would not address the Fourth Amendment concerns raised by the use of DHS detainers. Instead, it would leave many state and municipal governments in an untenable position: either they must disregard their constitutional responsibilities and erode the trust they have built between the police and the communities they serve, or they will face the loss of vital federal law enforcement funding that helps them fight crime in their jurisdictions. Congress should not force such an arbitrary and unwise choice on cities. H.R. 3004, the other immigration-related bill expected to come to the House floor this week, would significantly increase sentences for previously-removed individuals who reenter the country. While the bill is an improvement over other bills by the same name, in that it does not include mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, it would still lead to a likely increase in the federal prison population without any tangible benefits. The Department of Justice's ``Operation Streamline'' program, upon which this bill would build, has already shown that increased criminal prosecutions do little but waste resources while failing to deter unauthorized border crossings. It should be ended, not expanded. For these reasons, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3003 and

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule, and in strong opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 3003. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider its 37th closed rule for the year, and tomorrow it will take up number 38. My Republican friends are breaking all kinds of records here. While I often wonder just why the Republican leadership is so afraid of open debate in the United States House of Representatives, I do recognize that it goes right along with the Republican majority's complete rejection of regular order. The House of Representatives, I am sad to say, has ceased being a deliberative body where important issues are debated freely. The Republican leadership has shut this place down, and this is yet another example of it. Look up the history of the bill the House will debate later today or tomorrow, H.R. 3003, the so-called No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. It was introduced on June 22. That was last Thursday. Like its 2015 predecessor, it has had no hearings, no markup, no input from local law enforcement, no regular order. No one had a chance to testify about this bill. Not the U.S. Conference of Mayors that includes the mayors of over 1,000 cities and towns, Democrat and Republican alike, who represent over 150 million people. Not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities, Church World Service, and religious and faith leaders from all across the land. Not the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, or the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence. Not the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the YWCA, or hundreds of national civil rights, human rights, labor, immigration, and humanitarian organizations. Mr. Speaker, on a bill that would affect hundreds of cities and towns and counties across America, why wouldn't we want to hear the views of these important law enforcement, State and local government, religious, civil society, and victims' organizations? The answer is simple, Mr. Speaker. Because they all oppose this legislation. All of them. It is much easier for Republicans to close down the process and steamroll this terrible bill through Congress than to actually get feedback from the American people and the leaders charged with keeping them safe. If you are going to pass a bill that has so much public opposition, I guess it makes sense to do it quickly and with as little debate as possible. Welcome to the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, where the voices of the American people are shut out as Republicans continue to ram through their radical agenda. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3003 does nothing to advance cooperation between local law enforcement with the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Cooperation between local and Federal agencies to apprehend, try, and punish serious criminal offenders, and in the case of foreign nationals, to imprison and then deport them, has always been a high priority. These are matters of national security. But instead of continuing to foster cooperation and strengthen this priority, this bill chooses to blackmail, coerce, and penalize local law enforcement agencies and demand that they potentially violate the Constitution of the United States, in particular the Fourth Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and the 14th amendment. I wish my Republican friends were as faithful to the rights enshrined in these amendments of the Bill of Rights as they are to the Second Amendment, but then that is a whole other debate. And let's think about this for a minute. What are they proposing to do? For communities and local law enforcement that believe that doing what this bill asks them to do would make it more difficult for them to do local policing, and would make it more difficult for them to have the trust of members in their community to report crimes. What my Republican friends propose to do is take away important Federal funding to help keep these communities safe. What are we talking about here? I think it is important for people to understand this. Programs like the COPS programs, the Community Oriented Policing Services; the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program; and national security programs, those things would be taken away from local communities. It doesn't make any sense. For example, the Bynre JAG is a major source of criminal justice funding for local law enforcement and provided $275 million in fiscal year 2016 for prevention and education programs, drug treatment and enforcement, crime victim and witness initiatives, and other community- based programs. Other funding programs and grants that are threatened under this bill are used to address sexual assault, gang violence, and trafficking such as the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, the Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction Program, and the Reach and Evaluation on Trafficking in Persons program. Maybe nobody read what this bill does before they brought it to the floor. I just don't understand the logic of basically trying to blackmail communities by taking away important funding that is designed to protect the citizens of various communities across this country. Mr. Speaker, this so-called sanctuary cities bill, as I mentioned, threatens to strip local jurisdictions of Federal grants and funding. It specifically targets law enforcement, counterterrorism, and national security grants when they prioritize working with immigrant communities to keep our neighbors and cities and towns safe. I don't think Washington knows best all the time, unlike my Republican colleagues. I trust my local police departments on this issue more than I trust my friends on the other side of the aisle. Republicans would rather demonize these cities, towns, and local police agencies and force them to squander scarce local resources on immigration enforcement instead of local policing, making our cities and our communities less safe, not more safe. This is why law enforcement and city governments oppose this bill. It deliberately and cynically undermines their ability to protect their communities, nurture public trust in the police and our legal system, and strengthen public safety. Mr. Speaker, this bill reeks of prejudice. It isn't meant to solve any problem. It is meant to punish cities that don't embrace the radical views of the anti-immigrant rightwing of the Republican Party. It is meant to demonize all immigrants as criminals. It is meant to turn our local police into the lackeys of ICE. Mr. Speaker, this House continues to wait and wait and wait for the Republican majority to show some leadership and bring up a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It has been more than 4 years since the Senate passed a strong, bipartisan immigration reform bill, and we are still waiting for House Republicans to step up and act, to actually try to solve a problem rather than continue to divide our country and continue to act in a way that is polarizing. What we need is a way to bring 11 million of our neighbors, friends, colleagues, small-business owners, and hardworking residents out of the shadows. That is what makes America stronger. That is why 9 out of 10 Americans support immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship for the undocumented, according to a March 2017 poll by CNN/ORC. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article about the poll. [From cnn.com, Mar. 17, 2017] CNN/ORC Poll: Americans Break With Trump on Immigration Policy (By Tal Kopan and Jennifer Agiesta) Washington (CNN).--Americans disagree with President Donald Trump's immigration priorities, according to a new CNN/ORC poll, with nearly two-thirds of Americans saying they'd like to see a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants rather than deportations. Trump has made tough border security and strict enforcement of US immigration laws a focal point of his campaign and presidency--using some of his first executive orders to pave the way for far more deportations and detentions as well as ordering the construction of a Southern border wall. But a CNN/ORC poll released Friday finds that the public is actually moving in the opposite direction since Trump has won election. Americans are more likely to say that the nation's top immigration priority should be to allow those in the US illegally to gain legal status--and six in 10 say they are more concerned that deportation efforts will be overzealous than they are that dangerous criminals will be overlooked. All told, 60% say the government's top priority in dealing with illegal immigration should be developing a plan to allow those in the US illegally who have jobs to become legal residents. In contrast, 26% say developing a plan to stop illegal border crossings should be the top priority and 13% say deportation of those in the US illegally should be the first priority. The number who prioritize legal status for those working in the US illegally is up from 51% who said so last fall. That shift comes across party lines, with Democrats and independents each 10 points more likely and Republicans 8 points more likely to choose a plan for legal status now compared with last fall. While Trump campaigned heavily against ``amnesty'' for undocumented immigrants, he has avoided rescinding an Obama administration program offering protections and work permits to those who were brought to the US as children, and in a recent meeting with reporters a senior administration official indicated Trump could be open to a compromise that included a path to legalization, if not citizenship, if it came to his desk. Trump told Congress in his joint address last month that he supported the idea of an immigration reform compromise, but offered few details. Offering citizenship to those immigrants who are living in the US illegally but hold a job, speak English and are willing to pay back taxes is immensely popular, with 90% behind such a plan. That's consistent across party lines, with 96% of Democrats, 89% of independents and 87% of Republicans behind it. The President has described his immigration policies as focused on removing criminals, though critics of his administration say enforcement agencies' definition of criminal is too expansive and sweeps up people who only broke immigration laws. He has also ordered the creation of offices and reports focused on publicizing victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. Americans say, however, they are more concerned about the effects of deportations than they are about immigrant crimes. Overall, 58% say they're more concerned that deportation efforts will go too far and result in deportation of people who haven't committed serious crimes, while 40% say they're more concerned that those efforts will not go far enough and dangerous criminals will remain in the US. That number is largely driven by Democrats--more than two-thirds of Republicans say they are concerned efforts won't go far enough. As for deportation priorities, seven in 10 say the government should not attempt to deport all immigrants living in the country illegally, up from 66% in the fall. A wide majority, nearly eight in 10, support deporting undocumented immigrants who have committed other crimes, however, an area Trump says is his focus. There has been a small uptick, nevertheless, in the share who say the government shouldn't be deporting those living in the US illegally who have been convicted of other crimes, from 15% to 19%. Opinions vary by party on both of these questions, though majorities across party lines are on the same side of both arguments. Among Republicans, 55% oppose attempts to deport all people living in the US illegally, below the 86% of Democrats and 71% of independents who feel that way. Considering deportation of those in the country illegally who have been convicted of other crimes, 64% of Democrats favor that, below the 79% of independents and 93% of Republicans who say the same. CNN/ORC interviewed 1,025 American adults by phone from March 1 to 4 for the poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Results by party have a margin of error of plus or minus 6 points.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me 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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know my friends think Washington knows best, but I trust my local police more. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman, my friend, says that this is a constitutional question. We agree that the Constitution is an important document, and it goes to the heart of why we are opposed to the bill that the gentleman is supporting here. The reason why we say that is because we have had Federal courts that have decided in ways in the past that cause great concern that much in this bill may be unconstitutional. Now, that is why we should have had hearings, that radical idea that we keep on bringing up, like hearings where people come and testify. But I guess that is too much to ask. One of the reasons why we are opposed to this is because we are concerned that it may undermine the Constitution, and that is a pretty big deal. I am happy to give the gentleman my copy of the Constitution and references to court cases if he would like to do a little research, but, boy, it would have been nice to have a hearing. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter on behalf of 407 local, State, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-based, and labor organizations in strong opposition to H.R. 3003. June 28, 2017. Re Vote NO on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 407 undersigned local, state, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith- based, and labor organizations, we urge you to oppose the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004, and any similar legislation that jeopardizes public safety, erodes the goodwill forged between local police and its residents, and perpetuates the criminalization and incarceration of immigrants. H.R. 3003 would strip badly needed law enforcement funding for state and local jurisdictions, runs afoul of the Tenth and Fourth Amendment, and unnecessarily expands the government's detention apparatus. H.R. 3004 unwisely expands the federal government's ability to criminally prosecute immigrants for immigration- based offenses, excludes critical humanitarian protections for those fleeing violence, and doubles down on the failed experiment of incarceration for immigration violations. Over 600 state and local jurisdictions have policies or ordinances that disentangle their state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration law. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, seeks to attack so-called ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions (many of whom do not consider themselves as such) by penalizing state and local jurisdictions that follow the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by refusing to honor constitutionally infirm requests for detainers. H.R. 3003 penalizes jurisdictions by eliminating various federal grants, including funding through the Cops on the Beat program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and any other federal grant related to law enforcement or immigration. Importantly, using the threat of withholding federal grants to coerce state and local jurisdictions likely runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment's prohibition on commandeering, a position supported by over 300 law professors. ``Sanctuary'' policies are critical to promote public safety for local communities. Fearing referral to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, victims and witnesses of crime are significantly less likely to communicate with local law enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities have repeatedly echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that community policing policies are paramount to enhancing public safety. Indeed, ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions have less crime and more economic development than similarly situated non- ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions. Withholding critically-needed federal funding would, paradoxically, severely cripple the ability of state and local jurisdictions to satisfy the public safety needs of their communities. Kate's Law, H.R. 3004, would further criminalize the immigrant community by drastically increasing penalties for immigrants convicted of unlawful reentry. Operation Streamline encapsulates our nation's failed experiment with employing criminal penalties to deter migration. Under Operation Streamline, the federal government prosecutes immigrants for reentry at significant rates. By all practical measures, Operation Streamline has failed to deter migration, wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and unfairly punished thousands of immigrants who try to enter or reenter the United States to reunite with their children and loved ones. We fear that H.R. 3004's increased penalties for reentry would double down on this failed strategy, explode the prison population, and cost billions of dollars. Instead of passing discredited enforcement-only legislation, Congress should move forward on enacting just immigration reform legislation that provides a roadmap to citizenship for the nation's eleven million aspiring Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation programs that undermine fundamental human rights. Legislation that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns represents an abdication of the Congress' responsibility to enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy. In light of the above, we urge you to vote NO on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004. Sincerely, National Organizations America's Voice Education Fund; American Federation of Teachers; American Friends Service Committee (AFSC); American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Americans Committed to Justice and Truth; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF); Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Asian Law Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA); Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence; ASISTA; Bend the ArcJewish Action; Black Alliance for Just Immigration; Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network; Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.; Center for American Progress; Center for Employment Training; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Center for Law and Social Policy; Center for New Community. Center for Popular Democracy (CPD); Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Refugee & Immigration Ministries; Christian Community Development Association; Church World Service; Coalition on Human Needs; CODEPINK; Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach; Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES); Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC); Defending Rights & Dissent; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Disciples Home Missions; Dominican Sisters of Sparkill; Drug Policy Alliance; Easterseals Blake Foundation; Equal Rights Advocates; Farmworker Justice; Freedom Network USA; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Fuerza Mundial. Futures Without Violence; Grassroots Leadership; Hispanic Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters--USA--JPIC; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center; Interfaith Worker Justice; Isaiah Wilson; Jewish Voice for Peace; Jewish Voice for Peace--Boston; Jewish Voice for Peace--Tacoma chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--Western MA; Justice Strategies; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Lambda Legal; Laotian American National Alliance; Latin America Working Group; Latino Victory Fund; LatinoJustice PRLDEF. League of United Latin American Citizens; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; Mi Familia Vota; Milwaukee Chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace; NAACP; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development; National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON); National Education Association; National Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center; National Immigration Project of the NLG; National Iranian American Council (NIAC); National Justice for Our Neighbors; National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. National Latina/o Psychological Association; National Lawyers Guild; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; OCA--Asian Pacific American Advocates; Our Revolution; People's Action; PICO National Network; Queer Detainee Empowerment Project; Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES); School Social Work Association of America; Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, New Windsor; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern Border Communities Coalition; Southern Poverty Law Center; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; The Advocates for Human Rights; The Hampton Institute: A Working Class Think Tank. The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health; The Queer Palestinian Empowerment Network; The Sentencing Project; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and Society; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; UndocuBlack Network; Unitarian Universalist Association; Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey; Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; UNITE HERE; United Child Care, Inc.; United for a Fair Economy; UU College of Social Justice; UURISE--Unitarian Universalist Refugee & Immigrant Services & Education; Voto Latino; We Belong Together; WOLA; Women's Refugee Commission; Working Families; Yemen Peace Project; YWCA. State and Local Organizations (MILU) Mujeres Inmigrantes Luchando Unidas; #VigilantLOVE; 580 Cafe/Wesley Foundation Serving UCLA; Acting in Community Together in Organizing Northern Nevada (ACTIONN); Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.; Alianza; All for All; Alliance San Diego; Allies of Knoxville's Immigrant Neighbors (AKIN); American Gateways; Aquinas Center; Arkansas United Community Coalition; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-- Atlanta; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-LA; Asian Americans United; Asian Counseling and Referral Service; Asian Law Alliance; Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center; Asylee Women Enterprise; Atlas: DIY. Bear Creek United Methodist Church--Congregation Kol Ami Interfaith Partnership; Bethany Immigration Services; Brighton Park Neighborhood Council; Cabrini Immigrant Services of NYC; Campaign for Hoosier Families; Canal Alliance; Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition; CASA; Casa Familiar, Inc.; Casa Latina; Casa San Jose; Catholic Charities; Catholic Charities San Francisco, San Mateo & Marin; Causa Oregon; CDWBA Legal Project, Inc.; Central American Legal Assistance; Central New Jersey Jewish Voice for Peace; Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ; Central Valley Immigrant Integration Collaborative (CVIIC).; Centro Laboral de Graton. Centro Latino Americano; Centro Legal de la Raza; Centro Romero; Chelsea Collaborative; Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America; Church Council of Greater Seattle; Church of Our Saviour/La Iglesia de Nuestro Salvador Episcopal; Church Women United in New York State; Cleveland Jobs with Justice; Coalicion de Lideres Latinos-CLILA; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition of African Communities; Coloradans For Immigrant Rights, a program of the American Friends Service Committee; Colorado People's Alliance (COPA); Columbia Legal Services; Comite Pro Uno; Comite VIDA; Committee for Justice in Palestine--Ithaca; Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc; Community Legal Services and Counseling Center. Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Community of Friends in Action, Inc.; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc; CRLA Foundation; CT Working Families; DC-Maryland Justice for Our Neighbors; Delaware Civil Rights Coalition; Do the Most Good Montgomery County (MD); Dominican Sisters--Grand Rapids (MI); Dream Team Los Angeles DTLA; DRUM--Desis Rising Up & Moving; East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon; El CENTRO de Igualdad y Derechos; El Monte Wesleyan Church; Emerald Isle Immigration Center; Employee Rights Center; Encuentro; End Domestic Abuse WI; English Ministry--Korean Presbyterian Church of St. Louis. Episcopal Refugee & Immigrant Center Alliance; Equal Justice Center; Equality California; Erie Neighborhood House; First Congregational UCC of Portland; First Unitarian Universalist Church of Berks County; Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy; Florida Immigrant Coalition, Inc. (FLIC); Franciscans for Justice; Frida Kahlo Community Organization; Friends of Broward Detainees; Friends of Miami- Dade Detainees; Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights; Gethsemane Lutheran Church; Grassroots Alliance for Immigrant Rights; Greater Lafayette Immigrant Allies; Greater New York Labor Religion Coalition; Greater Rochester COALITION for Immigration Justice; Grupo de Apoyo e Integracion Hispanoamericano; HACES. Hana Center; Harvard Islamic Society; Her Justice; HIAS Pennsylvania; Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama; Hispanic Legal Clinic; Hudson Valley Chapter of JVP; Human Rights Initiative of North Texas; ICE-Free Capital District; Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Immanuel Fellowship: a bilingual congregation; Immigrant Justice Advocacy Movement (IJAM); Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project; Immigration Action Group; Immigration Center for Women and Children; Inland Empire--Immigrant Youth Coalition (IEIYC); Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity; International Institute of Buffalo; Irish International Immigrant Center; IRTF--InterReligious Task Force on Central America and Colombia. Japanese American Citizens League, San Jose Chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--Albany, NY chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace-- Albuquerque; Jewish Voice for Peace--Austin; Jewish Voice for Peace--Bay Area; Jewish Voice for Peace--Cleveland; Jewish Voice for Peace--DC Metro; Jewish Voice for Peace--Denver; Jewish Voice for Peace--Ithaca; Jewish Voice for Peace--Los Angeles; Jewish Voice for Peace--Madison; Jewish Voice for Peace--New Haven; Jewish Voice for Peace--Philadelphia; Jewish Voice for Peace--Pittsburgh; Jewish Voice for Peace-- Portland; Jewish Voice for Peace--San Diego; Jewish Voice for Peace--South Florida; Jewish Voice for Peace--Syracuse, NY; Jewish Voice for Peace--Triangle NC; Jolt. Justice for our Neighbors Houston; Justice for Our Neighbors Southeastern Michigan; Justice For Our Neighbors West Michigan; JVP-HV. Jewish Voice for Peace--Hudson Valley; Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Kids for College; Kino Border Initiative; Kitsap Immigrant Assistance Center; KIWA (Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance); Korean Resource Center; La Casa de Amistad; La Coalicion de Derechos Humanos; La Comunidad, Inc.; La Raza Centro Legal; Lafayette Urban Ministry; Las Vegas Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Latino Racial Justice Circle; Latinx Alliance of Lane County; Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County. Legal Services for Children; Lemkin House inc; Long Island Wins; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition; Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Middle East Crisis Response (MECR); Migrant and Immigrant Community Action Project; Migrant Justice/Justicia Migrante; MinKwon Center for Community Action; Mission Asset Fund; Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance (MIRA); Mosaic Family Services; Movement of Immigrant Leaders in Pennsylvania (MILPA); Mujeres Unidas y Activas; Mundo Maya Foundation; National Lawyers Guild--Los Angeles Chapter; New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice; New Mexico Dream Team; New Mexico Immigrant Law Center; New Mexico Voices for Children. New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia; New York Immigration Coalition; NH Conference United Church of Christ Immigration Working Group; North Carolina Council of Churches; North County Immigration Task Force; North Jersey chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; Northern Illinois Justice for Our Neighbors; Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP); OCCORD; Occupy Bergen County (New Jersey); OneAmerica; OneJustice; Oregon Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice--IMIrJ; Organized Communities Against Deportations; OutFront Minnesota; Pangea Legal Services; PASO--West Suburban Action Project; Pax Christi Florida; Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition, Pilgrim United Church of Christ; Pilipino Workers Center; Polonians Organized to Minister to Our Community, Inc. (POMOC); Portland Central America Solidarity Committee; Progreso: Latino Progress; Progressive Jewish Voice of Central PA; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; Project Hope--Proyecto Esperanza; Project IRENE; Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action(PSARA)n; Racial Justice Action Center; Reformed Church of Highland Park; Refugees Helping Refugees; Refugio del Rio Grande; Resilience Orange County; Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN); Rural and Migrant Ministry; Safe Passage; San Francisco CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates); Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN). Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, Philadelphia/ Delaware Valley Chapter; Sisters of St. Francis, St. Francis Province; Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc; Skagit Immigrant Rights Council; Social Justice Collaborative; South Asian Fund For Education, Scholarship And Training (SAFEST); South Bay Jewish Voice for Peace; South Texas Immigration Council; Southeast Immigrant Rights Network; St John of God Church; Students United for Nonviolence; Tacoma Community House; Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition; Teresa Messer, Law Office of Teresa Messer; Thai Community Development Center; The Garden, Lutheran Ministry; The International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit; The Legal Project; Tompkins County Immigrant Rights Coalition; Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico. Trinity Episcopal Church; U-Lead Athens; Unitarian Universalist Mass Action Network; Unitarian Universalist PA Legislative Advocacy Network (UUPLAN); United African Organization; United Families; University Leadership Initiative; University of San Francisco Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic; UNO Immigration Ministry; UPLIFT; UpValley Family Centers; VietLead; Vital Immigrant Defense Advocacy & Services, Santa Rosa, CA; Volunteers of Legal Service; Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights; Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment; Wayne Action for Racial Equality; WeCount!; WESPAC Foundation; Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX). Women Watch Afrika, Inc.; Worksafe; Young Immigrants in Action; YWCA Alaska; YWCA Alliance; YWCA Berkeley/Oakland; YWCA Brooklyn; YWCA Clark County; YWCA Elgin; YWCA Greater Austin; YWCA Greater Pittsburgh; YWCA Greater Portland; YWCA Madison; YWCA Minneapolis; YWCA Mount Desert Island; YWCA NE KANSAS; YWCA of Metropolitan Detroit; YWCA of the University of Illinois; YWCA Olympia; YWCA Pasadena--Foothill Valley; YWCA Rochester & Monroe County; YWCA Southeastern Massachusetts; YWCA Southern Arizona; YWCA Tulsa; YWCA Warren; YWCA Westmoreland County.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is clear that the laws aren't working. That is why we need comprehensive immigration reform, and that is why it is so unfortunate that the Republicans in this House have stalled on that issue. We had bipartisan support a few years ago for comprehensive immigration reform, but people here, for some reason, would rather just demagogue the issue than do something about it. As I said before, I actually trust my local officials, my local police, more than I do my Republican friends who are speaking here today and who spoke in the Rules Committee last night. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all of us from the National Fraternal Order of Police, which is strongly opposed to this bill; a letter to all of us from The United States Conference of Mayors, which is strongly opposed to all of this; a letter to all of us from the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is strongly opposed to this bill; and a letter to all of us from Cities for Action, which is strongly opposed to this bill. National Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, June 27, 2017. Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, instead of working together to find commonsense solutions to immigration, the Republican leadership offers extreme, deportation-only bills that undermine public safety and hurt our communities. Let them register; let them pay a fine; let them be documented and not fear talking with the police; and let us recognize their many contributions to communities across America. These are our friends, our colleagues, and our neighbors. Our kids go to school together. We shop at the same grocery stores and eat at the same restaurants. We serve together on the PTA and worship together at church. Our country is strongest when we lift up our neighbors. This bill will only drive us apart. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just more of the same old divisive Republican anti-immigrant formula. It will sow fear among the immigrant community, regardless of their status; it will tear families apart; it will subvert public trust of local law enforcement and police; and it will undermine the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, America is better than this. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and to oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to both the Speaker of the House and the minority leader for their presentations before the full House yesterday in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, which has wounded our colleague, Steve Scalise, and two Capitol Police officers, and two staffers. We were all horrified by what happened, but I thought both the Speaker and the minority leader came to the floor and set the right tone, not only for this Congress, but for the Nation. And Speaker Ryan, yesterday, I thought, truly was the Speaker of the entire House of Representatives because when he said that an attack against one of us is an attack against all of us, I think everyone feels that way. I thought it was also important that both Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi reminded us that we are all part of one family. Sometimes we might be a little bit dysfunctional, but the bottom line is we are all part of one family. And like all families, we have our disagreements, we have our points of view, and we fight for what we believe in, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is what is right about this country. But, clearly, our politics in this country have gotten coarse and, in many cases, ugly, and what happened yesterday is something that I think that all of us are deeply shocked by. And so we pray for our colleague, Steve Scalise, we pray for Matt Mika, Zachary Barth, and the two Capitol Police officers, David Bailey and Crystal Griner. We pray for their speedy recovery. I, too, want to echo the sentiments that were stated yesterday by our leadership, both in the Republican and the Democratic Parties, that we honor our Capitol Hill police officers. I mean, they protect us each and every day. They put their lives on the line for us. And if they weren't there, the situation could have been much, much worse, and so I thank God that they were there. As far as the rule goes, the gentleman from Texas knows how I feel about closed rules. I voice my opinion on that often, and I will continue to voice my opinion on that. But I don't think today is the time for me to prolong this debate, and I think we should move on, and that is what I intend to do. Just one final thing, Mr. Speaker, on a personal note. This is the last rule that David Vince will work on here in the Rules Committee. He has been a fixture over the past several years, both in committee meetings and here on the House floor. He has worked on everything from healthcare to national security and on complex legislation impacting the financial industry. When David started working here in 2011, he went by his full name, David M. Cooper-Vince. But since he married his wife, Jessica, he now insists we simply call him David Vince, so we are all still adjusting to the change. But there is good news. While David Vince is leaving the House, he is not going far. He will attend graduate school at Georgetown University here in Washington to study business. We all wish David and his wife, Jessica, well, and we hope to welcome him back to government service again someday. So, David, thank you very much for your incredible service to this House. Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Under Obama, the State Department repeatedly called on Bahrain to release Nabeel and drop the charges against him. It also tied the sale of F-16s to Bahrain to improvements in human rights. In contrast, the new administration has lifted the hold on the F-16 sales and failed to call for Nabeel's release. When President Trump met with the King of Bahrain on May 21, he told him: We are going to have a very, very long-term relationship. I look forward to it very much--many of the same things common. It was Trump's quote. I am not sure what the President had in mind, but let's review what has happened in Bahrain this year. On January 5, the government restored arrest and investigation powers to its national security agency notorious for torturing detainees in 2011. This reverses one of the few security sector reforms outlined in the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry that the government carried out. On January 15, Bahrain carried out its first execution since 2010, killing three men who were allegedly tortured into making false confessions. On February 21, Bahrain's constitution was amended to allow military courts to try civilians. On May 31, the government dissolved the secular opposition political party Wa'ad, and it was the last major opposition party still operating in the country after the al-Wefaq party was dissolved last summer. On June 4, the government ordered al-Wasat, the country's only independent newspaper, to be suspended indefinitely. Mr. Speaker, Bahrain is headed down an increasingly authoritarian path. It is closing off all avenues for peaceful dissent. But the President of the United States does not get it. Could that have to do with the income he earned when the Bahraini Government held its National Day celebration at Trump International Hotel last December? What I know is that appearances matter, and Bahrain is an increasingly volatile dangerous place for our military personnel. We should not enable the Bahraini Government's repression. I call for the immediate and unconditional release of Nabeel Rajab and others jailed for their peaceful political views, and I urge the Trump administration to join me. I thank my colleagues for listening.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Nabeel Rajab, the prominent Bahraini human rights defender who remains in custody in Bahrain after being arrested a year ago. He is currently being detained in a hospital. Nabeel is a leading human rights activist known across the region and beyond for this peaceful views. His work is internationally recognized, and he has won several major human rights awards. Nabeel has been unjustly imprisoned several times since 2011, when he participated in protests against the Government of Bahrain and joined calls for democratic reform. In April 2015, he was arrested following tweets criticizing the Saudi-led coalition airstrikes in Yemen and the treatment of detainees in Bahrain's Juw Prison. He was released after 3 months, but prosecutors ordered his rearrest in June of 2016. He is being held on numerous charges and is on trial in two separate cases for his human rights work. If convicted on all charges, he would face up to 18 years in jail. So what kinds of charges are we talking about? He is accused of insulting national institutions, spreading tendentious rumors, and offending a foreign country. In other words, he is accused of exercising his right to freedom of speech. Last December, a court ordered Nabeel's release on bail, but he was immediately rearrested for making ``false or malicious'' statements in TV interviews where he criticized Bahrain's refusal to allow journalists and human rights groups access to their country. I have experienced that, by the way. In August of 2014, I was denied permission to visit Bahrain with Brian Dooley, who works with Human Rights First. Since his arrest last year, Nabeel has undergone two operations, suffered heart palpitations, required emergency medical care, and developed other medical conditions. After the first operation, he was returned to prison with an open wound and had to be rushed back to the hospital 3 days later to treat the resulting infection. His trials have been postponed more than a dozen times since his arrest last year, most recently yesterday. Nabeel has spent most of the last 10 months in solitary confinement after The New York Times published an op-ed by him last September. In that piece, Nabeel urged the Obama administration to use its leverage to resolve the conflict in Yemen instead of fanning the flames by supplying arms to the Saudi coalition. A second New York Times piece by Nabeel appeared just last month on May 17, where he urged the Trump administration to review its relations with authoritarian regimes like Bahrain. I include in the Record these two articles so this House can see for itself the kinds of opinions that the Bahraini Government considers so dangerous. [From the New York Times, Sept. 4, 2016] Letter From a Bahraini Jail (By Nabeel Rajab) Riffa, Bahrain.--I write this from a Bahraini jail cell where I have been detained, largely in isolation, since the beginning of summer. This is not new to me: I have been here before, from 2012 to 2014, in 2015, and now again, all because of my work as a human rights defender. Nor am I alone: There are some 4,000 political prisoners in Bahrain, which has the highest prison population per capita in the Middle East. This is a country that has subjected its people to imprisonment, torture and even death for daring to desire democracy. My close colleague Abdulhadi al-Khawaja was tortured and sentenced to life in prison in 2011 for his human rights work. No one has been properly held to account for systematic abuses that have affected thousands. In 2015, I was arrested on new charges of ``insulting a statutory body'' and ``spreading rumors during a time of war'' for posts on Twitter. The police held me from April to July last year. I was released only after the king of Bahrain issued a pardon in an earlier case, also related to views I had expressed. Despite the pardon, the 2015 charges and a travel ban remained in place, and I was threatened with further action. The head of the cybercrimes unit at the Criminal Investigation Directorate in Bahrain summoned me and my family to a meeting, where--in front of my children--he warned me that if I didn't stop my advocacy work, I would face up to 15 years in prison. That threat became reality when I was arrested in June. The warrant came from the same cybercrimes unit chief who threatened me last year, and I now face prosecution for my work exposing human rights abuses. The authorities even added a third charge of ``insulting a neighboring country,'' meaning Saudi Arabia. They have also laid a new charge against me of spreading ``false news,'' in relation to interviews I've given to the news media. It's quite the rap sheet. My supposed ``insult'' to Saudi Arabia relates to tweets I posted calling for an end to the war in Yemen, a war escalated by the Saudi-led coalition to which Bahrain belongs and for which the United States provides support, The United States has authorized multibillion-dollar arms sales to the Saudis since the war began last year. From the beginning, I was against the war. The civilian death toll was immediate and catastrophic, and I spoke out against the unfolding humanitarian crisis, calling for peace. Now, I am paying the price. I met Secretary of State John Kerry on his visit to Bahrain earlier this year and was glad to talk with him about our difficult situation. Mr. Kerry criticized the boycott of the 2014 election by opposition parties, although the opposition's demand was simply for a constitutional monarchy in place of Bahrain's autocratic system. Since that election, the leader of the largest opposition group, the Wefaq National Islamic Society, was sentenced to nine years for ``promoting violence,'' and the society was suspended and its assets frozen. I would like to ask Mr. Kerry now: Is this the kind of ally America wants? The kind that punishes its people for thinking, that prevents its citizens from exercising their basic rights? The government has gone after me not only for my comments on Yemen, but also for my domestic activism. One of my charges, ``insulting a statutory body,'' concerns my work shedding light on the torture of hundreds of prisoners in Jaw Prison in March 2015. The State Department has highlighted the same problem, but last year lifted the arms embargo it had placed on Bahrain since the repressions that followed the 2011 Arab Spring protests, citing ``meaningful progress on human rights reforms.'' Really? After I met Mr. Kerry, I was interrogated at the Interior Ministry by the chief of the cybercrimes unit, the one who later ordered my arrest. He wanted to know everything about my conversation with the secretary of state. That official interrogated me again in April after I signed an open letter, with 25 other activists, calling on President Obama to discuss human rights and the plight of activists in the Middle East when he visited Saudi Arabia earlier this year. The Bahraini government tried to pressure me into publicly disavowing the letter. I refused. Recent American statements on Bahrain's human rights problems have been strong, and that is good. But unless the United States is willing to use its leverage, fine words have little effect. America's actions, on the other hand, have emboldened the government to detain me and other rights advocates: Its unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and its lifting of the arms ban on Bahrain have direct consequences for the activists struggling for dignity in these countries. Instead of fanning the flames in Yemen by supplying arms to the Saudi coalition, Mr. Obama's administration should use its leverage to resolve the conflict. Working to secure the release of people who call for peace, and are trying to build democracy in the region, would serve that aim. Update: After this Op-Ed essay was published, Nabeel Rajab was charged with publishing ``false news and statements and malicious rumors that undermine the prestige of the kingdom.'' Nabeel Rajab is the president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and an advisory committee member for Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa Division.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Jack Healy, former President and CEO of the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, who passed away in late April. The City of Worcester was shaped by its manufacturing heritage, and thanks to Jack, manufacturing remains a part of Worcester's future. I had the pleasure of working with Jack for many years and was proud to call him a partner in revitalizing our manufacturing base and creating good paying jobs across Massachusetts. In 1999, after a long and successful career at Presmet Corp., LEGO Systems, Squibb-Beech-Nut Inc. and the Wellesley Group, Jack founded MassMEP to help manufacturers adapt to the evolving economic climate. Under Jack's guidance, many in-state manufacturers successfully pivoted to advanced manufacturing and management practices that helped them not only survive, but also grow. Jack and MassMEP, through initiatives like the award-winning Mobile Outreach Skills Training (M.O.S.T.) Program, helped companies to compete with foreign advanced manufacturers by closing the skills gap, proving training and creating employment opportunities for people with little to no manufacturing experience. Thanks to the tireless work and dedication of Jack and the others at the Partnership, MassMEP has helped to create thousands of new jobs and has been recognized as a leader in manufacturing competitiveness. It's no wonder why Jack is known as the ``voice of manufacturing'' in Massachusetts. Beyond his work with MassMEP, the City of Worcester is indebted to Jack for the key role he played in the ``Manufacturing Our Future'' effort in Central Massachusetts. These annual summits fostered partnerships between industry, academia, and government that have significantly advanced local manufacturing competitiveness. Notably, this partnership is responsible for developing Worcester's Gateway Park, formerly an underused, 11-acre industrial area, into a beautiful bioengineering research complex that is attracting significant private investment and generating hundreds of new jobs. Jack had a razor sharp Irish wit matched with a New York City toughness that barely covered a heart of gold. His epic battles over federal funding for MassMEP are legendary, and showed what a tenacious and relentless advocate Jack was for the organization he led. He was among the most loyal and thoughtful business leaders I encountered, and he counseled and helped countless small manufacturers transition into the new reality of lean, precision manufacturing. He never lost sight of the worker on the shop floor who needed retraining and new job skills to survive and thrive in the age of automation. Jack was a wonderful husband, father, grandfather, and great grandfather. He will be dearly missed by his beloved wife of over 60 years, Hilda, his children John, Robert, Mary, and Joseph, his son-in- law Dr. Mark Watkins, his daughters-in-law Grace, Paula, and Amy, and all of his grandchildren and great grandchildren. Jack was an incredible partner in revitalizing the Massachusetts manufacturing base, and I'm proud to have called him a friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Jack Healy.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Joan Claybrook, on her 80th birthday on June 12th. Joan has dedicated her life to improving the health and safety of all Americans. She served as president of Public Citizen from 1982 until 2009, where she led efforts to make our roads safer, protects our civil rights and liberties, and reform our campaign finance system. During the Carter Administration, she was appointed Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Joan is the recipient of numerous distinguished service awards for her tireless commitment to consumer advocacy. Today, Joan continues to serve on the boards of Public Citizen; Georgetown University Law Center; Citizens for Tax Justice; Public Justice; Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; and Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways. She frequently writes articles published in the nation's major newspapers and has appeared on all major networks and hundreds of local and syndicated radio programs. I've had the privilege of knowing Joan for many years and I can't think of a more dedicated, more passionate public servant. I continue to be amazed by her energy and grit. I have no doubt that the lives of millions of Americans are better, and safer, because of Joan's work. I'm proud to call her a friend and I wish her the happiest of birthdays.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the accomplishments of Dr. Gail Carberry of Quinsigamond Community College in Worcester, Massachusetts, who will be retiring after a decade of tireless service to the QCC family and over 40 years of inspiring students across the Commonwealth. From early on, Dr. Carberry recognized the impact one committed teacher can make in a young person's life. She understands at her core that community colleges present a transformative opportunity for students to be recognized for their talents and encouraged toward their goals. Dr. Carberry is a passionate advocate for expanding access to the opportunities that community colleges can provide. Because of Dr. Carberry's conviction that every student can achieve, QCC implemented a high school dropout prevention program, and Dr. Carberry personally endowed over $200,000 in scholarships for local community college students. She diversified the students, faculty, and staff populations to better reflect the community and implemented award-winning STEM programs to prepare students for the rapidly changing 21st century workplace. In keeping with her desire to equip her students with the skills they need to compete in the modern workforce, Dr. Carberry successfully opened a 72,000-square-foot campus in downtown Worcester dedicated to the college's healthcare program, which not only addressed the needs of QCC students, but reinvigorated a large portion of downtown Worcester. As a result of Dr. Carberry's leadership, QCC has become a leading institution of higher learning in Massachusetts. This year, QCC graduated almost double the number of students it did only 10 years ago. Dr. Carberry has exceeded fundraising goals and has increased enrollment by nearly 40 percent. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the city of Worcester, on behalf of the people of Massachusetts, and most importantly of all, on behalf of the students she has helped to achieve their dreams, I want to say thank you to Dr. Gail Carberry. We all owe her a heartfelt debt of gratitude and wish her great satisfaction in her endeavors to come.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 45th anniversary of the University of Massachusetts Amherst University Without Walls, one of the oldest and most highly regarded adult bachelor's degree completion programs in the Nation. Founded in 1971, UWW provides nontraditional students with access to the resources of our best universities. It has developed into a national leader in adult education, having graduated nearly 4,300 students, including basketball legend, Julius Erving. One of the first programs in the Nation to offer an innovative blend of online and classroom learning, UWW provides an excellent education to students, including many veterans who are unable to complete a traditional college degree due to financial constraints, family obligations, or personal hardship. The key to success is the incredible team of UMass Amherst faculty and staff who have dedicated their lives to teaching and supporting adult students as they balance family, community, and academic responsibilities. I wish to personally thank all of the faculty, staff, and UWW students for their dedication to excellence.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I regret to say the Republicans are again bending over backwards to help corporations and the wealthiest among us while ignoring science and leaving hardworking American families to suffer the consequences. This administration's decisions have placed special interests and their financial contributions ahead of the health and the safety of our citizens, and this Republican-led House has been complicit. Earlier this year, a toxic chemical manufacturer convinced the Trump administration to discard decades of scientific research just so they could continue to profit off of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that has been proven to be harmful to human beings, especially infants and children. The pesticide was well on its way to being banned by the EPA, which said, in 2015, that it could not be declared safe for human health and for the environment; but the pesticide manufacturer wrote a check for $1 million to President Trump's inaugural committee, and just weeks later, the proposed ban on the pesticide was magically reversed. It is amazing how that worked out. What I am wondering is: Did President Trump and the Republicans in Congress think we wouldn't notice? Did they think the American people would be okay with them knowingly allowing a dangerous pesticide to be used on farms and affect our food supply? Republicans should be ashamed of this blatant disregard for the health of the families they were elected to represent. In 2000, the EPA banned most home uses of the chemical, citing risks to children, yet it continues to be used in agriculture production across this country. Does this really sound like something that should be used on the food we feed our kids? On the campaign trail into the White House, President Trump has made clear that he will always side with deep-pocketed polluters and corporations over the health and safety of families. In January 2017, Dow Chemical was reported to have contributed $1 million to President Trump's inaugural committee. The CEO of Dow Chemical was a frequent guest of President-elect Trump, including at an appearance at a postelection rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In March 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an order reversing the ban on the pesticide. Also in March 2017, Scott Pruitt signed an order reversing the ban on this pesticide suggesting, in a statement, that ``by reversing the previous administration's step to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science and decisionmaking rather than predetermined results.'' Public health advocacy groups strongly disagreed, not to mention conservation organizations. Mr. Speaker, you know what? I think I trust public health experts when it comes to protecting our families over Administrator Pruitt, who sued the EPA at least 14 times as Oklahoma's attorney general opposing important protections for our air and our water. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. Mr. Speaker, we were not sent here to auction off the health and safety of millions of Americans to the highest bidder. Every day the Trump administration gets more brazen with their giveaways to special interests, raising serious questions about corruption and conflicts of interest. Donald Trump promised to drain the swamp. He has created a cesspool. We are talking about people's lives here, Mr. Speaker. This pesticide has been shown to harm women, children, and families. It has no place on our farms or in our food system. Our health should not be for sale. It isn't hard to connect the dots here. The EPA abruptly reversed its efforts to ban a toxic chemical just weeks after the chemical's manufacturer made a political contribution to the newly elected President. And we know their decision wasn't based on science. The former head of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention suggested that the Trump EPA is ``ignoring the science that is pretty solid'' and putting farmworkers and exposed children at unnecessary risk. Now, I can see how people might start to wonder whether this administration is on the side of special interests or the American people. This amendment fights back against the corrupting influence of political contributions from pesticide companies. It would ensure that existing science-based protections for our families and our environment cannot be overturned by a well-timed contribution to President Trump or to those in his administration charged with implementing the law. The American people deserve to know that their leaders will stand up to protect their health and their safety rather than protecting the bottom line of wealthy special interests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and adopt this amendment and show the American people that our government is not for sale. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Trump released the most reckless and heartless budget I have ever seen in my life. It slashes virtually every worthwhile program: programs that help the middle class, seniors, and veterans. But what I find particularly offensive and troubling is that his budget is a radical assault on people living in poverty or right on the edge. It guts Medicaid, housing assistance, and Social Security disability insurance benefits. The Trump budget also decimates the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger. It cuts the program by $193 billion over 10 years. That is a 25 percent reduction. President Trump makes these ruthless cuts by cutting eligibility and reducing benefits. He also adds a new requirement that States pay 25 percent of the cost of the benefits. It may be a nice sound bite to suggest that States should share the cost of providing SNAP benefits to their residents, but the reality is that State budgets are already stretched incredibly thin, and communities are already suffering from a decrease in Federal investment in States. The Trump budget compounds this problem by eliminating dozens of programs that families in States across the country rely on. This will only exacerbate the stress on State budgets to deliver basic services to their residents. If that isn't bad enough, President Trump would allow States to cut benefit levels to manage the costs they would incur under this cruel budget. This means that families living in certain States would see their already too-modest benefits drop through no fault of their own. At the same time, President Trump is proposing new fees on retail stores applying to accept SNAP benefits. We know access to food is a huge concern, especially in rural areas and in cities, and such a wrongheaded approach will further limit the ability of families on SNAP to shop for nutritious food. In addition, President Trump's budget makes it even more difficult for able-bodied adults without dependents to receive modest food benefits. Current law allows States to waive the time limits imposed on these vulnerable adults, which include veterans, by the way, but President Trump wants to severely limit the ability of States to request these waivers. Estimates suggest that in any given month, this proposal would restrict access to SNAP for up to 1 million Americans struggling to find work. Mr. Speaker, kicking people off of SNAP doesn't help them find a job. It only makes them hungrier, weaker, and even less likely to qualify for work. It is simply a rotten thing to do. Now, quite frankly, I was a little surprised by the magnitude of these cuts given the fact that President Trump's Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, testified before the House Committee on Agriculture last week in strong defense of SNAP. He said: `` . . . we have no proposed changes. You don't try to fix things that aren't broken.'' How are we to trust this administration's promises on anything when they tell us one thing on Wednesday and release a budget that does the exact opposite not even a week later? During the past 2 years, the House Committee on Agriculture has held 21 hearings on SNAP. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, I have participated in each one of them. What we have learned from our witnesses, both Democrats and Republicans, is that SNAP works. It is one of the most effective and efficient programs run by the Federal Government. It expands in times of economic hardship and contracts as our economy recovers. With a modest food assistance benefit of about $1.40 per person per meal, SNAP alleviates hunger and reduces poverty. It supplements the food budgets of families and helps them make ends meet. Innovations in the program have helped to spur the consumption of healthier food. I would like to remind my colleagues that two-thirds of the people on SNAP are children, seniors, or disabled. The majority of people on the program who are able to work do work. If you want to talk about reforming the program and how do we look to the future, we need to focus on how to make the program even better. We need to make sure that anyone who needs this benefit has access to it. We need to support and expand innovative programs that help increase the purchasing power of SNAP. We need to increase SNAP benefits so that families that are helped by the program can actually access more nutritious food that lasts through the month. Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump is used to dining with billionaires at Mar- a-Lago and Trump Tower, so I am not at all shocked by his lack of knowledge about our antihunger safety net or by his lack of interest in helping the most vulnerable in our society. It is clear from his budget that he does not have a clue. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this reckless and heartless proposal that will devastate so many families that we represent. We must, instead, support efforts to strengthen SNAP and end hunger now. We are supposed to end hunger now, not make it worse.