On the recordJuly 19, 2018
I thank the gentleman for his observation. I would simply be constrained to say, I listened to Mr. Frelinghuysen. I listened to his opposition to the MTR. The pretense that the amendment that was offered is somehow a procedural or nonconsequential amendment is incorrect. Mr. Frelinghuysen didn't even try to make the argument. He said it was a good bill; we ought to pass it. Fine. The amendment would have not undermined the bill in any way. Now, there is a provision in that bill, as the gentleman knows, to, in effect, undermine the agreement that was made last year, with respect to the funding levels, by putting $500 million into a grandchild's or a children's fund by the chairman of the subcommittee. It is a little bit like your rescissions. The gentleman who put that in voted for a $2 trillion deficit- creating document and put $500 million in a trust fund to bring down that deficit. I know my friend is happy that that will, at that rate, take 4,000 years to fill that $2 trillion hole. So I disagree with my friend that the amendment would have had any adverse effect on the bill that was passed. Now, I voted against the bill, but the bill passed the House of Representatives. Nothing would have adversely affected that bill. I appreciate what the gentleman said about last year's action, which I supported, which I thought was correct, and which I appreciated the Congress taking. Next, Mr. Speaker, we had a vote on ICE.…





