[Pages H7191-H7204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 700 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 700

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of September 5, 2014, providing for
consideration or disposition of measures relating to the
ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. southern border,
border security, and related immigration law.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of September 5, 2014, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to measures addressing
the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. southern border,
border security, and related immigration law.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met to report a
rule that would provide for same-day authority for any resolution
reported from the Committee on Rules related to the ongoing
humanitarian crisis on the southern border, border security, and
related immigration law through September 5, 2014. Additionally, the

[[Page H7192]]

rule provides suspension authority through September 5, 2014, on the
same topics.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is very straightforward. It allows the House
the maximum flexibility to deal with the crisis on the southern border
during the district work period by providing both same-day and
suspension authority through September 5.
Any legislation considered during this time period would still need
to go through the regular process, by either a rule for consideration
by the Rules Committee or under the standard suspension process. This
resolution just allows for expedited consideration of those matters
while preserving as much of the district work period as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule.
The martial law authority created under this rule would last through
September 5. In other words, the House Republicans can call us back on
a whim, just to consider any kind of bill they call a border or
immigration bill. So much for their 3-day rule. I wonder how much
notice they have to give Speaker Cruz before they call us back?
Let's just take a moment to remember how we got here.
The Republican leadership put together a partisan, inadequate, and
unacceptable emergency supplemental bill that allegedly dealt with the
humanitarian crisis at the southern border. That bill was mean-spirited
and cruel, but it wasn't mean-spirited and cruel enough to satisfy the
far-right wing of the Republican Conference. So the leadership tried to
add another mean-spirited, cruel bill to block any further help for
young immigrants under the DACA program, a program that has helped
thousands of young people who have grown up in America come out of the
shadows so they can go to school or hold a job without fear of being
deported. But that wasn't mean-spirited and cruel enough for their
base, so they pulled the whole package from the floor yesterday.
So last night, we had yet another meeting in the Rules Committee, and
that is when they came up with this rule, but not a solution. That is
right, Mr. Speaker. They still don't know what they are going to do.
But I have an idea. They are going to make their cruel, mean-spirited
immigration bill even worse, and that may not be enough to placate the
far right who simply don't like immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. The far-right wing of the Republican
base will never, ever be satisfied. And the martial-law authority
created under this rule would last through September 5, so if the
Republicans can somehow come up with even more mean-spirited bills, if
they can figure out a way to act even more cruelly, they can bring us
back again and again and again to vote.
Now, in case any Americans are still watching, they could be forgiven
for being a little confused about what happened this week. On
Wednesday, House Republicans voted to waste millions of taxpayer
dollars to sue the President for what they claim is excessive executive
action. But on Thursday, this is what Speaker Boehner said about the
border crisis:

There are numerous steps the President can and should be
taking right now, without the need for congressional action,
to secure our borders.

So which is it, Mr. Speaker? Is President Obama doing too much or not
enough? I have got whiplash. It would be easier to take the Republicans
seriously if they would just settle on one set of partisan talking
points.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the crisis at our
border.

There are nearly 50 million refugees around the world, 50 million
people fleeing violence, brutality, oppression, famine, disease--50
million. But when 50,000 minors, one-tenth of 1 percent of the total
number, arrive at our border, my Republican friends have a collective
hissy fit.
Is this really the face of America that we want the rest of the world
to see? The United States of America, a nation of immigrants, do we
really want the rest of the world to see us like this, petty and mean
and small? I hope not.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, my friend and I are going to have a
disagreement about the nature of the bill that I think will, in rather
short order, be before us. Let's go back and look at a little bit of
history here.
The administration was warned in 2012 and 2013 that we were going to
have a crisis on our hands if we didn't do something, that we were
going to get a flow of unaccompanied minors. They did absolutely
nothing. As a matter of fact, the President of the United States
submitted a budget to us which cut money for enforcement and detention
at the border, which cut money for support of people that were here
while they were being processed, and that cut money for aid to the
countries where most of these folks are coming from. That is real
foresight.
So we have been confronted with a crisis, and a crisis that, in our
view, the President contributed to by unilaterally changing whole
sections of the immigration law and leaving the impression, probably
unwittingly, I would say, but leaving the impression to many people
that, if we get to the United States, we are going to be able to stay.
There is no question criminal elements have picked that impression
up, broadcast it. Thousands of people have sent them tens of
thousands--millions, really--of dollars and put children on a perilous
journey of over 1,000 miles to this country.
Now we are trying to act on that, and we think, number one, if we
don't do that, the societies from which they are coming are going to be
disrupted. And we have been told very clearly by the leaders of those
countries: We would like our children back.
Number two, if we don't stop this process, we are going to continue
to enrich cartels to an extraordinary degree. Frankly, as one border
agent told me, he said, from a cartel standpoint, this is actually
easier than drugs, because with drugs we try to interdict you every
step along the way, and if you get to the border to cross, we continue
to try and interdict you. In this case, we actually, once they bring an
illegal unaccompanied minor here, complete the transaction. So it is
encouraging the flow, and that is dangerous for the young people
involved.
We all know that in the course of that journey there is a risk that
sex trafficking will take place. There is a risk that people will be
lured or forced into drug dealing. There is a terrific physical risk.
We know a lot of those folks are abused in the course of this process
or sexually assaulted, so we need to stop this flow. We need to do it
in a humane and appropriate way.
The President, by the way, has suggested that this is due to the 2008
law which we all passed, in good faith, to deal with sex trafficking. I
personally don't think that is the case, but if that is true, then we
ought to make some tweak to that law. We don't need to repeal it, but
we need to make sure that we do something so that we don't have an
enormous backlog here and we can actually handle the flow
appropriately.
We have waited in vain for the President to tell us what that tweak
is. I mean, it was his Secretary of Homeland Security that actually
raised this issue and said we need to be able--he said this in
testimony in front of the United States Senate--we need to be able to
treat people coming from the three Central American countries
essentially the same way we treat Canadian and Mexican minors that
arrive at our border. That was the position, but we have not seen any
more requests.
So if you look at our bill, frankly, number one, it is going to take
care of that problem with a tweak. Number 2, we are going to provide
additional moneys to handle this process through the end of the fiscal
year and the end of the calendar year. Number 3, then we can work,
because there will probably be additional resources needed next year,
under the caps in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement and redirect that
flow of money from less urgent to more urgent problems.
So we think it is a responsible way to proceed. I think, essentially,
that is

[[Page H7193]]

what we are going to try and put before the House. Regardless, once we
pass something, then the Senate can pass something.
I am sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that the other body was unable to do
anything yesterday and it has adjourned and gone home. Frankly, we were
unable to get things done yesterday in a way that I think I certainly
would have liked, but we stayed here, and we are going to continue to
work through the problem, present a product. Hopefully, the Senate will
come back and do the same, and then we can proceed legislatively and
provide the resources and legislative corrections that are needed to
deal with the situation.
I am pleased that we are in session. I am pleased that we are working
toward a solution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1015

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in today's paper, there is an op-ed. It is written by
the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the new majority leader.
And in that op-ed he said: ``I have always believed that you must win
the argument before you can win the vote. In Congress, committees act
as idea factories for policies from both sides, and as majority leader,
I will commit to the committee process and regular order.''
Apparently, he didn't start yesterday doing that. And we don't start
today doing that. This legislation has not been considered by
committee, subcommittee, and none of us have seen it at this point in
time.
I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma say that the legislation is going
to do this, that, and the other.
We haven't seen it. It is 10:15. We haven't seen it. No regular
order. No exercising of responsibility. We saw irresponsibility rampant
yesterday in the House of Representatives. We saw a few months ago,
shutting down government if you don't do it my way.
I will tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, none of the leaders of
the Republican Party have reached across to say, how can we do this in
a bipartisan way. And so, because of their unwillingness to do that,
Mr. Speaker, the Senate is gone. What we do today will be useless, a
show, a form without substance, a pretense, a political message to
their base of how hard they can be because they are moving in exactly
the opposite direction of trying to create bipartisanship.
So I urge my colleagues, stand up for doing the right thing and
giving the resources necessary to meet the challenge that America has
and America ought to be meeting today and yesterday and the day before.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to disagree with my good friend, the minority whip, on a
point.
I don't think the Senate left yesterday because of anything the House
did. It failed to act, and it left. It went home because it couldn't
pass a bill. That is something we are not going to allow to happen
here. We are going to pass legislation. We are going to get our part of
the job done.
The Senate, then, will be free to come back and pass something, and
we can go into a conference and do exactly what my friend suggests,
work out a compromise. So hopefully that is where we will end up in
this process.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, there are two real crises before us, and the
Republican response was the misbegotten legislation, withdrawn
yesterday, as it should have been, but the other wasn't even on the
table in any form.
There were 236 new fires started in the Western United States last
night. There are 31 large fires that are uncontained. And the Forest
Service and the BLM are running out of money. In the Senate bill--
which, granted, it didn't pass--but in the President's proposal was
emergency firefighting money. But somehow, the Republicans here don't
think those fires are an emergency and they don't care about the loss
of resources, the potential loss of life, and the loss of property that
is going to result.
When those agencies run out of money, they can't stop fighting the
fires, but they have will have to cut back on programs of preparedness
and things that would mitigate the disaster of future fires, deal with
forest health, fuel reduction, and all those things. But they couldn't
care less. They are taking no action. They didn't even put forward a
lame proposal on that, unlike their very lame proposal on the border.
Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman may be surprised to find that, actually, we are not too
far apart on the issue.
Now, currently, we have over $700 million still on hand to deal with
wildfires. The gentleman and I actually cosponsored legislation that
our friend from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) has offered so that we can actually
deal with this and change the structure of how we fund wildfire
fighting. I suspect that issue will come back again. As a matter of
fact, I was willing to work during the budget process with some of my
friends on the other side of the Rules Committee to actually write the
change into the budget. We had the votes on our side, working with our
friends, to do that. For some reason, the Democratic amendment was
withdrawn. I don't know why, and I cast no aspersions. But that is an
area where we would like to work with you. I don't think it is
particularly appropriate to be done in this bill.
This bill is about dealing with the crisis on the southern border. It
shouldn't be a Christmas tree or a grab bag. If we need additional
resources, we should come back to do that. Again, we have sufficient
resources on hand. Congress will be back in session in September, back
in session after the elections. So I think we are going to have
multiple opportunities to deal with this.
I look forward to working with my friends on this particular issue
when those opportunities occur.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we would like to work on that. As I said, no
option has been given to us for that. Secondly, you are not following
regular order on the legislation. What is needed now are resources. And
the reason the Senate didn't act is because no Member of your party
would support action.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Garcia).
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I am a fortunate man. I am a fortunate man
because half a century ago, my father, at 17 years old, arrived at this
country with my mother. And this country gave them refuge. Later, the
rest of our family came. This country has been tremendously generous,
as we were brutalized by a leftwing dictatorship, the Castro
dictatorship.

And to think, Mr. Speaker, that a fellow Cuban American sits in the
other House, dictating to this House that we should strip away rights,
strip away rights from children, is unacceptable. It is un-American.
I am a fortunate man. And we are a rich and plentiful country, a
country of laws.
We have an opportunity to do the right thing, to pass the bipartisan,
comprehensive bill that the other House passed. It has now been 1 year
and 1 month since that happened. The time has come. Let us pass
comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to disagree with my friend on the root of this issue. I don't
think whether or not we passed immigration reform has anything to do
with the border crisis. I really don't. Frankly, what is occurring
there would be illegal had we passed what the Senate passed. So it just
simply doesn't address the problem.
What the problem here is, by our own actions in this country, we have
sent a message that if you get here, you can stay, whether you are
legally entitled to or not. And it is going to take so long to process
you, you will essentially never be sent back.

[[Page H7194]]

And we have allowed criminal cartels to distort our position and to
make tens of millions of dollars off of this. That needs to be stopped.
That needs to be reversed. It is not helpful to anybody.
Now, again, we may differ on the ideas. Although, I would point out
for the record once more, the administration did ask: Please do
something about the 2008 law. They asked that a month ago. And then
they have sort of gotten quiet since then. We don't hear anything else
about that.
They have asked for resources. We have looked at what they need. We
said we will be willing to do that. We are going to take them from
existing moneys. We are not going to spend new money. This is an urgent
priority. We think you are right. We are going to redirect that. And by
the way, if you are going to need additional resources next year, we
will work with you again there. We are going to do it under the Ryan-
Murray budget cap. We are not going to go outside the process. And we
are using that.
I think my friend from Maryland, the minority whip, is correct. We
are using exceptional procedures--but they are procedures within the
traditions of this House--to react to a crisis situation, and we are
trying to stay here to get our work done and hopefully challenge the
Senate to come back and do the same thing. So we are working the
process and the crisis as best we can. With that, we will continue to
work.
And I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I spoke on the connection
between comprehensive immigration reform and the crisis that we have at
our border. And I said then--and I will say it again--that it is the
height of hypocrisy to be talking about trying to do something about
our border security when we can't even bring comprehensive immigration
reform to this floor that would have provided the funding for increased
border security. You can't have it both ways.
But the Republican leadership said earlier this week and yesterday
that, in fact, maybe the President should use his executive authority
to deal with the issue at the border. But on Tuesday, they provided
funding--some $2 million--to sue the President for excessive use of
executive authority. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. But it
seems like some of our colleagues want to do that.
And then finally, a colleague from the Valley just said this morning:
The problem we have is that some of our people just don't want to
govern. That is correct. They don't. Once again, we are seeing politics
trump good public policy for the people of our country.
What we ought to be doing is returning back to regular order. What we
ought to be doing is putting together a bipartisan effort to solve our
border problems and to bring about comprehensive immigration reform for
all the people of this country. That is what we ought to be doing.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Caardenas).
Mr. CAARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I am here as a Member of this body who
was sent here to work--quite frankly, which is the main reason why most
immigrants come to this country--to work, to contribute to our economy,
and to do the jobs that most of us are unwilling to do.
But the point that I want to make at this moment is that what the
Republican proposal tried to do yesterday--and it failed--and what they
are trying to do today is to strip away the rights of a child to live.
The Republicans want to indiscriminately return children to their
death.
And I challenge any American to look into yourself and realize and
find out that many of these children will be returned with or without a
change of the law today. They will be returned. But the ones that
deserve to live should be able to stay. And the law was passed
unanimously in 2008 to give that opportunity to those children, to
these children, the children that are breathing today, the children who
came to the most giving, loving, caring land ever created on Earth. And
that is now about to change if they are successful.
Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.
I think we need to step back from the emotion a moment and look at
the realities of the situation. Number one, anybody that seeks refugee
status in the United States can go to any of the embassies in the
country and request it. You don't have to travel 1,000 miles. You can
go request it, and we will look to see whether or not you qualify.
Number two, the President of the United States has said that the vast
majority of these children will be returned. That is not us. That is
the President. He has said that. We are trying to do it and work with
him in an expeditious way because we think sooner is better.
Number three, we are not returning them to criminals. We are
returning them to the custody of their governments, their own
officials, who are probably better situated to make these decisions
than we are 1,000-plus miles away.
So let's be real. Nobody is stripping any rights away from anyone. We
actually have a situation--a 2008 law--where a loophole has been
exploited by criminals. That is what is happening. And we are trying to
stop the loophole and keep people from embarking on a dangerous journey
and discourage people from giving thousands of dollars of their hard-
earned money to criminal cartels to participate in that. That is the
effort that is underway here.
Nobody would have fewer rights than the people that are currently
here from Mexico or Canada. We would still have the ability to
adjudicate issues. The process would be a lot faster and, we think in
that sense, more humane and more efficient and more expeditious.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1030

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues on this side of the
aisle don't have the intuitive gift to know that every child or the
majority of every child that is there doesn't have a right to refuge
and doesn't have a right to asylum.
That is why we have been so tenacious about protecting a law that
provides due process, adjudication, and representation for these
children, so that they have a fair opportunity to get refuge and to get
asylum as the law prescribes.
The previous bill that failed dismantled that. Ted Cruz did not give
it his seal of the approval, so it didn't get out of the Republican
Caucus. Now, before us, we have a rule that is fraudulent, we have a
forthcoming law that will be fraudulent, and it will be worse than the
previous one.
Now, we are going to codify getting rid of DREAMers and DACA into
this law. What is the purpose? To turn out a base? Is this a political
strategy? Is this a political expediency on the shoulders of children,
on the shoulders of the American values, and on the shoulders of our
history?
How shameful, how cynical--vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to make the point to my friend.
Nobody is trying to strip away the rights from anyone. The 2008 law has
been abused. Those people have found a loophole in it, and they have
clogged the legal system. We have offered not a repeal, but a
relatively minor fix.
The President of the United States and his administration have also
said this law is at fault. As a matter of fact, they are actually the
ones who put that suggestion out there. The President of the United
States is the person who said the vast majority of these people need to
go home and will eventually go home. So if he has a better way to do
this, we would love to see the proposal.
What he sent us was a funding proposal with no fix at all. It is a
proposal aimed at better managing the flow of people, but not reversing
that. It is a proposal, frankly, that goes well beyond this fiscal
year, well beyond this calendar year, and allows him basically to
operate outside the budget agreement limits--the caps--that we have all
agreed to. We don't think that is appropriate. We think you
reprioritize money toward the more urgent issue.

[[Page H7195]]

We agree with the President. This is an urgent issue. We are willing
to find the savings in other parts of the budget. We are not willing to
break the budget, and we are not willing to break the budget caps that
both sides agreed to. That is really, I think, the essence of the
difference. We are trying to offer a solution. It may not be the final
solution.
I hope the Senate will offer their solution. We can go to conference,
and we can work with the President, but so far, the only ideas that
have been put forward to actually fix the problem, I think, have
largely come from our side of the aisle.
I am sure that won't last indefinitely. I think my friends will do
the same thing, but certainly, they dominate the Senate. The Senate can
do the same thing. Sooner or later, they will get it done.
We will continue to work on this, but for right now, again, nobody's
aim is to strip anybody's rights away, but we are going to try to
confront an urgent crisis, and we are going to try and do it in an
expeditious way, in a responsible way, and in a limited way.
We can come back here and look at the larger issues in September and
after the election. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. McGOVERN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. The gentleman said
that they have offered a solution. Is H.R. 15 contained in this rule or
is any legislation to deal with our border contained in this rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the resolution.
That is a matter for debate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Can the Chair at least inform us whether or not there
is anything of substance in this rule other than a martial law rule
that allows them to call us back at any point from now until September
5?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As stated, the Chair will not interpret the
pending resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a sign: ``Not our kids, not our problems,''
held angrily by a mob, shaken with ``go home,'' to a group of little
children who have made a perilous journey to this country. That really
epitomizes what the Republican approach to this problem is.
They care about these children so much that their proposal is to tell
them to get out of here just as quick as they can, before they can
present their claims that they were trafficked, or that they suffer a
return to violence, murder, and rape at home.
The second thing they do, instead of unclogging our broken
immigration system, is to say we need more semiautomatic weapons and
military uniforms on our borders to greet these little children.
Finally, they say to another group of students, those who have told
us ``I have a dream,'' our DREAMers, that they want to turn that dream
into a nightmare and send them away also.
I think that is the wrong approach. It is time for them to get off
Cruz Control and join us for comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I couldn't disagree with my good friend from Texas more.
I think everybody on both sides of the aisle cares about these
children. Now, we care about them enough to restore the cuts that the
President made in the aids to the country of origin.
We care about them enough to restore the cuts that he made in his
budget to our own border security. Yes, our border security does need
to be armed, not to deal with children, but to deal with the criminals
that brought them here and abused them in the process. That is what we
are talking about here.
Now, there is nothing to be gained by continuing this flow. Even if
some of you would like every particular person that got here to stay--
and, again, I quote the President, the ``vast majority'' will not be
allowed to, will be sent back--stopping the flow is what we ought to be
focusing on and stopping people from giving thousands of dollars to
criminal cartels to bring these children to the borders and abuse them
in the process. The quicker that stops, the better off we are.
We are willing to work with the countries of origin, I think, on both
sides of the aisle. We had the President up here saying, pretty
emphatically, that they needed some assistance in dealing with that. We
think that is appropriate. We try to do that in legislation, and
frankly, we have done it in the foreign operations bill, where we are
more generous to the countries of origin than the administration has
suggested we should be in its own budget.
Mr. Speaker, we are interested in dealing with the problem, but we
are also interested in helping countries keep their children in their
country, which they tell us they want to do.
We are also interested in making sure those children are never
subjected to this journey, which I think all would agree is difficult
and dangerous, and we are also extraordinarily interested in making
sure that the criminal cartels who are making profit off this are
discouraged from doing this, that they can't go and tell their
potential customers: Give us the money and put your kid at risk, but if
we actually get them there, there is a good chance they will stay.
That false promise, that dangerous promise offered by criminals
victimizing innocent people is frankly what we ought to be focused on
and what we are trying to focus on.
Again, we will continue to work toward that end. I hope, Mr. Speaker,
that we have a good product. I think that we will. The House will
consider it, and then we hope the Senate actually comes back from its
district work period and deals with it as well, and we will go from
there.
That is the reason for the rule. That is the reason, so we can act
during this multiweek district work period, should the opportunity
actually occur to do that.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus, I rise again in opposition to this rule and against the martial
law bill which has not been given to us to read, and I believe that
that is the wrong thing to do to solve this problem.
Instead of working with Democrats to come up with a viable and
bipartisan solution to deal with the vulnerable Central American
children who are fleeing from violence and death, my Republican
colleagues are apparently drafting a bill that is even worse than the
one they proposed yesterday, on Thursday.
This new bill presumably continues the failed policy of enforcement
only and will send thousands of these children back to certain death.
If the funding levels remain the same as yesterday, the bill will not
provide adequate funding to care for them while they are here.
We should instead be spending our time debating and voting on the
bipartisan Senate comprehensive immigration bill that the Speaker has
refused to bring up for over a year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the martial
law.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for the
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
that request?
Mr. COLE. No, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield. Therefore, the
request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear to the House that if we
defeat the previous question, I will offer

[[Page H7196]]

an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 15, our immigration reform
bill.
At this point, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, which we have been promised consideration on for so long, to
address this crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma would need to
yield for the purpose of that request.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to yield to the unanimous
consent request so we can deal with this immigration problem in a
comprehensive manner.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield?
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield, and I do want to reiterate
my previous announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of
debate only. I am not yielding for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent and would ask my
friend to allow the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill,
H.R. 15, to be considered. It is a bill that I proudly cosponsor, and
it would more than adequately address this humanitarian crisis at the
border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New
Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15,
a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, to the floor. It
was passed by the Senate over 1 year ago.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair understands that the
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring
up H.R. 15, a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill to
properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair understands that the
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15,
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address
the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair understands that the
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair understands that the
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
bring up H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill
to properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Nolan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15
today, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform measure to deal
with the immigration problems we have and to properly address the
humanitarian crisis at the border that is taking place today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Again, the Chair understands that the
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Honda) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I, as chair emeritus of the Congressional
Asian Pacific American Caucus, ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded
for that purpose.
As the Chair advised on January 15, 2014, and March 26, 2014, even
though a unanimous consent request to consider a measure is not
entertained, embellishments accompanying such requests constitute
debate and may become an imposition on the time of the Member who
yielded for that purpose.

{time} 1045

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up
H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to
properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
O'Rourke) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly
address these humanitarian issues.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Ms. Gabbard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to bring real
solutions to the problems at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Garcia) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15,
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address
the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Caardenas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CAARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.

[[Page H7197]]

Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15,
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address
the humanitarian crisis at our border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota
(Ms. McCollum) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly
address the humanitarian crisis at our border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Ben Ray Lujaan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to bring up H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration
reform bill to properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Beatty) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly
address the humanitarian crises at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15,
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address
the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Farr) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15,
which is a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill first
brought to us by President Bush, a bill to properly address the
humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose. The gentleman from
Massachusetts will be charged for the time accordingly.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Serrano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Brownley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
bring up H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill
to properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up
H.R. 15 to the floor, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform
bill to properly address the humanitarian crisis at our border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Al Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring
up H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to
properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Takano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15,
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address
the humanitarian crisis at the border to the floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada
(Ms. Titus) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15,
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address
the humanitarian crisis at the border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Huffman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to simply allow a
vote on H.R. 15, a bill that has the bipartisan votes to pass today
that we can have on the President's desk today to properly address this
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the gentleman from Oklahoma has
not yielded for that purpose. Time will be deducted from the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 16\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 13 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text
of the amendment that I will offer in the Record, along with extraneous
material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, looking at the underlying bill, I have to
wonder what my colleagues are afraid of. Are they afraid of these kids,
children who are fleeing brutal violence in their home countries to
come to our country to seek asylum? Are we so afraid of them that we
would shortcut due process and send them right back into this violence?
Mr. Speaker, are they afraid of the border, that they would send the
National Guard when we are already spending $18 billion a year; more
than on all Federal law enforcement combined; at a time when El Paso,
Texas, the largest Texas city on the Mexican border, is also the safest
city in this country; at a time when we are 70 percent lower in
apprehensions at our southern border; and at a time when these
apprehensions of children have fallen by almost 60 percent?
Mr. Speaker, I ask us not to be motivated by fear or anxiety, but
instead the best traditions of this country: courage, compassion, and
strength to do the right thing.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking

[[Page H7198]]

member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border
Security.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the antislavery law
has some loophole that is being exploited. That is not the truth. It is
not what the Evangelical Immigration Table says. Here is what they
write:

By making the legal process clearer and more efficient for
children, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found that
the law is working. It should not be changed to address the
current temporary situation. The law allows for responses to
exceptional circumstances.

That is not some open borders crowd. That is the National Association
of Evangelicals. That is the Southern Baptists. That is the Council for
Christian Colleges and Universities.
I would note, also, that over a year ago we saw the Senate come
together to pass bipartisan immigration reform. Republicans in this
House have blocked a vote. We should vote on it today and get it to the
President.

Evangelical Immigration Table,

July 22, 2014.
Dear Member of Congress, In a matter of months, more than
50,000 unaccompanied children have arrived in the United
States. Millions of Americans have been moved by the plight
of these children who are currently awaiting processing, with
many asking how they can help.
Children are vulnerable even in the best of circumstances
and warrant special protection beyond that offered to adults.
This vulnerability is compounded among children who flee
situations of criminal gangs, sexual violence, trauma and
extreme poverty, without their parents to accompany them.
Evangelicals are guided by Jesus' admonitions to welcome
and protect children (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:37, Luke 18:15-
17). As our nation responds to this humanitarian crisis, we
are thankful for laws that protect children and provide for
their needs. While our systems are currently stretched, our
laws uphold basic child protection principles.
Accordingly, we are concerned about potential weakening of
protections afforded by the William Wilberforce Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) which was
enacted in 2008 and reauthorized in 2013. The TVPRA ensures
that victims of trafficking are not only identified and
screened properly but that traffickers are penalized and
brought to justice. It also appropriately assigns
responsibility for the care of unaccompanied children to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and ensures
that children are placed with their families when possible.
By making the legal process clearer and more efficient for
children, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found that
since the passage and implementation of TVPRA 23% more
children were assisted. The TVPRA is working according to its
design. It should not be changed to address the current
temporary situation. The law allows for responses to
exceptional circumstances.
Additionally, we urge you to provide the necessary
resources and policy guidance to address the current crisis,
and then hold the Administration accountable for fulfilling
its responsibilities under the law. Robust funding is needed
for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in HHS which has
extensive experience with vulnerable immigrants, including
UACs, refugees, and victims of trafficking. To respond to
this crisis, ORR is considering reprogramming funding from
other refugee programs. Funds must not simply be transferred
from one vulnerable population to another. More funding is
needed. There should also be increased funding for
immigration courts and judges to more quickly screen the
children and counsel for children going through legal
proceedings so they know their rights and can understand the
process. More robust investment in effectively addressing
root causes of migration in Central America and Mexico is
also imperative.
As we pray for these children and also our nation, we are
reminded of Matthew 19:13-14 in which Jesus said, ``Let the
little children come to me, and do not hinder them.' Churches
and faith-based organizations have long partnered with the
federal government in serving immigrant children and families
in the United States. Many churches and faith-based
organizations are ready and committed to provide the same
type of assistance and pastoral care in the case of these
unaccompanied children.
We offer our prayers and service as you make important
decisions about our nation's response to migrant children. We
hope that any response you make will strengthen our country's
tradition of providing safety and refuge to the vulnerable.
Sincerely,
Leith Anderson, President, National Association of
Evangelicals; Stephan Bauman, President and CEO, World
Relief; David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World;
Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development
Association; Russell D. Moore, President, Southern
Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission;
William Robinson, Interim President, Council for
Christian Colleges and Universities; Samuel Rodriguez,
President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership
Conference; Gabriel Salguero, President, National
Latino Evangelical Coalition; Richard Stearns,
President, World Vision U.S.; Jim Wallis, President and
Founder, Sojourners.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to point out that if the 2008 law is not the reason, then my
good friend's remarks need to be directed to the administration because
they have told us it is the reason. The President has cited this as the
reason. But if it is because we have sent a signal down there by
unilaterally changing something, there is some explanation for a
tenfold increase in the flow of individuals across our border.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, 102 years ago, I assume a very frightened 14-year-old
boy made his way on a boat called the RMS Caronia from Cork, Ireland,
with his mother on his way to the United States, a very frightened 14-
year-old boy who left behind his community, his friends and neighbors,
and made his way to the United States. He later served in World War I
and became a New York City police officer but didn't live long enough
to see his grandson become a Member of the House of Representatives.
But that 14-year-old boy contributed mightily to the United States of
America in so many ways. He was a scared boy being brought to America
in much the same way that children along our border today are coming to
seek a better way.
Don't turn our backs on these young children, these boys and girls,
many of whom are suffering. Show the compassion and beauty of the
United States. Welcome the best, the brightest, and the bravest.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the arrival of tens of thousands of
children from Central America seeking refuge in our country has tugged
at the conscience of the American people. It has demonstrated both our
best and our worst instincts. The best are all of the people who are so
generous in offering food and clothing and shelter to these kids who
have come from so far. But we have also seen some bad instincts, like
the armed militiamen in ski masks who have shown up at our southern
border, whose leader has said that the way you keep people from coming
to this country is that you point a gun at them and threaten to shoot
them in the head. That is not America.
The question that we must answer now is: What does it mean to be a
refugee in the 21st century? Just as we offered that status to Cubans
fleeing Castro, to those from the Soviet Union, to the Vietnamese, just
as our adversaries have changed, they are not always state actors--they
are al Qaeda; they are ISIS--I would argue that so, too, have our
refugees changed, and we must recognize that.
This bill is not good for our country, and it doesn't reflect who we
are as a people.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my grandmother coming
from Jamaica, West Indies, with two babies thought about this great
country called America. I wondered as I went to the border and I looked
into the eyes of a little 7-year-old who had just gotten off a bus by
himself from someplace in Central America, or the toddler in a diaper
who came here because there was true and actual violence, the beheading
of their neighbors, the cutting of the throats of their young boys, the
fear of the cartels, and to think of the words ``no room at the inn.''

[[Page H7199]]

{time} 1100

Our Republicans are confused. They are prosecuting the children, not
prosecuting the drug dealers, the criminals, and others. Why? Because
they are taking away basic due process rights for humble children who
have come just for opportunity. Not only that, they don't even want to
give resources to all the cities in America who are helping, the Good
Samaritans. And then they want legislation that literally undermines
due process for these children.
I will tell you this is a bad bill. Do not pass it. Pass
comprehensive immigration reform. Pass it now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in fervid opposition to this Martial Law
Resolution and ask that you consider doing comprehensive immigration
reform--a vote you would not even need to whip.
Yet we insist on wasting valuable House Floor time while we could be
doing comprehensive immigration reform, comprehensive tax reform, the
Export-Import Bank Reauthorization, or the Voting Rights Act.
As the GOP Majority reaches further to the anti-immigrant right to
scrounge up the votes for what was already an inadequate and heartless
proposal, we Democrats have a better idea: comprehensive immigration
reform.
The bipartisan immigration legislation that passed the Senate over a
year ago offers comprehensive answers to the problems with our
immigration system--but for more than a year House Republicans have
refused to give the American people a vote.
The humanitarian crisis at the border is a powerful reminder of the
importance of an immigration system that honors our values as a nation.
The time is now. While House Republicans search for the compassion to
help desperate children, Democrats are demanding a vote on the
comprehensive immigration reform our nation needs.
The United States is a country made up of immigrants, and it is part
of what makes us so strong and vibrant. And while immigration reform
remains an unsolved challenge for our nation, House Democrats are
leading the way towards comprehensive reform.
Indeed, the decision made by President Obama two years ago to defer
deportation action against young people who were brought here by
undocumented parents but have been raised here in our country was an
important step in the right direction.
This decision has helped ensure that over half-a-million hard-
working, eager, and talented individuals who came here not of their own
choice, and who are contributing to our economy and our defense, can
remain here and continue to be part of building a strong future for
America.
Now we are faced, Mr. Speaker, with the surge of unaccompanied
children on our southern border. They do not pose a threat to our
national security; nevertheless the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act must be passed before Congress leaves town for its
district work-recess.
Contrary to the shrill rhetoric used by some commentators, the nation
is not being invaded by an army of children dispatched to do us harm.
In fact the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and I witnessed
one month ago the deplorable conditions with your own eyes--babies as
young as three years old.
We are confronted with a humanitarian crisis resulting from the
alarming scale of violence and economic desperation in three Central
American countries: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Politicizing
the issue will not solve the problem.
In the short term, we need to allocate the resources needed to deal
with the increase in unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the
United States.
Yet this Congress has failed to provide any resources needed to fund
the courts and judges needed to send these children through the legal
system; therefore, we should fund the number of immigration judges
needed. Without them, the result is a current average delay of 578 days
to hear over 366,000 pending cases.
Because this situation is untenable for everyone--law enforcement,
taxpayers, and individuals petitioning for relief, the first thing that
we can and should do to reduce the backlog is pass the emergency
supplemental and provide the funding needed to appoint 70 new
immigration judges, as provided under legislation I recently
introduced, H.R. 4990, the Justice For All Children Act.
I remain committed to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan
basis, on this very important issue, and would hope for a spill-over
effect into the realm of comprehensive immigration reform.
I remain committed to advocating for common sense enforcement
measures as part of a broader immigration reform package that will
further secure our borders, ensure agricultural interests have an ample
labor supply, universities and businesses are not short workers, and
proper workplace compliance is achieved, but also uphold our values as
a Nation of immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, No Room at the inn! The Republicans are confused. Let us
as Americans give relief to these innocent children. I ask my
colleagues to reject this resolution and call for a vote on
comprehensive immigration reform and the full funding of the emergency
supplemental by hiring 70 new immigration judges, provide more
resources for the border, to protect vulnerable children, and help
communities that are helping these children.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the question may not
be: Who are the children at the border, and why they are here? The
question may be: Who are we as a Nation, and why are we here as a
Congress?
Our reputation has been never to turn people away, our reputation
should never be to turn children away to what could be a certain death
or a very difficult situation.
This is not a crisis. This is a situation that we have had before and
we have known how to deal with. This is a moment for our country to
show who we are. The world is looking. These are children. It is not
their fault that they are here. There are many conditions that have
brought them here. But how we act will be our fault if we don't act
properly. How we act will be our legacy.
This is not who we are as a country--I repeat. We are much better
than that. We have to understand that these are children, these are our
children. Just because a border separates us, this doesn't stop them
from being our children.
Let's turn down and reject all of this nonsense that we are doing,
and let's try to help them and help them in the proper way.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Dr. King reminds us that the
truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort
and convenience, but where do you stand in times of challenge and
controversy.
In these times of challenge and controversy, I stand with those
children at the border and I stand for due process. I don't stand for a
fast-track adjudication that mimics due process and makes a mockery of
justice.
I stand with the DREAMers. They have been given hope by our
President. I will not vote for a bill that will destroy hope for those
DREAMers. We must keep their hope alive.
I stand for due process, I stand with the DREAMers, and I stand for
hope. I stand with the President.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from
Oklahoma how many speakers he has?
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask for a unanimous consent
request, because the interest on this issue and the passion on this
issue on our side is so great that we don't have enough time.
So I would ask unanimous consent to extend the debate by 1 hour,
equally divided. Like I said, we have a lot of speakers, and there is
no pending business after this debate ends. At the very least, I think
we can extend the debate.
We were not allowed any amendments when the previous incarnation of
this border bill was brought before the House. I think the least we can
do, in the spirit of collegiality, is to expand debate, and I would
like to make that unanimous consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
that request?
Mr. COLE. I do not, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield for that
purpose.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will try again.
At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

[[Page H7200]]

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for the United States when
Republicans in this Congress see a problem and then choose not to work
with Democrats to solve the problem. That is exactly what has happened
here today: their draconian way or the highway.
Let's be clear about what the problem is: unaccompanied minor
children, frightened, some fleeing violence, needing due process, and
deserving due process.
This is as much about who these children are as it is about who we
are. As a mother and a legislator, I know that we should be compelled
to act as a matter of humanity, but also as a matter of law.
We know we have problems on the border that are in need of solutions.
Republicans have rejected one solution--comprehensive immigration
reform--to address the problem. They have rejected another solution--
the request of the President for a supplemental appropriation that
includes resources for judges, representation, and services for minor
children, and assistance to the countries of origin.
Now today, in the eleventh hour, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle demonstrate once again their lack of humanity and failure to
solve yet another problem for the American people.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
bill.
Sadly, the Republican leadership is continuing to play politics with
the lives of innocent children at our border by failing to bring
forward a bipartisan supplemental spending bill that can pass the House
and be signed into law.
It is unbelievable that the failure to pass their own bill yesterday
was not because of its completely inadequate funding level or the fact
that it would undercut critical humanitarian protections in current
law, but because it was not mean enough or punitive enough for their
own Members to vote on.
Working together, as Leader Pelosi offered Speaker Boehner but was
refused, we could have come to a reasonable compromise.
Instead, Republicans have resorted to martial law, not because it is
in the best interest of our country or these children, but so they can
have the time to write a bill that will appease the extremists in their
party.
Let's reject this rule and come together in the best tradition of
this House to pass a clean supplemental bill that will address the
humanitarian crisis at our border in a way that meets our government's
urgent needs and upholds our most basic American values.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong opposition to this
bill.
I have been deeply saddened and distressed to see the images and hear
the stories of so many unaccompanied minors at our border.
But from Massachusetts, I have also read other stories. I have read
the stories of the over 150 overdoses from heroin that we experienced
in Taunton, with over ten deaths.
I recently met with the DEA officials in Massachusetts, who indicated
that the heroin drug trade alone with Mexico is over $40 billion a
year; that the cartels have moved up into owning trafficking corridors
throughout Mexico; that despite many of my other colleagues who are
calling for the destruction of aid and reduction of aid to Honduras,
Guatemala, and El Salvador, the United States bilateral aid is less
than $200 million a year. Gang violence in Los Angeles alone costs over
$1 billion a year.
If we are truly going to address this problem, we have to get to its
core. We have to take a good, hard look at what is driving an economic
instability that is pushing young kids to figure that they have a
better life by getting on a bus by themselves to our border.
This is what our country is supposed to be all about: a better future
for young children trying to make a life for themselves. I hope that we
come to that conclusion.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend, my colleague on
the Rules Committee.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Rules
Committee, my friend from Oklahoma, for yielding.
I am not sure what it is that is happening here on this floor right
now because the bill that is before us that everyone is rising to
object to is the bill that allows us to bring up the same day, just as
soon as we find a solution that can bring this House together, bring a
bill immediately to the floor to solve a crisis. I just want to make
that clear. The bill that is before us today is the only piece of
legislation in this town that allows us to move immediately to solve a
crisis. I am not talking about a crisis that is imagined by Republicans
or imagined by Democrats.
I have in my hand here a letter from Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Speaker. In an open letter to
families all across the world he says:

So, let me be clear: there is no path to deferred action or
citizenship, or one being contemplated by Congress, for a
child who crosses our border illegally today.

I have heard the hearts of my friends on the other side of the aisle,
I have heard the hearts. But we are a Nation of laws, as well as
hearts, and you know that the law of the land does not allow for that,
as the Secretary of Homeland Security said. Yet, down here on the floor
today, if I was watching this from my home in Guatemala or Honduras or
El Salvador, I would be led to believe there is.
We are better than that, and we have to be better than that because
this is, in fact, a crisis. It is not an imagined crisis. It is a real
crisis.
Folks thought this House was going to go home yesterday, they thought
this House was going to go home yesterday, just like the Senate did,
without providing a response. That is not the House I ran to be a part
of.
We are still here, we are still here working, and, by golly, I
believe we are going to have a solution on the floor. I believe we are
going to have a solution on the floor before the Sun goes down today,
and I am so proud, I am so proud that we are here to do that. But I
tell you this, we cannot do it if this bill does not pass. This rule
today gives us a pathway to success. In its absence, that pathway will
be delayed.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman referred to a bill that the
Republicans are working on. We haven't seen such a bill. Does this rule
give us any indication of what bill they are talking about?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair will not interpret the
pending resolution.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Lujaan).
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I will answer my
friend's question that was just asked as he was speaking.
What is happening on the floor is Republicans are trying to weaken
human trafficking laws. That is what is happening.
Over the last few days, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have jumped through linguistic and logical hoops to say that the most
humane way to deal with these children is to deport them quickly
without due process to discourage other children from making the
dangerous journey.
There is no question that the journey is dangerous. Children are
killed, robbed, raped, and maimed along the way, but the children know
the risks. They are not ignorant to those risks.
Why? Because back in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, children
are being raped, killed, and robbed every day. It is a fact. Read the
news.
Deporting children without process to these conditions or locking
them into their home countries and preventing them from fleeing to find
safety is not humane. It would be, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops said, like sending them back into a burning building. We can do
better than this.

[[Page H7201]]

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this rule, exactly what bill is it that we
are going to vote for or against as relates to the rule? Because
depending on the substance of the bill, it is going to determine
whether I vote for or against the rule. If they are not prepared to
tell us exactly what the bill is going to be in it, how could we
possibly make a judgment as to whether we support the rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, as the Chair has said
repeatedly, the Chair will not interpret the pending resolution. That
is a matter for debate among the Members.
Mr. RANGEL. May I further inquire, we are not asking you to opine
anything, Mr. Speaker. We are asking you to tell us exactly what we
will be debating. If we don't know what we are going to be debating--I
am not asking the Speaker to tell us what is in the bill. I am asking
the Speaker to find out from the majority exactly what this rule is
going to be allowed for them to bring up so that I would know whether
to stay here or not to stay here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. To the gentleman, the Chair would say that
that matter is for debate among the Members.
Mr. RANGEL. Debate on what, Mr. Speaker? Just tell me what will we be
debating on? That is my question. You tell me what the Members will be
debating on, and I am satisfied. I don't want you to opine. I want you
to tell me what is going to be in the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has been patient with the
gentleman from New York. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
inquiry.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, a man once said:

I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put
down roots and who have lived here, even though sometime back
they may have entered illegally.

Mr. Speaker, those words were from the great bastion of Republican
thinking: President Ronald Reagan.

{time} 1115

Oh, how his party has changed. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if Ronald Reagan
were in office today, he would probably have a primary challenge for
being too ``liberal'' thinking.
Mr. Speaker, the House today is bringing up their only immigration-
related bill, and it has just one message: deport, deport, deport.
Deport children seeking refuge from extreme violence. Deport a mother
away from her children. Deport a young person who has pledged
allegiance only to one flag, and that is our flag.
Mr. Speaker, it looks like the bill the Republicans will want to
bring is a security only, no to DREAMers supplemental. It does not
address our broken immigration system. Have we lost the core message of
our country? What happened to, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your
huddled masses yearning to breathe free''? What happened to that
America?
I am sure Ronald Reagan knows, but his party does not.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Takano).
Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the legislation being
put forward by the House Republicans, which is an insincere attempt to
address the humanitarian crisis at our border.
This bill is misguided, unreasonable, and wrong. It does very little
to address the actual root of this problem and cuts important funding
from the Department of Defense, FEMA, and the State Department's
Economic Support Fund.
I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to return to the
drawing board, so we can help these children and fix this issue.
(English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:)
The proposed legislation is ill-conceived, and does not solve the
main problem.
I am opposed to this legislation and ask my colleagues to propose a
solution that really helps these children.
Thank you.
La legislacioon propuesta estaa mal planteada, y no resolveraa el
problema principal.
Estoy opuesto a esta legislacioon y pido que mis colegas propongan
una solucioon que realmente ayudara a estos ninnos.
Gracias.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds the gentleman that he will
need to provide the Clerk a translation for the Record.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velaazquez).
Ms. VELAAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the Republican
leadership pulled this legislation from the floor, I assumed that they
had come to their senses and realized that they couldn't treat children
so poorly. Much to my shock, however, your old bill was not punitive
enough for these children, so you went back and made it worse.
Mr. Speaker, when did we lose our way? Let me be crystal clear. The
change that has been added to the supplemental will make the lives of
the children worse.
How we respond to a crisis of children in need of safe haven speaks
to the character of our Nation, to who we are. How could we go around
the world and provide resources and bring democracy, yet treat our
neighbors this way?
We should not gut children's protections, just to appease the most
radical elements of a particular political party. That is not the
American way.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the course of the debate is about to
end. There is representation that there is an underlying bill to this
martial law. The Democrats have already made a commitment to stay and
finish the job.
My inquiry is, the underlying bill's principles are based upon
protecting children and fully funding the President's mark on the
emergency supplemental to deal with this crisis and emergency.
Those are simple parliamentary inquiries as the underlying premise of
the bill--two points: protecting the children and providing the full
resources for helping the children. That is not giving us the contents
of the bill. It is the premise of the bill for Members to be able to
intelligently come to floor to assess the need to vote for the martial
law.
I, again, state the parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know how we can possibly frame a parliamentary
inquiry to find out exactly what is in the underlying bill that we are
asked to pass or vote against this rule.
In any event, I know one thing. We as Americans, especially those of
us in the Congress, have a particular responsibility to pass on a
legacy to those that follow us in terms of what this country really
stands for.
Besides the Star-Spangled Banner and the Stars and Stripes, we also
have the Statue of Liberty close to my hometown. People come from all
over the world because it is symbolic of what this great country
believes in.
Not that many years ago, a group of Jewish people attempted to flee
Germany because they feared that Hitler

[[Page H7202]]

would be looking for them in order to arrest, kill, and to eliminate
them as a people. We refused that ship that came into our harbor,
called the St. Louis. We denied them the opportunity to come to this
country, and they returned to Germany.
I don't know what is on our conscience, but we should take a look at
our history and what we are leaving as a legacy.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the legal
experts in the country have urged that we not change the antislavery
law.
We do recognize the need for resources to make that law work. I can't
help but notice that the Republican majority is denying the resources
to actually adjudicate these cases in the bill that was before us
yesterday. I think it is ironic to say it doesn't work and then say we
won't give you the resources to allow you to enforce the law. It is
hypocrisy at its worst.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman from
Oklahoma whether he has any additional speakers or if he would like to
give us some of his time?
Mr. COLE. I am prepared to close whenever my friend is prepared to
close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no''
on this terrible martial law rule. We have no idea what the hell we are
going to be voting on.
This is just a rule that allows them to bring up anything at any time
between now and September 5. I want to urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question, and if we defeat the previous
question, I will bring up H.R. 15, which is the bipartisan Senate
passed comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about poor kids, most of them fleeing
terrible violence. I am ashamed at the insensitivity and the lack of
compassion from the other side. America is a better country. Let's not
lose our humanity in this process.
If the United States of America stands for anything, it stands out
loud and foursquare for human rights. We are better than the angry mobs
yelling at children. The anger and the nastiness and the insensitivity
is not the face of America we want to show the rest of the world. We
are better. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to act
like it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We have had a very passionate and--in many cases, compassionate--
debate. I want to recognize that quality in many of the speakers, my
friends on the other side. I have no doubt about their passion.
Frankly, I have no doubt about their compassion. I know they want to do
the right thing.
I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill actually is, as
my friend from Massachusetts suggested, a mechanism to keep us in
session and working on the problem, so that we have the ability between
now and September 5 to actually act and act quickly. I think that is a
very important thing.
It is important, too, to think back about the nature of the problem
that we are dealing with. In the last 3 years, the number of
unaccompanied juveniles arriving at our borders has gone from about
6,000 to--the estimates I hear this year will be somewhere like 90,000
and may well reach 150,000 within the next year or two.
The administration, according to news reports and testimony, was
actually warned about this in 2012 and 2013. Frankly, they didn't
prepare for it. I am quite certain they didn't anticipate it.
They actually submitted a budget this year that called for cuts in
many of the areas that we are clearly going to need to deal with this
huge--and unanticipated, I guess, on their part--influx of
unaccompanied juveniles.
Worth noting for the record, we actually restored a lot of those cuts
in the foreign operations bill that has now cleared the full
Appropriations Committee. I am glad we did.
The administration then, when confronted with this crisis which it
did not anticipate, told us this was due to the 2008 sex trafficking
law. Frankly, I am somewhat skeptical about that because this influx
didn't happen in 2009, 2010, or 2011. It only begun to be remotely
visible in 2012. That coincides, by the way, with some of the
President's unilateral abrogation of immigration law.
I think that is probably more likely to be the cause, but regardless,
the administration has pointed to the 2008 law. The President has done
that. The Secretary of Homeland Security has done that.
So far, they have offered no formal solution, although in testimony
before the Senate, the Secretary of Homeland Security said he would
like the law changed, so that people arriving at our borders are
treated the same way as Canadian and Mexican juveniles. That was his
request, not a repeal of the law, but that was--at least in testimony--
his suggestion.
The President has said that, regardless, the great majority of these
children will eventually be returned home. He sent us a request
recently to deal with the crisis in terms of the financial resources
that he needs.
He did not send us a fix, he did not send us a proffered legislative
solution, just simply a mechanism for money that would go around or go
outside of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that we had agreed upon.
What has been our response? I would be the first to acknowledge this
is a difficult problem to deal with. That is why the administration, I
presume, has not offered us a solution.
That is why the Senate, which tried to pass one yesterday, gave up
and went home. It is not an easy problem. Indeed, yesterday, we weren't
able to bring legislation to the floor that would actually address the
problem.
The difference between this body and the other body is this body
decided to stay here and continue to work on it and try to come up with
a legislative response. That response, undoubtedly, will include a fix,
a tweak, an amendment to the 2008 law.
If my friends have a better solution, then I would hope the
administration or the Senate or somebody offers that. So far, it has
been as if we blame the problem on the 2008 law, but we are told you
can't change the 2008 law.
That position is both intellectually and politically, I think,
indefensible. If this is the problem, tell us how to fix the problem.
If you won't tell us, we will suggest one, and that is exactly what we
are going to do.
We have also decided to look at the financial issue, and there is no
question additional resources are needed to handle this influx, secure
the border, add additional judges, and add additional courtroom
facilities to handle an enormous backlog.
So we say, well, we are not going to give you a 13-month blank check,
but we will redirect resources from within the existing budget toward
what we agree is a more urgent problem, and we will help you get
through this fiscal year and this calendar year, and then let's sit
down and talk about what is necessary for fiscal year 2015 and try to
do that within the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. I think that is what
we are going to do.
So we are willing to work with the administration in these areas.

{time} 1130

I would also suggest, at the end of the day, the worst thing we could
do would be to go home and not do anything. My friends have suggested--
and I think appropriately so--that you can't tell the President he is
overreaching in one area and then is pulling back in another without
providing legislative authority and legislative guidance. I think they
are absolutely correct in that position. I have made that point myself
both privately and publicly, but that is what we are going to try and
accomplish. Hopefully, we can accomplish it today. If we do that today
or this weekend, we will have done our part of the job. The Senate
then, by the way, could reconvene and do its part of the job. Then we
could go to conference, in working with the administration, and come up
with something, but it does begin with somebody at least doing his job.
That is what this House and that is what this majority is absolutely
determined to do.

[[Page H7203]]

Mr. Speaker, there is not much more that can be said on a resolution
that is only 10 lines long. This resolution is important so that we can
consider possible legislation in a timely fashion related to the border
crisis. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 700 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
15) to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 15.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 184, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 474]

YEAS--226

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAYS--184

Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey

[[Page H7204]]

Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--22

Campbell
Cantor
Clay
DesJarlais
Dingell
Fattah
Garamendi
Gowdy
Grayson
Green, Gene
Hanabusa
Kirkpatrick
McDermott
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Nunnelee
Ruiz
Rush
Schock
Speier

{time} 1154

Messrs. VELA, SCHNEIDER, DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, and McINTYRE changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 474 (On Ordering the Previous
Question related to H. Res. 700), had I been present, I would have
voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 190, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 475]

AYES--219

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--190

Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--23

Bilirakis
Campbell
Cantor
Clay
DesJarlais
Dingell
Fattah
Garamendi
Gowdy
Grayson
Green, Gene
Hanabusa
Kirkpatrick
McDermott
Miller, Gary
Moran
Nadler
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Ruiz
Rush
Schock
Speier

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1202

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 475 (On Agreeing to
the Resolution related to H. Res. 700), had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 475, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Personal explanation

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 474 & 475, had
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

____________________