NOTICE Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today to oppose this outrageous bill and the ridiculous process that produced it.

Just yesterday, this House attempted to consider a bill that went too far on policy and not far enough on funding levels, but apparently even that wasn't bad enough for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's bill vanished into thin air, and in its place, we now have this haphazard mess. This bill is the result of some sort of auction with members of the majority.

The bill also paves the way for another piece of legislation to be approved tonight--a brand-new bill on the so-called DACA--deferred action on undocumented children program--related to young people who were brought here as minors by 2007 and only know the United States of America as their home. This new bill has not been approved by any committee and contains language that would throw thousands of young people into legal limbo.

This new supplemental funding bill would add an additional $35 million to reimburse States for deploying the National Guard to the border, which is pointless. In other words, U.S. taxpayers will pick up the tab for Governor Perry's campaign stunt.

The bill also would change the initial screening process used by Customs and Border Patrol. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes the change, noting:

It would make crippling changes to current U.S.-trafficking

victim protection law that we fear would send these

vulnerable children, and others in the future who have fled

trauma, exploitation, and violence, back into harm's way,

likely resulting in continued degradation, injury, and death

for many of them.

I insert the letter into the Record.

U.S. Conference of

Catholic Bishops,

Committee on Migration,

Washington, DC, August 1, 2014.

Dear Representative: I write to reaffirm the opposition of

the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to H.R. 5230

and express our opposition to H.R. 5232.

Our opposition to H.R. 5230 stems from four troubling

aspects of the measure. First, it would make crippling

changes to current U.S. trafficking victim protection law

that we fear would send these vulnerable children, and others

in the future who have fled trauma, exploitation, and

violence, back into harm's way, likely resulting in continued

degradation, injury, and death for many of them. Second, it

would not provide adequate funding for the Department of

Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement

(ORR) to enable it to care for vulnerable unaccompanied

children in U.S. custody. Third, its level of funding for ORR

is so low that it would severely hamper the agency's ability

to fulfill its responsibility to care for refugees, asylum

seekers, special immigrants, trafficking victims, and torture

victims. And fourth, the measure contains no provisions to

address the root causes that have compelled so many children

to make the arduous journey from their homes in Central

America to the United States and elsewhere in the region.

Our opposition to H.R. 5232 stems from its elimination of

the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It

is our view that this program has helped protect a vulnerable

group of children who for all extensive purposes are

Americans. It would subject them once again to removal to

countries they do not know. We urge its defeat.

How our nation responds to this humanitarian challenge is a

moral test of our national character. We ask that you oppose

H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5232, which we feel fail to live up to

that test.

Sincerely,

Most Reverend Eusebio Elizondo,

Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle, WA,

Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Mr. Speaker, this House majority needs to make up its collective mind. Do they want to provide emergency funding to enable our Federal agencies to respond to the humanitarian crisis on the border? Or do they wish to rewrite current law on immigration, political asylum, and due process? We can't do both in an hour of floor consideration.

The House should have already taken up bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform the Senate passed more than 1 year ago, with the support of Democrats and Republicans, the labor and business communities, evangelicals, law enforcement, and many others.

We would have been proud to work together with our Republicans on the other side of the aisle to give thoughtful consideration to this immigration process. The Senate did it. We had an opportunity to do it, and instead, we are rushing through tonight to put a bill on the floor that has changed many times as it has proceeded through the process.

That bill, the comprehensive immigration bill, would have helped prevent the crisis on the border today. If we had passed this 1 year ago, we wouldn't be in the desperate situation we are in now. Now, we are at a point where it requires emergency supplemental funding that we should provide cleanly and quickly without the baggage of extraneous policy that caused so much political division.

This package crossed the line from being a supplemental spending bill and became a controversial revision of immigration policy with limited funding thrown in as an afterthought. That is a shame. That is really sad because we know that the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services, and State need this money to do the job.

Mr. Speaker, just last year, this body allowed a small vocal minority to push a government shutdown over controversial policy ideas. This process today causes me to wonder whether many have learned the perils of such recklessness.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this package and start over. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip of the House.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee that the reason the Senate could not bring a bill to the floor was because not one Republican will allow the procedural vote of cloture to bring it to the floor. Therefore, we are having a very important debate, but this bill, as you know, is going nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am proud to be a Member of the Congress of the United States of America because I have respect for the law. The comprehensive immigration bill has been sitting out there for over a year. If we could work in a bipartisan way, if we could show that we have respect for the law, we would have had a serious debate and really passed a law. This bill is going nowhere. As you know, the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't even bring a bill to the floor.

That is why I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Foreign Operations Subcommittees of Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington, Adam Smith.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate, I would like to address my remarks to our distinguished chairman with whom I have worked for quite a while, and just once again, I would like to say this bill deserves a ``no'' vote.

I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan way to pass a real comprehensive immigration reform bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

The time is late, the cause is great. We must, we must have clarity in how we understand what is before us.

Today, we had an opportunity to work together to address humanitarian emergency at the border. Instead, it is a day of missed opportunity. The Republican leadership has rejected our hand of friendship to compromise on this supplemental. Instead of bringing legislation forward that could solve this problem really and truly, it has resisted the appeals of humanitarian and religious leaders across all faiths.

The Evangelical Immigration Table calls on us to ensure that our response strengthens our country's tradition of providing safety and refuge to the vulnerable.

This legislation that we have before us does not do that. It is wrong. But don't take my word for it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urges Members to oppose H.R. 5230 and work together to craft legislation that is more befitting the United States of America and the American people's history of compassion and generosity to vulnerable children and refugees.

The Archbishop of Miami, Thomas Wenski, speaking on their behalf, has said of this legislation, the two pieces of legislation before us:

This is a sad day for our country. A Chamber of Congress is

poised to send vulnerable children back to danger and

possible death. It violates our commitment to human rights

and due process of the law, and lessens us as a Nation.

In their letter, the bishops further state their opposition to H.R. 5232 and say that it ``stems from its elimination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program,'' otherwise known as DACA.

In conclusion, the bishops write:

How our Nation responds to this humanitarian challenge is a

moral test of our national character. We ask that you oppose

H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5272, which we feel fail to live up to

that test.

Others, such as the American Bar Association, write:

Due to their age, lack of education, language, and cultural

barriers, and the complexity of U.S. immigration law, these

vulnerable children face insurmountable obstacles to proving

their claims before an immigration judge on their own.

It is the children who are most likely to be eligible for

some relief under the law who may be least able to articulate

their experiences under this proposed procedure.

They have been through a lot of trauma, and we want to add to that. Yet, this has not been enough to stem the path that the House Republicans are going down. To further poison the pie they offer their caucus the chance to even be less compassionate in their vote to end DACA and to deport the DREAMers.

It is not enough for Republicans to send desperate children back to the violence of their home countries. They must also vote to deport the best young immigrants and brightest in our schools, vote to send victims of domestic violence back to their abusers, vote to hand witnesses back to drug lords, vote to remove the parents of American children.

These pieces of legislation dishonor America. They are a rejection of our values. But don't take it from me, take it from the bishops, the Evangelical Table, and others. They run counter to the respect for the spark of divinity that we believe exists in every person, the respect for the dignity and worth of every person that we share, but these pieces of legislation ignore.

House Republicans have truly lost their way. I certainly hope that you will consider rereading the parable of the Good Samaritan who helped a stranger. He did not ignore or harm a stranger he saw on the road. Perhaps that may be a path back for you. I pray that it is so.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the record letters from the bishops, the Evangelical Immigration Table, and the ABA who oppose these pieces of legislation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Committee on Migration,

Washington, DC, August 1, 2014.

Dear Representative: I write to reaffirm the opposition of

the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to H.R. 5230

and express our opposition to H.R. 5232.

Our opposition to H.R. 5230 stems from four troubling

aspects of the measure. First, it would make crippling

changes to current U.S. trafficking victim protection law

that we fear would send these vulnerable children, and others

in the future who have fled trauma, exploitation, and

violence, back into

harm's way, likely resulting in continued degradation,

injury, and death for many of them. Second, it would not

provide adequate funding for the Department of Health and

Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to enable

it to care for vulnerable unaccompanied children in U.S.

custody. Third, its level of funding for ORR is so low that

it would severely hamper the agency's ability to fulfill its

responsibility to care for refugees, asylum seekers, special

immigrants, trafficking victims, and torture victims. And

fourth, the measure contains no provisions to address the

root causes that have compelled so many children to make the

arduous journey from their homes in Central America to the

United States and elsewhere in the region.

Our opposition to H.R. 5232 stems from its elimination of

the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It

is our view that this program has helped protect a vulnerable

group of children who for all extensive purposes are

Americans. It would subject them once again to removal to

countries they do not know. We urge its defeat.

How our nation responds to this humanitarian challenge is a

moral test of our national character. We ask that you oppose

H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5232, which we feel fail to live up to

that test.

Sincerely,

Most Reverend Eusebio Elizondo,

Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle, WA,

Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative

days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5230, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue the debate on H.R. 5230, with further amendments added by the rule the House just adopted. The need to pass this bill before Congress leaves for the August break is just as critical today as it was yesterday.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides funding to meet immediate border security and humanitarian needs in response to the recent surge of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border.

In terms of funding, this bill is essentially the same as the legislation the House considered yesterday. It emphasizes securing our borders, providing humanitarian assistance for unaccompanied children in U.S. custody, and preventing further influxes of illegal immigration, both by funding vital programs and by implementing important policy provisions. This is also a fiscally responsible bill. All funding is offset, so it won't add a penny to our deficit.

However, the bill differs from the version yesterday by adding an additional $35 million for the National Guard to allow States, including Texas, to be reimbursed for National Guard activities related to border security and the current influx of illegal immigrants. This brings the new total of the bill to $694 million, and, again, it is fully offset.

In addition, the bill includes new tweaks to various policy provisions which will help to further tighten our borders and provide solutions that help solve our immigration challenges for the future.

Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis on our hands, and we can't simply get up and walk away. It is our moral responsibility to protect our homeland and to properly care for and process the thousands of unaccompanied children who put their lives in the hands of criminals to cross our borders. We simply can't turn our backs on this. We must pass this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU14.002

Mr. Speaker, we are here with this crisis because the President announced a policy that no one would be deported unless they were a criminal. That word spread through our Central American countries, and families said: hey, the gates are open; while this President is in office, if you go there and you get in, then you won't be deported.

The administration knew this 2 years ago. The word came out that we were being flooded, increasingly so, from Central American countries. So we are here trying to fix the problem that is an emergency caused by this administration, and the administration's control of the other body, rather than help us solve the problem, left town at noon today without doing anything. So we are trying to clean up their mess and the administration's mess, and this bill will do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Granger), the chair of the Speaker's task force on border security and the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the newly elected majority whip of the U.S. House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to say at least the House is putting a bill on the floor and passing it, which solves the problem. If we had the Senate here to work with us, we might be able to get a bill the President could sign. But the Senate is gone. They have left. So I would hope that the leader of the Senate would recognize that his body is getting severely criticized for leaving town without offering a solution to this crisis on our border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), who chairs the Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction-VA Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair bill. It solves a crisis on our border. It does so in a financially safe and responsible way. It strengthens the border. It humanely treats those who are in our custody now and arranges for them to be humanely returned to their home families, where the Presidents of the three countries told us, We want these children back; and so this bill will do that.

I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5230.

There is a crisis at our southern border, and it is a disaster of President Obama's own making. The Obama administration's lax immigration enforcement policies have given confidence to parents who are in the U.S. illegally that they can stay, and now they are finding ways to bring their children who are still in Central America and beyond to the United States unlawfully. Although President Obama has many tools at his disposal to stop this surge at the border, he refuses to use them and instead proposes to make the situation worse by taking more unilateral actions to stop the enforcement of our immigration laws.

It is ultimately up to President Obama to end this crisis by reversing his policies that created it. However, since he refuses to do so, we have to act to the extent we can to provide narrow and targeted funding to meet the immediate needs of our law enforcement agencies at the southern border. We have to enable them to do their job to secure our border and enforce our immigration laws.

And we need to tweak the 2008 law regarding the removal of unaccompanied alien minors. We need to treat apprehended minors from Central America in the same expedited but humane fashion that we treat apprehended minors from Mexico and Canada. In fact, the administration has called for such a change.

On July 14, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said that the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 needed to be amended. He said:

In terms of changing the law, we are asking for the ability

to treat unaccompanied

kids from a Central American country in the same way as from

a contiguous country.

That is what this bill does, based on language written by Representative Carter, and it makes the important clarification that all minors from any country who do not have a credible fear of persecution and have not been trafficked shall be expeditiously returned home.

Because of the President's inaction, we are taking the responsible step today of passing these narrow fixes that will help the American people avoid billions of dollars in additional costs due to the President not trying to solve this problem but asking for more money to continue to resettle tens of thousands of people into the interior of our country.

While the bill is not perfect, it does give law enforcement many tools they have requested. For example, while I was in the Rio Grande Valley earlier this month, Border Patrol agents cited administration- created restrictions that bar them access to Federal lands as a significant stumbling block to securing the border. One of the more important provisions of this bill gives Border Patrol agents access to Federal lands so that they can stop drug traffickers, human smugglers, and unlawful immigrants from exploiting these gaps along the border.

Since the President isn't taking the serious action needed to address the crisis at the border, the House is doing so today. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard several of my Democratic colleagues tonight say this bill does not reflect American values. I am disappointed to hear them say that because it really reflects a fundamental, probably one of the most fundamental differences between our two parties, as we on our side as Republicans believe in the most important American value and that is enforcement. The first design on the first coin minted in the Republic of Mexico after the Revolution said: Liberty in the Law. We all understand as lawmakers, as Americans, that there can be no liberty without law enforcement.

The bill before us tonight is very simple, this is not complicated. This is a law enforcement issue. This is a law enforcement bill. Without respect for the law there can be no liberty, without respect for the law there can be no peace and quiet, there can be no prosperity.

My good friend Henry Cuellar, who represents the city of Laredo, whom I served with in the Texas legislature, understands better than most that, because Laredo is the largest inland port in the United States, his constituents need law and order in order to be prosperous, to be able to trade with Mexico, our most important trading partner. That relationship with Mexico is essential to the Texas economy, to the United States economy, and for that relationship to thrive there must be law and order, there must be respect for the law, and there must be peace and quiet on the streets of Laredo so children can play in the streets, so people don't have to worry about whether or not they can send their kids down to the corner store, whether or not they can thrive in the future. It is a tragedy what has happened in Nuevo Laredo. One of the most beautiful cities on the border is now essentially a ghost town because there is no respect for the law.

The bill before us tonight that the Republican majority has put together reflects our core value as Americans to respect the law, to enforce the law, with a kind heart and commonsense. We believe in the good judgment of our law enforcement officers and our National Guardsmen to use their good hearts and their commonsense as Americans to distinguish between the widow and her child who is escaping a terrible situation at home. We are trusting the good hearts and good sense of our immigration officers to know the difference between a tattooed criminal and a drug dealer and a smuggler, and the child who has come here innocently, brought up in the trust the President of the United States has made inviting them all up here. It is a tragedy for them, it is a tragedy for our border communities, it is a tragedy for the country to let these folks come into the country.

This is a law enforcement issue, it is a law enforcement bill. I encourage folks to vote ``yes.''