Waiving a 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 700 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

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. 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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

No, Mr. Speaker.

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.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

I do not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend, my colleague on the Rules Committee.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

I am prepared to close whenever my friend is prepared to close.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Caardenas).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

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?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

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?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

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.

Mr. Speaker, let me make clear to the House that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer

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. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Caardenas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.

Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking

member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma how many speakers he has?

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.

Mr. Speaker, I will try again.

At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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?

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.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velaazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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. 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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You would think after 4 years that the majority would know how to run the House, but this week makes us wonder. All we have accomplished this week is to sue the President and deregulate pesticides into the environment. And in a real embarrassment, canceling a vote because Tea Party Members refused to support a border bill that was tailormade for them. Actually, I understand it was in their interest to pass it yesterday.

Now, my colleague, of whom I am inordinately fond, said that the time to act is now. But the time really to act was yesterday when the Senate was in town, because there is no way now what we are doing today could ever become legislation because the Senate would have to pass something, and then it would go to the President who said already he would veto it. So we stay an extra day here to make a point.

Instead of going home to our constituents, we are under siege in a choke hold by some Members of the House. This much is true: it costs the taxpayers $24 million a week to run the House of Representatives, and I am afraid the American people aren't getting their money's worth.

President Truman, it is worth noting, campaigned for President using a quote ``do-nothing Congress,'' which had passed nearly 1,000 bills. And under Mr. Speaker, this Congress has passed just around 120. Mr. Truman was mad because they had not done a health care bill. Fortunately, we got that done 4 years ago.

But this recalcitrant Congress is why President Obama had to act on his own. Nothing is working here, but he was responsible for keeping the country moving. I think we need to describe for the Record and for the public exactly what has been done today.

This morning, the majority adopted a martial law rule until September 5, which is most unusual. Martial law usually lasts 1, 2, maybe 3 days at the outside. But we have 5 weeks, which means the Speaker can call us back at any time. We would hope that he would not do that without telling us what we are going to do. But today, we do not even know what is in this bill. We don't understand this legislation because the 40 pages of it we have not had time to look at. So here we are. We do think it is pretty toxic.

But not only was the bill drafted by Republicans only, in a basement room, there are absolutely no Democrat fingerprints or ideas or amendments or thoughts or suggestions or hopes or anything else in this bill. There have been no hearings, no markups, no amendments, nothing of which we are entitled to as Members of the House and sent here by 750,000 Americans.

This bill, we know, does give $35 million to reimburse the National Guard for activities related to ``border security and the current influx of illegal immigrants.'' Now it turns out that only Texas has spent any money on that, and one wonders if that piqued Senator Cruz's interest in this bill and what we are doing over here because it looks like that is where the money will be going.

The bill tragically cuts all funding for the DREAM Act, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. We were told there were something like 700,000 children who were involved in that, who came forward on a promise by this government that they would have an opportunity to go to school and they would not be deported. Now the country has their names, their addresses, and they would be easy to deport because this bill puts an end to the DREAM Act.

I related today in the Rules Committee a story about four undocumented young men in high school in the United States that decided to enter into a contest to build an underwater robot, the trouble that they had simply getting the equipment to do it and the teachers who helped them do it. And they really felt that they had been outmatched and outgunned when they were going to compete as high school students against engineering students at MIT, a premier engineering school in the United States. What happened, those four young men won. They beat MIT. Now, they were part of the DREAM Act. We hope they will not be deported because, more than anything I can think of, the United States needs that kind of thinkers and innovators in what they had to do.

So the Cato Institute agrees. They wrote on July 29, 3 days ago, that DACA, the DREAM Act, was not a primary cause of the surge, and I insert this report from CATO, entitled, ``DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children,'' into the Record. I will also submit some statistical findings from Professor Tim Wong, from the University of California, San Diego, into the Record, entitled, ``DACA Did Not Cause the Influx of Unaccompanied Minors'' into the Record.

[From the CATO Institute, July 29, 2014]

DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children

(By Alex Nowrasteh)

In June, 2012 the Obama Administration announced that it

had authored a memo deferring the deportation of unauthorized

immigrant childhood arrivals in the United States, a program

known as deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA). The

memo directed then Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security to practice prosecutorial discretion toward a small

number of unauthorized immigrants who fulfilled a specific

set of characteristics. In essence, some unauthorized

immigrants who had come to the United States as children were

able to legally stay and work--at least temporarily.

Did DACA Cause the UAC Surge?

Some politicians contend that DACA is primarily responsible

for the surge in unaccompanied child (UAC) migrants across

the border in recent years. A recent House Appropriations

Committee one-pager stated that, ``The dire situation on our

Southern border has been exacerbated by the President's

current immigration policies.'' Proponents of this theory

argue that DACA sent a message to Central Americans that if

they came as children then the U.S. government would legalize

them, thus giving a large incentive for them to come in the

first place. Few facts of the unaccompanied children (UAC)

surge are consistent with the theory that DACA caused the

surge.

First, the surge in UAC began long before the June 15, 2012

announcement of DACA. It is true that DACA had been discussed

in late May 2012 but the surge was underway by that time.

From October 2011 through March 2012, there was a 93 percent

increase in UAC apprehensions over the same period in Fiscal

Year 2011. Texas Governor Rick Perry warned President Obama

about the rapid increase in UAC at the border in early May

2012--more than a full month before DACA was announced. In

early June 2012, Mexico was detaining twice as many Central

American children as in 2011. The surge in unaccompanied

children (UAC) began before DACA was announced.

Second, the children coming now are not legally able to

apply for DACA. A recipient of DACA has to have resided in

the United States continuously from June 15, 2007 to June 15,

2012, a requirement that excludes the unaccompanied children

coming now.

Third, if DACA was such an incentive for UAC to come from

Central America, why are so few Nicaraguan children coming?

They would benefit in the same way as unaccompanied children

from El Salvdaor, Honduras, and Guatemala. The lack of

Nicaraguans points to other causes of the surge.

The timing, legal exclusion of the UAC from DACA, and lack

of Nicaraguans indicate that DACA was not a primary cause of

the surge. Of the 404 UAC interviewed by the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees since 2011, only 9 mentioned

that U.S. laws influenced their decision to come to the

United States. Other American laws could have influenced the

unaccompanied children to come but DACA is not the main

culprit.

Details on DACA

The DACA beneficiaries, at the time of the memo, would have

to fulfill all of these requirements to have their

deportations deferred: under the age of 31; arrived to the

United States before reaching their 16th birthday; entered

the United States without inspection or overstayed a visa

prior to June 15, 2012; continuously resided in the United

States from June 15, 2007 to the time of the memo; physically

present in the United States on June 15, 2012, as well as at

the time of requesting deferred action from United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); been in school

at the time of application, or have already graduated or

obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or

have obtained a general education development (GED)

certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the

U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; not been convicted

of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other

misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national

security or public safety.

Beneficiaries of DACA were also allowed to apply for

employment authorization according to the Code of Federal

Regulations. There is a debate amongst legal scholars over

whether the administration's grant of deferred action was

legal. Those who argue that DACA was illegal contend that the

President overstepped his constitutional authority to defer

the deportation of some unauthorized immigrants. Those who

argue that DACA was legal point to the general power of the

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to defer

enforcement action. They argue that the Supreme Court has

ruled that decisions to initiate or terminate enforcement

proceedings fall within the authority of the Executive--an

enforcement power used since the early 1970s. Here is more of

their argument. This disagreement has not been settled.

By the end of September, 2013, 580,000 requests for DACA

were accepted by the U.S. government and 514,800, or 89

percent, were approved. Seventy-six percent of the requests

came from Mexicans. Twenty-nine percent of the requests were

filed from California, 16 percent from Texas, and 6 percent

from Illinois.

Read the Full Article: DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in

Unaccompanied Children

What is really happening here is the most extreme, anti-immigrant voices in the Republican Party using the crisis as a political cover to repeal a commonsense policy like the DREAM Act, and the Speaker has caved once again to those voices. Representative Steve King described the underlying legislation as something that he could have ordered off the menu.

Furthermore, the rules are of course closed, setting the record anew for the most closed rules in any Congress. This bill does stop short of catapulting those children into Mexico and then leaving them to walk to their home countries, but it certainly doesn't do very much since the discussion in the House of Representatives for several years now has been what to do about immigration. It really is a sorry path that we have reached the condition we are in right now, a one-House bill, a Senate that is gone, and a President who won't sign it.

If we learned anything this week, we learned from Speaker Boehner's comments on his blog that the President should do more, not less, contrary to the reason why they sued him, and we do hope that the President will do that and bring a more humane solution to this, as almost all religions in the United States have asked us to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and an expert on immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), my friend, and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 710 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, the ranking member from the Rules Committee, 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

The rule provides for expedited consideration of H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5272.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we are facing an unprecedented crisis on America's southern border. Nearly 60,000 unaccompanied alien children have entered the United States illegally this fiscal year, most of whom have come through the Texas-Mexico border, and today, our country faces a threat to our sovereignty and to our rule of law.

The time to act is now. It would be irresponsible for this body to go home for a month without doing our part to help work and solve this problem. I am glad that Members of the House recognize their duty to finish the job. I believe the House has put specific, concrete proposals to act in the best interest of the United States.

Let's take a look at what this crisis on our border is doing. First, the President's catch-and-release program is a big part of the problem. Under this program, nearly 90 percent of unaccompanied alien children have been placed with their families in the United States, many of whom are here illegally themselves.

Second, there is the President's DACA program. DACA is a major reason for the influx of illegal immigrants to the United States. The Director on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently testified to the Judiciary Committee that 700,000 undocumented immigrants have taken advantage of DACA.

Third, there is the 2008 trafficking law, which has allowed so many to effectively skip out on the judicial process and live in our country illegally. Catch and release under the President's proposal is wrong and bad for our country, and only encourages many, many more to continue the trek here.

Combined, these policies, plus signals from the administration, encouraged more illegal immigration and have led to the border crisis that we face today. To stop this crisis, our border must be secured and the tide of illegal immigration should be stemmed. I believe that this rule provides for legislation to accomplish that goal.

H.R. 5230 would provide $659 million for border security, the enforcement of existing laws, illegal immigration prevention, and humanitarian assistance. Additionally, $70 million would be provided for National Guard border efforts. This proposal is paid for, which means that it does not result in any new or additional Federal spending this fiscal year.

However, the House will not simply throw money at the problem. This package also makes specific, concrete policy changes to address the underlying problems that are fueling this crisis. Specifically, it prevents the administration from spending taxpayer dollars to adjudicate any new applications under DACA or any other similar policy. The package also amends the 2008 trafficking law so that all unaccompanied alien children are treated the same as, under the law today, Mexicans and Canadians, and this is for the purpose of removals.

It also provides additional temporary judges to help guarantee that these children get their day in court within 14 days from their initial screening. It also strengthens laws against criminals and those with serious drug-related convictions and those who have them from applying for asylum. It allows for customs and border protection activities on Federal land. Similarly, it authorizes the deployment of the National Guard to our southern border.

Finally, it prohibits the housing of unauthorized immigrants on military bases if housing them would displace members of the Armed Forces or any Active Duty or it interferes with military activity.

These steps come after a series of conversations with members of the majority. We have an obligation to get this bill done. As a Texan, I have pushed and pushed and pushed for us to make sure that we had a bill that could be supported by our Members. It is Texas and those living on the border that are seeing tremendous conditions that are placing our States and local people at a disadvantage.

Thus, I want to thank the Members for continuing to work together on a bill to get 218 votes. I applaud those who spent the time, including today, dedicating themselves to putting the package together. I thank the staff. And as always, I expect and want this body to support this good piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just say one of the things I learned this week was that the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) presented not only her thoughts and ideas at our conference when we met about how we can make our borders stronger, but she was present the entire time at the Rules Committee, had a chance to forthrightly participate. We had hours and hours of discussion about not only the legislation and what we were doing, but we actually shared ideas among Members on a bipartisan basis today, and I felt like it was a pretty good exchange.

I am delighted, at this time, to yield 15 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton), the dean of the Texas delegation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tyler, Texas, Judge Gohmert, a former State district judge, now Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 seconds for a clarification of his remarks, if he would take me up on that time.

I would like to advise the gentleman that I do not believe it is a correct statement to say combat-ready troops. The National Guard that is in Texas is not all combat ready. If I could get the gentleman to correct that, I yield him 15 seconds.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the Record note that there is no specification for these men and women of the National Guard to be combat ready. In fact, I do not believe that that would be a true statement.

That is not a part of what we have specified in this plan, nor do I believe that it would be a requirement. So I have asked the gentleman, and he chose to answer the way he did, but I would like to state on the Record that there are no requirements, there is no precondition for that. In fact, I do not believe that that is a correct statement.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jolly), one of our newest Members.

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.''

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. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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.