Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6136) to amend the immigration laws and provide for border security, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am strongly against this rule and the underlying legislation. We have a human rights catastrophe on our hands. In less than 90 days, the Trump administration has ripped 2,500 children out of their parents' arms.

I am the father of a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old. I can only imagine what it would mean to have them taken to parts unknown, perhaps even locked in a cage, not knowing, not being able to find out what is happening to them.

This was a conscious decision that President Trump and Attorney General Sessions made to separate children from parents. It was not the congressional intent of the law. It was not the way that President Obama implemented the law. It was not the way President Trump implemented the law until 90 days ago. But then President Trump made this mean-spirited decision to literally take little children, even babies, away from their mothers in our country, to place innocent children in facilities that have mats on the floor or thermal blankets for warmth, away from the loving embrace of a mom or a dad.

The President called this a zero-tolerance policy. It was simply the only reason that these families that are fleeing to the U.S., who are trying to keep their children safe, are being treated like criminals and having their young children taken away from them.

Children are being moved around this country faster than the Office of Refugee Resettlement can even track. We already know that the Office of Refugee Resettlement has a history of literally losing children, losing track of them while they are in custody, and now they are responsible for even more young, innocent lives.

Young children are being placed with host families as far away from the border as Michigan and Washington State. Parents don't even know where their children are. And young children are simply terrified about what happened to their loving mom and their loving dad, and how our country, the United States of America, could be complicit in separating them from the only parents they know.

This is an embarrassment for our Nation, and it must end.

And it is offensive when these bills before us are talked about as consensus or compromise, when no Democrats were involved. It may be a consensus between far-right Republicans and rightwing Republicans, but it is not a consensus among moderates, independents, or a single Democrat.

And when it comes to caring about these kids, I know my Republican colleagues care as well. So show it by supporting a true compromise bill, like the Dream Act, like other bills that we have had before us, like comprehensive immigration reform that, of course, will get votes from both sides of the aisle because they are the right thing to do for our country.

There are long-term consequences for this shortsighted policy. The very act of separating a family has traumatic and long-lasting impact for young girls like this, taken away from their mom and dad, their culture, their support system. They don't even have the tools at a young age to process what is going on or the trauma or the reality of the situation.

One Colorado pediatric emergency doctor treating children removed from their parents said: ``The children clung so tightly and completely to their foster mothers, both at the emergency department and at home, that they were literally unable to put them down. They were terrified that their world would be broken for a second time.''

The Trump administration is creating a generation of thousands of kids, many of whom will grow up in our country, whose first and sometimes most formative memories is of somebody wearing the badge or the flag of our country tearing them apart from their mother or their father while they are screaming, while they are crying out in the void of a fluorescently-lit warehouse funded by your taxpayer dollars.

According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, responsible for the care of these kids, many children remain in these shelters for 57 days on average.

It is further disturbing that President Trump would willingly pull families apart and not have any plan for reuniting them even with his executive order, no plans to unite the over 2,500 children who have been torn apart from their parents.

According to the former director of ICE, these family separations may become permanent, literally leaving hundreds of kids here in the U.S. left in an already stressed and underfunded child welfare system, where they literally have a mom or dad fully capable of giving them care and loving them that has been forcibly separated from their own young children.

My office has been flooded with calls--I know yours has too, Mr. Speaker--some callers crying on the other end, demanding that we do something.

Yet, instead of ensuring that we provide resources families need and reunite them and heal the trauma, the Republicans are bringing to the floor partisan bills that would detain families indefinitely and criminalize even more immigrants. But this is what happens in a broken, failing, unaccountable immigration system. On that, we agree.

So, please, begin the discussions of compromise, of consensus. And that doesn't mean yourselves, Republicans. You control this body. You get to say what we vote on. It means involve caring independent, unaffiliated, Democrats, moms and dads, the faith community, the law enforcement community. Don't just have this discussion behind closed doors and come out with even more draconian measures that tear even more families apart.

So instead of bringing two bills to the floor that have widespread opposition, even in your own party--Republicans failed to pass their own bill--there are bipartisan solutions that would not only pass the House, but would get a large majority of the House. We could probably get to two-thirds of this House voting for compassion and love if we only were willing to try, bills that truly balance and include border security and safety and the values of our country, so we know that we, as Americans and as taxpayers, are not complicit in tearing a young girl's world apart.

Look, in Congress we often argue on policy issues. And I respect Mr. Newhouse, my friend from Washington. And I would tell him that what a compromise means, Mr. Newhouse, is not

you compromising with Stephen Miller; it means you compromising with Luis Gutierrez or Zoe Lofgren or me or the faith community. It is not a compromise when reasonable people like Mr. Newhouse and Mr. Curbelo go into a backroom and have the reason beaten out of them by hateful fearmongering that is, frankly, un-American.

Look, I urge my Republican colleagues to imagine that these children were theirs, because they are ours, they are our wards, they are in our country. This cannot be allowed to continue. We need to reject this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this heartless, inhumane bill and begin a true process of compromise and consensus that can secure our borders, fix our broken immigration system, unite families, restore the rule of law, and reflect our values as Americans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Reuters today titled: ``U.S. Centers Force Migrant Children to Take Drugs.''

[From Reuters, June 21, 2018]

U.S. Centers Force Migrant Children to Take Drugs: Lawsuit

Immigrant children are being routinely and forcibly given a

range of psychotropic drugs at U.S. government-funded youth

shelters to manage their trauma after being detained and in

some cases separated from parents, according to a lawsuit.

Children held at facilities such as the Shiloh Treatment

Center in Texas are almost certain to be administered the

drugs, irrespective of their condition, and without their

parents' consent, according to the lawsuit filed by the Los

Angeles-based Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law.

The Shiloh center, which specializes in services for

children and youths with behavioral and emotional problems,

did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

The lawsuit was filed on April 16, days after the

introduction of the Trump Administration's ``zero tolerance''

policy to separate children from parents who crossed the

U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Trump abandoned the policy on

Wednesday.

``If you're in Shiloh then it's almost certain you are on

these medications. So if any child were placed in Shiloh

after being separated from a parent, then they're almost

certainly on psychotropics,'' said Carlos Holguin, a lawyer

representing the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional

Law.

Officials at the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR),

which oversees such centers, were not immediately available

for comment.

Taking multiple psychotropic drugs at the same time can

seriously injure children, according to the filing, which

highlights the need for oversight to prevent medications

being used as ``chemical straight jackets,'' rather than

treat actual mental health needs.

ORR-run centers unilaterally administer the drugs to

children in disregard of laws in Texas and other states that

require either a parent's consent or a court order, the

filing said.

The lawsuit seeks a shift in ORR policies to comply with

state laws and prevent the prolonged detention of children.

Some youths at Shiloh reported being given up to nine

different pills in the morning and six in the evening and

said they were told they would remain detained if they

refused drugs, the lawsuit said.

Some said they had been held down and given injections when

they refused to take medication, the lawsuit said.

One mother said neither she nor any other family member had

been consulted about medication given to her daughter, even

though Shiloh had their contact details. Another mother said

her daughter received such powerful anti-anxiety medications

she collapsed several times, according to the filing.

Mr. Speaker, ``Immigrant children,'' quoting from this article, ``are being routinely and forcibly given a range of psychotropic drugs at U.S. government-funded youth shelters.''

Taking multiple psychotropic drugs can seriously injure children. And many youths in Shiloh detention facility are being given nine different pills in the morning, six in the evening. You are paying for them all, Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers are paying for pills and injections and drugs for 2-years-olds and 4-year-olds that have been stripped from their parents.

One mother said she nor any other family member had even been consulted about their daughter being given powerful drugs.

Many kids are being held down, forcibly given injections when they refuse to take the medication that our tax dollars are paying for.

We need to stop this, Mr. Speaker.

You don't need a bill to stop it. President Trump needs to stop it. He wasn't doing it till 90 days ago; then he started to do it. It is not the will of Congress. It is not the letter of the law. It is a policy that is un-American and far outside the intent of Republicans or Democrats in this body.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Ranking Member Nadler's bill, H.R. 6135, the Keep Families Together Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. This thoughtful proposal would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from separating children from their parents, of course, except in extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) to discuss our proposal.

I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.

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

To my friend Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Newhouse and so many others, we stand ready to work with you, but instead, you chose to work with Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Stephen Miller.

Come talk to us. We are ready. Democrats, to a person, are ready to support something that we don't fully agree with because we understand the Republicans control this body.

So come talk to us, and stop talking to Steve King, Louie Gohmert, and Stephen Miller.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also remind my friend from Miami that we have reached several compromises.

He and I are both members of the Problem Solvers Caucus. I am proud that the Problem Solvers Caucus--more than 25 Democrats, 25 Republicans--we agreed. We reached a compromise bill--border security, addresses the needs of the Dreamers. I think it would get 60, 70 percent of the votes on the floor of the House. Let's bring that bill up.

Unfortunately, Republicans chose to set Mr. Curbelo's work and my work aside and proceed with a spiteful bill that makes the problem worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled ``Pentagon Asked to Make Room for 20,000 Migrant Children on Military Bases.''

[June 21, 2018]

Pentagon Asked To Make Room for 20,000 Migrant Children on Military

Bases

(By Dan Lamothe, Seung Min Kim and Nick Miroff)

The Trump administration is considering housing up to

20,000 unaccompanied migrant children on military bases in

coming months, according to lawmakers and a Defense

Department memo obtained by The Washington Post.

The Pentagon's notification to lawmakers said that

officials at Health and Human Services asked the Pentagon to

indicate whether it can provide the beds for children at

military installations ``for occupancy as early as July

through December 31, 2018.''

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) addressed the issue on the

Senate floor Thursday morning.

``The Department of Defense has been asked whether it can

house 20,000 unaccompanied children between now and the end

of the year,'' he said. ``How will that work? Is it even

feasible?''

The plan would seemingly have similarities to 2014, when

the Obama administration housed about 7,000 unaccompanied

children on three military bases. The Pentagon, in its

congressional notification to lawmakers, said it must

determine if it ``possesses these capabilities.'' As required

under the Economy Act, the memo said, the Defense Department

would be reimbursed for all costs incurred.

The sites would be run by HHS employees or contractors

working with them, the memo said. They would provide care to

the children, ``including supervision, meals, clothing,

medical services, transportation or other daily needs,'' and

HHS representatives will be present at each location.

The memo was sent to lawmakers Wednesday after President

Trump reversed his administration's unpopular policy to

separate children from their parents as they arrived at the

southern U.S. border.

The president's executive order directed Defense Secretary

Jim Mattis to ``take all legally available measures'' to

provide Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen with

``any existing facilities available for the housing and care

of alien families,'' and the construction of new facilities

``if necessary and consistent with law.''

Lt. Col. Jamie Davis acknowledged Thursday that the

Pentagon received the request, and said the department is

reviewing it.

The Trump administration spent months planning, testing and

defending its family separation system at the border, taking

more than 2,500 children from their parents in the six weeks

prior to the president's executive order Wednesday bringing

it to a halt.

The U.S. government has been examining for weeks whether it

can use military bases to house migrant children.

Representatives from HHS visited three bases in Texas--Fort

Bliss, Dyess Air Force Base and Goodfellow Air Force Base--

last week to review their facilities for suitability, and

were scheduled to review Little Rock Air Force Base in

Arkansas on Wednesday, Davis said.

The Obama administration temporarily set up temporary

centers in 2014 at three U.S. military bases: Fort Sill in

Oklahoma, Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and naval Base

Ventura in California.

Asked about the possibility of military bases being

involved again, Mattis said Wednesday that the Defense

Department would ``see what they come up with'' in HHS, and

that the Pentagon will ``respond if requested.''

Mattis dismissed concerns about housing migrants on

military bases now, noting that the Defense Department has

done it on several occasions and for several reasons.

``We have housed refugees,'' he said. ``We have housed

people thrown out of their homes by earthquakes and

hurricanes. We do whatever is in the best interest of the

country.''

The secretary, pressed on the sensitivities of the Trump

administration separating children from their parents, said

reporters would need to ask ``the people responsible for

it.''

``I'm not going to chime in from the outside,'' he said.

``There's people responsible for it. Secretary Nielson,

obviously, maintains close collaboration with us. You saw

that when we deployed certain National Guard units there, so

she's in charge.''

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Calif.), the

leading members of the armed services committees, wrote a

letter to Mattis on Wednesday requesting assurances that

members of Congress would have access to any migrant facility

established on a military base. The letter, sent before Trump

dropped his family-separation policy at the border, said that

it was essential to have access even in cases where only

short notice is provided.

Mattis has approved temporarily detailing 21 military

attorneys to the Justice Department to help with the glut of

immigration cases that have emerged on the border. The order,

issued earlier this month, calls for 21 attorneys with

criminal-trial experience to assist as special assistant U.S.

attorneys for 179 days, Davis said. They will help in

prosecuting border immigration cases, he added, ``with a

focus on misdemeanor improper entry and felony illegal

reentry cases.''

The possibility was raised in a congressional hearing in

May, and first reported as underway by MSNBC on Wednesday

night. U.S. law permits a judge advocate lawyer to be

assigned or detailed to another agency, including to provide

representation in civil and criminal cases.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is now looking to house up to 20,000 children taken away from their parents at military bases. They are looking to take 10 times as many children away from their parents as they already have.

It is time to stop President Trump.

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

Mr. Speaker, isn't that amazing? Republicans can't even find elected Representatives willing to come down here on the floor and defend taking kids away from their parents.

They are out of speakers because Republicans are embarrassed. They know that they cannot face the American people, no less their Maker, knowing that they are complicit in tearing innocent children away from mom and dad.

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Newhouse may be proud, but there are no other Republicans who have come to the floor to join him.

We have so many Democrats who want to speak about how you can unite families that I don't even have enough time to give.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague Mr. Newhouse if he will yield me the balance of his time. Well, I wish he would, because no Republicans are willing to face the American people, because they know they are not working to solve this issue. They are working to tear more families apart. And they are lying about it, Mr. Speaker. They are lying about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go to the definition of the word compromise, because I think that there needs to be education regarding what these words mean that are being tossed around. A compromise is an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

It doesn't mean looking at yourself in the mirror and conceding to yourself. It doesn't mean Republicans going into a closed-door meeting and coming out with a bill that makes things worse. It means Republicans and Democrats working together, each giving up some things, each living with what they can accept.

I have worked hard on compromise with many of my Republican colleagues through the Problem Solvers Caucus to solve and provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers while securing our border.

This bill makes things worse. It guts legal immigration. It eliminates two family immigration programs: married children of U.S. citizens, and siblings of U.S. adults. It doesn't even grandfather in people already in the system waiting to be reunited with their families, meaning that it will eliminate the current legal way that families can be reunified.

This bill raises the credible fear standard for asylum seekers to begin the process by raising the standards to more probably than not. This bill does nothing to prevent the Trump administration's grotesque policy of separating parents and children at the border. In fact, it simply removes protections for those families who are currently not separated at points of entry.

And now we are hearing that President Trump is preparing military bases to house up to 20,000 more kids that he plans to snatch from their moms and their dads.

We can do better. This humanitarian crisis is entirely President Trump's making. He didn't do it before the last 90 days. He just started a misinterpretation of the law. His recent executive order is not a solution. Over 2,300 kids have already been separated from their parents and there is no plan to reunite them.

This order doesn't even require any families be detained together, and the order doesn't contain any prohibitions barring family separation. We know that separating kids is wrong. I hope Americans agree that this is bad for kids.

But let's also look at science.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said that the incarceration of families and separation of families has long-term consequences for the health and wellbeing, mental and physical, for children and parents. Separation consequences include: post-traumatic stress disorder, developmental delays, and poor psychological adjustment.

I dare say that these policies of the Trump administration, who on their own decided to tear 1- and 2- and 3-year-old kids away from their parents, is going to create even greater needs for these next generation of kids, many of whom will grow up here legally, those who successfully pursue their asylum claims.

And while those immigration claims are being adjudicated, some might have to return to their native country. Some will be able to stay. Families should be together. No parent should have to see their own child stripped away.

This bill is hemorrhaging support. I have an article that I include in the Record from Politico stating that the Koch network won't support the House immigration bills, entitled: ``Koch network raps Trump, won't support House immigration bills.''

[From POLITICO, June 19, 2018]

Koch Network Raps Trump, Won't Support House Immigration Bills

(By Maggie Severns)

The political network founded by the Koch brothers is

taking a stand against both President Donald Trump's policy

toward separating families at the border and two immigration

bills due for votes in the House this week, dealing a blow to

GOP leaders who are marshaling support for their version.

``It's encouraging that the House will have a debate this

week on immigration bills that include protections for the

Dreamers,'' said Daniel Garza, president of the Koch

network's LIBRE Initiative, referring to a group of

undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.

``Unfortunately, in their current form, both [House

leadership's bill and an alternative immigration bill]

expected to receive a vote fall short of the solution we

need.''

Garza also called on Trump to ``take immediate action to

end the separation of families at the border by rescinding

the `zero tolerance' policy.''

The Kochs' push for a more moderate approach toward

immigration legislation complicates the thorny debate in

Washington. Lawmakers have called on Trump to stop his

administration from splitting up immigrant families, which

has drawn public outrage since he implemented a zero

tolerance policy of prosecuting everyone who crosses the

border illegally. Trump has refused to act alone, saying

Congress needs to pass immigration legislation.

The Koch brothers have pushed the Republican Party to

create a path to citizenship for Dreamers, who were extended

protections under the Obama administration that Trump has

tried to withdraw. The Kochs also have urged the GOP not to

make severe cuts to the flow of immigrants into the country,

even launching a seven-figure ad buy supporting their

efforts.

House Republicans were coalescing around an immigration

bill supported by House leadership that would, among other

things, give some protections to Dreamers. Its path forward

was already complicated: Trump blasted the measure last week,

but later Tuesday he was expected to travel to Capitol Hill

to rally Republicans behind it.

The Kochs' opposition to the GOP leadership bill could make

it even more difficult for House Speaker Paul Ryan to unite

his caucus behind it. Conservatives favor a second bill, also

due for a vote this week, from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

Garza said in a statement that ``it's clear there's strong

support in Congress and among the American people to provide

permanency to the Dreamers,'' but neither bill ``affords the

Dreamers the certainty they need to make a full contribution

to American communities,'' and both ``include arbitrary cuts

to legal immigration.''

I don't agree with the Koch network on much. I do know that they fund many Republicans, but maybe now that the Republicans are taking children away from their parents, the Kochs will stop funding Republicans, because I am glad to hear that they are people of principle.

The article says they ``push for a more moderate approach toward immigration legislation,'' and they have ``called on Trump to stop his administration from splitting up immigrant families,'' which this bill does not do.

In fact, this bill ends those who are waiting for family reunification today. So there is a legal way to unite families. This bill eliminates that and will lead to more families being apart.

This is a false crisis entirely of President Trump's making. I hope that even he has recognized that the American people will not stand for 3- and 4-year-olds literally being put in cages, strapped down while they are given drugs and medicated and injected, with Americans complicit in this atrocity.

It needs to be reiterated one more time that the votes we take on the rule today are more than procedural. They have a significant impact on young lives of innocent children.

They will show which Members of Congress care about fixing our immigration system and are willing to compromise and work in a bipartisan way, and which Members of Congress vote to make all of the problems outlined here today worse and more widespread.

We need to reject these bills, reject this rule. We need to keep families together. We need to begin the sometimes challenging work of compromise and consensus building between Republicans and Democrats, between Mr. Newhouse and Mr. Curbelo, and me and Ms. Lofgren and others--not with Stephen Miller, Steve King, or Louie Gohmert.

Reject these bills. Keep families together. Let's work together on border security, on fixing our broken immigration system, on uniting families, on a permanent solution for Dreamers, to ensure that this horror and affront to our American values ends and doesn't repeat itself ever again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 953 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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, on Wednesday, the House Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 953, providing for consideration of H.R. 6136, the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act. This legislation demonstrates a pivotal moment in our Nation's history, one in which we can choose to, for the first time in decades, make significant improvements to our Nation's broken immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for just about 3\1/2\ years, and throughout that period of time, and even before as I was working to become a Congressman, I have always been clear with the people of the Fourth Congressional District of the State of Washington that fixing our broken immigration system is a top priority and one that I believe my district, my State, and the entire Nation desperately needs.

With the rule that we bring forward today, I can look my constituents in the eye, and, with certainty, I can tell them that I believe that this legislation, the underlying bill, this consensus legislation that we have before us, is the best opportunity this body has had in many, many years--in fact, decades--to get something signed into law to make a true, lasting, substantive difference to improve our broken immigration system.

While it may not be perfect--few bills are--H.R. 6136, the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act, includes several main tenets to addressing our immigration crisis, and, I should add, it is the only bill that we are considering that includes all four pillars that the President, on numerous occasions, has stated must be a part of any legislation that he will sign into law.

First, this legislation includes desperately needed appropriations for border security. The bill appropriates funding for further construction of the border wall, as well as technology, personnel, and modernization of our ports of entry.

Our border security system is broken and must be fixed, so I would look to my fellow conservatives and say: This is our one shot to get this done. This is our one opportunity to live up to the commitment we gave to our constituents when we said we would secure our border.

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that this is our only chance, and we can't waste it. We can't squander it. Let's get our border secured once and for all, and keep our commitment to our people.

It also includes a desperately needed solution for the DACA population. I have shared with many of my colleagues time and time again that I have the second highest number of DACA recipients in my district in the State of Washington out of the entire Republican Conference. A full third of Washington State's DACA population lives in my district of central Washington.

I can tell you that I have met with literally hundreds of them, including just this week. Monday afternoon, I met with about half a dozen of these young people. They are smart, hardworking, respectful, caring members of our community, people that you would be proud to call your own constituents. I am proud that this legislation provides them with the certainty that they need so that they can continue moving forward with their educational and professional endeavors, and continue to be productive, upstanding members of society.

Do you know what they told me that they wanted and that they need? They would like hope. We can give it to them with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also, importantly, addresses the terrible situation that we have all been witnessing regarding family separation at the border. Children should not be taken away from their parents. We can enforce our laws and enforce our border while also keeping families together.

This situation has shown one more broken piece of an immigration system that is not working for anyone, and another example that shows why reform is so desperately needed. It makes clear that minors at the border must remain with their parent or legal guardian.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share an excerpt that comes from an interview that I just watched with one of our Border Patrol agents, a Mr. Chris Cabrera, and if I may quote him, Mr. Speaker.

``We've had this situation going on for 4 years now, and for some reason, we haven't fixed it. I don't think you can necessarily blame it on one administration or the other. It started under one and is continuing under another. It hasn't been fixed, and it needs to be fixed.

``Right now, we have this beacon of, `We'll leave the light on for you and let you come illegally into the country.' If you've seen some of the stuff we've seen down here, you would understand just how important it is to have a tough stance to divert people from coming here. When you see a 12-year-old girl with a Plan B pill--her parents put her on birth control because they know getting violated is part of the journey--that's a terrible way to live. When you see a 4-year-old girl traveling completely alone with just her parents' phone number written across her shirt, something needs to be done.

``We had a 9-year-old boy last year have a heat stroke and die in front of us with no family around. That's because we're allowing people to take advantage of this system.

``Let's be honest here, if we want this law changed, then that's on Congress. That's on nobody else but Congress. They need to get to work and change this law.''

So I would respectfully challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but on the other side of the aisle especially, do not join Senator Schumer, who says there is no need for a legislative solution. There is a need. I urge you to reject much of the rhetoric that I have heard on the floor just today rejecting funding for border security.

It can be easy to make this political and refuse to move a solution forward that actually has a chance of being signed into law in an effort to score political points. That is really easy. But this is just too important. Congress can legislate on this. Congress must legislate on this. And with this bill before us, we can fix this.

Now, to me, something important this legislation does not address is the desperate need for a reliable, efficient, and fair program for American farmers to access a legal, stable supply of workers. Our broken H-2A and guest worker program has hobbled much of the agricultural industry from attaining a reliable workforce.

Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee has been a steadfast advocate for reforming this system, and I thank him for his dedication to this matter over the years. I am heartened by the commitment the Speaker, as well as the majority leader, have given to me and others for a stand-alone vote on agricultural workforce legislation before the August recess. And I pledge to Chairman Goodlatte to work with him and all of my colleagues on that legislation.

So while this bill does not fix every broken aspect of our immigration system, it does take a major consensus-based step toward addressing several main components, including providing certainty for DACA recipients and finally securing our border once and for all.

Honestly, Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are asking me a pretty hard question: Why isn't this bill bipartisan? Why aren't any Democrats supporting it? I don't know the answer to that, but it may be just as simple as this: Because it is actually something that the President will sign into law.

Even though it provides certainty for the DACA population, which we all want, even though it addresses the terrible situation of family separation at the border, which I hear is something everybody wants to fix, anything that actually fulfills the President's goal of securing the border my Democratic colleagues seemingly refuse to vote for.

Now, I don't engage in hyperbole, but I do not think it is hyperbolic to say that my Democratic colleagues may not want to secure our border or enforce our immigration laws. That is what I see. It is clear to me their desire

to not give the President a ``win'' is more important than their desire to actually fix and find a solution to these issues.

Mr. Speaker, compromise is hard. It is tough stuff. Consensus is always difficult. Both of these things seem to have become four letter words. The same goes for cooperation and negotiation. But these are values that I, and many of us, have tried to espouse as we have worked together with colleagues from both sides of the aisle for these many months to find a solution to DACA while also securing our border.

But at the end of the day, we should all be operating under one reality--one thing that maybe some people do not want to accept or admit--whether you like it or not, the President has made it clear what must be included in any bill in order to be signed into law, he has told us what he needs. Now, I have acknowledged this, and I admit, it may be easier for some of us to admit than others, but that is the reality. If my colleagues refuse to accept that the President's top priority is securing the border, then consensus, Mr. Speaker, is just not possible.

I believe our President has shown good-faith willingness to compromise on the issue of DACA. He has come a long way.

Unfortunately, we have not seen that same good-faith effort coming from all of our colleagues. It is disappointing, my friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to work with us to try to find a solution here.

Mr. Speaker, history will be our greatest judge. It is always easy to be a no, but I will always strive to get to yes for the betterment of our Nation's future. There is simply too much riding on this legislation for us to not work as hard as we can to get to yes. The people of this country deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman that the Dream Act that he says is supported by many people in this Chamber would do nothing to address the issue that is happening at the border right now. The only piece of legislation before us today is the bill that we have in front of us, H.R. 6136, that if we pass that would solve that situation now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

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

The previous speaker just made the point I was going to. If you are going to negotiate in good faith and arrive at consensus, you have to accept who the President is and what he requires in order to sign legislation whether you like it or not. And one of the priorities that he has made as clear as day is that there will be border security and a wall. Refusing to accept that fact pretty much closes the door on the opportunity or any possibility of negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Curbelo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and would just like to respond to one thing that was said previously.

All of us have been using examples of young people and how they are being treated at the border. I take exception to the implication that we will all be judged accordingly by our Maker for doing so, in a negative way.

Let me just repeat what I said in my opening remarks, quoting a Border Patrol agent, Mr. Chris Cabrera. He told us that: ``If you've seen some of the stuff we've seen down here, you would understand just how important it is to have a tough stance to divert people from coming here. When you see a 12-year-old girl with a Plan B pill--her

parents put her on birth control because they know getting violated is part of the journey . . . something has to be done.''

That is exactly what we are doing here with this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

If we pass this today, that will help solve this problem today. That is what we, as Congress, need to do. We need to be responsive to the plight of people trying to get here, as well as to the citizens of our own country.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I am proud to represent my conference and stand here with this piece of legislation that will provide the certainty and the hope for more than 1.8 million DACA recipients and Dreamers in this country. If you vote ``no'' on this bill, you will be denying those individuals what they for so long have been wanting.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here representing my conference to do just that, to give them that hope, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, we have got so many Members coming wanting to speak. How much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, don't believe me. I would say don't believe Mr. Polis either. Believe the border security guard that I quoted earlier who said that the situation we have at the border happened under the previous administration as well as this one.

Mr. Trump, our President, did not manufacture this crisis, but this bill before us will solve that situation, which is why we need to pass this rule.

That whole issue takes away from one of the most pressing issues of our time, immigration reform. We will solve that, but we can also address immigration.

I am proud of the bill we have before us. I am proud that we have had so many speakers come and speak on its behalf. This is the only bill in front of us that has any potential chance of becoming law. The President will sign this bill because it addresses his four main pillars: it provides for border security, which the American people want. And, certainly, as we have talked a lot today, it provides for those 1.8 million DACA recipients and Dreamers. It is a good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it is the right thing to do.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 6136. Far from being the moderate and compromise bill that has been advertised, this bill is extreme and unreasonable. This bill eliminates the diversity visa program and cuts off even children and brothers and sisters from reunifying with their families.

The bill even revokes the approval of over 3 million family members who have been waiting for years to reunify with their U.S. citizen brothers, sisters, and parents.

While it claims to end President Trump's cruel family separation policy, nothing in the bill actually prohibits family separation or limits criminal prosecutions. And the bill requires the long-term detention of families and children while actually removing requirements that detention facilities be safe, sanitary, and appropriate for children.

It eliminates important asylum protections and would protect many bona fide asylum seekers from even applying for protection in the first place.

In addition, this legislation spends $23.4 billion to fund Donald Trump's offensive and unnecessary border wall.

Finally and most importantly, this bill fails to provide a certain path to citizenship for the Dreamers.

Donald Trump created havoc when he made the decision to strip legal status from young Americans who were brought to the U.S. as young children and who know only this country as their own. The Republican leadership repeatedly announced that they intended to protect the Dreamers. Now we see their supposed solution, and it is a half measure at best that leaves far too many Dreamers behind.

The bill's stringent eligibility requirements would likely cut off millions of Dreamers from eligibility to the bill's legalization program. To those who would be eligible, the bill establishes a long and difficult road to permanent residence, never mind to citizenship. Because of the limited number of visas made available, it would force applicants to wait for up to 23 years for permanent residence.

Most appalling, if even $1 of border wall funding is ever transferred or rescinded by a future Congress, the long and difficult path to permanent residence would be canceled entirely. This would effectively hold the Dreamers hostage to every future appropriations battle.

Now, we know the Republicans refer to this bill as a compromise, but it is not a compromise when you excluded the Democrats from negotiations.

There is, in fact, a compromise bipartisan bill, the Hurd-Aguilar bill, that actually provides a meaningful path to citizenship for Dreamers and doesn't bog the bill down in different considerations about the wall or about diversity visas or about family legislation.

Those are separate issues and should be debated separately if you want to redeem your promise to the Dreamers.

This bill is hypocritical, because it doesn't redeem the promise to the Dreamers and bogs it down in other issues, which we know will probably result in the bill never going anywhere.

Do not be fooled by this legislation. It is not moderate, it is not a compromise, it does not solve the Dreamer issue. It reflects the Republican majority's decision to keep a real Dreamer bill, the Hurd- Aguilar bill, off the floor.

It is yet one more extreme measure by the Republican majority that fails to solve the real issues plaguing our immigration system and betrays the promise to the Dreamers.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House promised to solve the problem of the Dreamers and to give them a path to citizenship. This bill does not do that except for 23 years, and it makes them hostage to other things such as the gentleman from Georgia talked about.

We do not agree, many of us, that we should go away from family-based unification. We do not agree on the four pillars. The President agrees with that. Some of the Republicans agree with that. We ought to debate that separately and have a bill that takes care of the Dreamers, as the President and the Speaker promised, instead of holding them hostage to all these other things that we don't agree to and that shouldn't be held hostage. We should have a clean DACA bill like Hurd-Aguilar.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Will the House vote on this measure tonight?

Mr. Speaker, will the House vote tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, can the Chair advise when the House will vote on the measure?

Mr. Speaker, under the rule, the minority, the Democrats, are entitled the offer one final amendment in the form of a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, when will we have that opportunity?

Mr. Speaker, we normally have that opportunity during debate.

Mr. Speaker, will we have that opportunity in debate tonight?

Mr. Speaker, I understand that.

Mr. Speaker, will we have the opportunity, as part of that debate, to offer the amendment in the form of a motion to recommit, as is our right during debate?

Mr. Speaker, I take it that we will be able to offer that motion to recommit before we finish debate tonight.

Mr. Speaker, you didn't answer my question, sir.

Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, entertaining debate on the bill now. The motion to recommit is part of that debate, and my question is: Will we be permitted to offer that motion to recommit before we finish debate tonight?

Mr. Speaker, there may be.

Mr. Speaker, if the Chair can't answer, perhaps the chairman of the committee can answer that question about the motion to recommit.

Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Speaker, can the chairman perhaps comment on when the House will vote on this bill?

Mr. Speaker, for what purpose are we debating this bill tonight if we cannot guarantee when or if we will vote?

Let me rephrase the question.

Mr. Speaker, can the Chair guarantee that we will, in fact, vote on this bill at some point?

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Acting Speaker right now. I think the mace is up, so Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are entertaining debate on the bill, obviously, but can the Chair guarantee that we will, in fact, vote on this bill at some point? Otherwise, why are we wasting time?

Mr. Speaker, can the Chair guarantee that we will have the opportunity, as guaranteed under the rules, to offer our motion to recommit, whether or not we ever vote on this bill?

Mr. Speaker, the Chair will not guarantee that the rule will be adhered to and give us the opportunity to offer that motion?

Mr. Speaker, the Chair is being very forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, I do assume that we will have the opportunity to offer our motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I further assume that at some point we will vote on this bill, otherwise, everything the majority has said about why it is being offered would be a little less than honest.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this supposed compromise bill is a sham. It fails to cover all Dreamers or to provide them with a certain path to citizenship. It fails to end the Trump family separation policy. It revokes critical protections for detained children and families. It eliminates important asylum protections. It makes communities less safe, and it slashes legal family immigration.

At every step of the way, this bill attacks family unity. It attacks immigrant communities, it attacks common decency, and it evades fulfilling the pledge of the Speaker and the President that we will solve the problem and allow a path to citizenship for the Dreamers.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report by the Cato Institute titled: ``House GOP Bill Cuts Legal Immigration by 1.4 Million Over 20 Years.''

[From CATO at Liberty, June 21, 2018]

House GOP Bill Cuts Legal Immigration by 1.4 Million Over 20 Years

(By David Bier and Stuart Anderson)

The House is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a bill--the

Border Security and Immigration Reform Act, the supposed GOP

compromise bill. The authors claim in their bill summary that

``the overall number of visas issued will not change,'' yet

that is simply incorrect. In fact, the proposal would reduce

legal immigration at least 1.4 million over 20 years.

The bill would reduce the number of legal immigrants in

five ways: 1) eliminating the diversity visa lottery, 2)

ending sponsorship of married adult children of U.S.

citizens, 3) ending sponsorship of siblings of U.S. citizens,

4) restricting asylum claims, and 5) indirectly by

restricting overall immigration, which will lead to fewer

sponsorships of spouses, minor children, and parents of

naturalized citizens years later. The bill partially offsets

these effects by increasing employer-sponsored immigration

and by granting permanent residency to some Dreamers in the

United States, but the net effect is still strongly negative.

Table 1 breaks down the cuts to legal immigration by

category over the 20-year period from 2020 to 2039. The net

effect is a reduction in legal immigration of 1.4 million

including Dreamers or 2.1 million not counting Dreamers

toward the total. This is a cut of 7 percent or 10 percent in

the number of legal immigrants that would have been allowed

to enter under current law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 953, I call up the bill (H.R. 6136) to amend the immigration laws and provide for border security, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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 H.R. 6136.

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

Madam Speaker, Michael McCaul, Carlos Curbelo, Jeff Denham, and I introduced H.R. 6136 to be a consensus bill designed to bring Members together. It is the product of fruitful negotiations and will offer us a path forward toward true immigration reform.

As with the Securing America's Future Act, this bill provides a legislative resolution of DACA, which was imposed through an unconstitutional abuse of executive power by President Obama. But in addition to a renewable legal status, this bill expands relief to those who were eligible for DACA but never applied. Many did not apply because they thought that DACA was simply unconstitutional.

H.R. 6136 also creates a merit-based green card program that the recipients of the bill's contingent nonimmigrant status can apply for. This program is the first-ever point system based on education, vocational training, apprenticeship, employment experience, English proficiency, and military service under U.S. immigration law.

Aliens with similar life experiences to DACA recipients can also apply: those who were brought to the United States as minors by parents on temporary work visas and grew up in the United States. All other DACA legislation that I am aware of discriminates against such persons simply because they and their parents haven't violated our laws.

To be clear, there is no special path to citizenship for DACA recipients or DACA-eligible individuals.

Importantly, this bill will help ensure that the DACA dilemma does not recur after a few short years. As with H.R. 4760, it will end ``catch and release,'' battle asylum fraud, and require that unaccompanied minors caught at the border be treated equally, regardless of their home country. As with H.R. 4760, it will ensure that the law no longer tempts minors and their parents to make the dangerous, illegal journey to the United States or to line the pockets of cartels.

We must turn off the irresistible ``jobs magnet,'' if we are ever to effectively deal with illegal immigration. While expansion of the hugely successful E-Verify program is not contained in H.R. 6136, I am pleased that the leadership has committed to bringing such legislation to the floor this summer.

As with H.R. 4760, the bill will make it easier to deport gang members who are aggravated felons, or who have multiple DUIs.

H.R. 6136 modernizes our legal immigration system. It will reduce extended family chain migration and terminate the diversity visa program, which awards green cards by random lottery to people with no ties to the United States. It reduces overall immigration numbers over the long term, and shifts to a first-in-line visa system by eliminating the per-country cap on employment-based green cards. The bill begins a shift to a merit-based system by establishing the new merit-based green card program that I described.

As with H.R. 4760, the bill corrects the disastrous Flores settlement to ensure that minors apprehended at the border with their parents are not separated from their parents when the parents are placed in DHS custody. Importantly, H.R. 6136 addresses family separation in light of the zero-tolerance prosecution initiative by mandating that DHS, not DOJ, maintain the custody of aliens charged with illegal entry along with their children. This would only apply to those who enter the country with children and would not permit those charged with felonies, or any other criminal activity, to be detained along with children. The bill allocates funding for family detention space to facilitate this requirement.

Congress has a unique opportunity to act now, before the country ends up with another large population who crossed the border illegally as children. Let's take this historic moment to come together and support vital legislation that provides commonsense, reasonable solutions.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join President Trump and support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, June 20, 2018.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte: Thank you for the opportunity to

review the relevant provisions of the text of H.R. 6136, the

Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018. As you

are aware, the bill was primarily referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary, while the Agriculture Committee received an

additional referral.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House in an expeditious manner.

Accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 6136 from further

consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with

the understanding that by discharging the bill, the Committee

on Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim

on this or similar matters. Further, the Committee on

Agriculture reserves the right to seek the appointment of

conferees, if it should become necessary.

I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters

into the Congressional Record during consideration of this

measure on the House floor.

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look

forward to continued cooperation between our respective

committees.

Sincerely,

K. Michael Conaway,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to say there are complaints that this is not a bipartisan bill, and yet we addressed the issues that Democrats expressed concern about.

We have a very good way to address the DACA population in this legislation, and yet when we look to the other side for help with securing our border, with taking the current fencing--and if you have ever been along that border, particularly in San Diego where they have a very high fence, but all it is is a fence. You can take a saw, an electric saw and cut through that in a matter of seconds and be on the other side. But where is the help for addressing those kind of security measures? I don't see it.

We have addressed in this legislation the family separation issue in a very good way. We agree: families should be unified. If it is simply a matter of a misdemeanor charge that the parents are facing, we want the children to be detained with them. But where is the help that we get from the other side in terms of addressing problems like catch-and- release; problems like asylum fraud; problems like unaccompanied minor status, where we have a disparity between how we handle unaccompanied minors coming across the border from Canada or Mexico who are Canadian or Mexican, but if they have come from somewhere else in the world through Canada or Mexico, we can't treat them the same way. All of those things are addressed in this bill.

We are addressing the concerns of the American people on how to address immigration reform through the four pillars: making sure we do something appropriate for the DACA population, including opportunities, not for a special pathway to citizenship, but to ultimately attain citizenship if they earn it; and we are also addressing the other three categories, border security and closing the loopholes in our laws, ending the visa lottery and moving to a merit-based immigration system, and moving towards a family-based immigration system that is the nuclear family, your spouse and your children, not extended family members.

I don't see anything addressing most of that coming from any legislation from the Democrats, and I certainly would welcome seeing their proposals on what they would do for a wall and fencing and other security measures along our border. I would be very interested in seeing what they do to help us move from an overwhelmingly family-based immigration system to one that is a merit-based system.

Countries like Canada and the United Kingdom and Australia, they give their immigrants visas in 50, 60, 70 percent of their cases based upon education, job skills, job offers, training. We are at 12 percent. That is unacceptable.

This bill moves us in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

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

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

If the gentlemen will yield, I don't control the floor schedule so I can't answer the question as to the timing of when the gentleman's opportunity to offer a motion to recommit, which the rules provide for, will be afforded to him. I don't know the answer to that.

If the gentleman will yield, again, I don't control the floor, and I don't have any direct advice on when that will take place.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of closing on our side, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the sham underlying legislation.

As the Ranking Member on Homeland Security, one truism that I hear is that you do not negotiate with terrorists.

Yet, that is exactly what the House Leadership is asking us to do today.

When the President said, in September, that he has ``a great heart'' for Dreamers, we were hopeful that a deal could be reached.

However, since that time, the Trump Administration has executed a ``campaign of terror'' in furtherance of one objective--getting Congress to pay for a border wall.

On September 5th, the President announced the repeal of DACA.

Then, on September 18th, he announced the end of the TPS program to give safe haven to Sudanese nationals.

On November 6th, it was ended for Nicaraguans.

Two weeks later, it was canceled for Haitians.

In January, Salvadorans also lost these immigration protections.

Arguably the cruelest, most inhumane tactical maneuver of the Trump Administration came on April 6th, when the ``Zero Tolerance policy'' was announced.

The ``DACA crisis'', the ``TPS crisis'', and now the ``Family Separation crisis'' are all crises of the President's own making.

And it is people--it is children--who suffer.

Make no mistake, the measure before us today will not end the suffering.

Instead of family separation, it offers family detention, an approach that DHS' own advisory committee has stated is ``neither appropriate nor necessary for families'' and is ``never in the best interest of children.''

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' on this rule and H.R. 6136, an Anti-Family Values bill.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 953 Offered by Mr. Polis

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.

6135) to limit the separation of families at or near ports of

entry. 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 and the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Homeland Security. 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. 6135.

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.