Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 6136, Border Security And Immigration Reform Act Of 2018
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…
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.