[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2660-H2668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1459, ENSURING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
IN THE CREATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 524 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 524
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 1459) to ensure that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 applies to the declaration
of national monuments, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the
[[Page H2661]]
Whole. All points of order against such amendments 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.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of March 27, 2014, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the following: (a) a
measure addressing the Medicare payment system for
physicians; and (b) a measure addressing Ukraine.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The gentleman from
Utah is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days within which they may revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a
structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1459, Ensuring Public
Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act.
It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order three amendments, two of
which are Democrat amendments, in addition to a manager's amendment.
The rule also wisely provides for same-day authority for the
legislative day of Thursday to consider the so-called ``doc fix''
bipartisan proposal, which may come forward for our consideration, as
well as for the consideration of measures aimed at supporting the
people of Ukraine against Russian aggression and expansionism. So this
is an important rule. Therefore, it deserves our strong support.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support
of the rule as well as of the underlying legislation primarily because
it is my bill. I appreciate the hard work and support of the chairman
of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings), in forwarding this important bill to the floor of the House
for our consideration.
I have to admit, Mr. Speaker--perhaps because the underlying bill is
my bill--that I have had a closer consideration of the discussion, of
the comments, that have been made about it, and I have taken some of
them rather personally. To be honest, I am, quite frankly, amazed at
some of the inaccuracies and the misinformation that has taken place by
some outside groups in blogs, in Internet descriptions by special
interests groups, and, actually, even by some Members of the floor.
{time} 1245
When I originally saw some of the reports that said this bill would
stop the creation of any more national parks, nothing could be further
from the truth, because actually the President can't create national
parks; only Congress can. It has nothing to do with national parks.
Eventually, they changed it to say this will stop creation of
national monuments. Again, that charge is simply ridiculous.
The essence of this bill is very simple. What it says is the
President should be treated like everyone else. Congress, if they are
going to make any kind of land decisions, must have an open process
where they have hearings and markups and bring things for an open vote.
If an agency of the government is going to make some sort of land
designation, they have to go through NEPA, the National Environmental
Policy Act, the process which provides for input--public discussion and
public advice--about it. The only one who cannot do that is the
President.
When the administration testified about this bill in committee, I was
amazed, because they said the President should not have to go through
the open process of obtaining public input on his decisions because
even though the entire Federal branch has to, he is only the head of
the Federal branch, he is not the Federal branch.
That just does not make sense to me. The idea is that everyone,
including the President, should ask for public input.
One of the groups, the National Resources Defense Council, wrote on
their blog that NEPA was the Magna Carta of environmental laws. They
wrote:
Much like the Magna Carta protected people from dangers of
monarchical rule, NEPA protects people by providing
transparency in Federal projects. Both the Magna Carta and
NEPA espouse the ideas of public participation in democracy
by giving citizens a voice in government decisions.
Yesterday, in a different bill in a different committee, the
administration testified against the bill, saying it would stop public
comments about this particular issue. I am sorry, but that is why I get
so confused about the rhetoric about this particular bill.
What we are asking is that before the President uses this authority,
it go through NEPA to provide for public comment and concepts.
If NEPA is the Magna Carta and it provides for citizen voices in
democratic decisions, how can you then say that this bill, which
provides for NEPA and that kind of policy, would eviscerate one of
America's bedrock conservation laws?
This is simply intellectual gymnastics at the highest level. Either
getting public input is good, in which case we should pass this bill,
or getting public input is bad, in which case there are a lot of things
that we should change around here. I happen to think that getting
public input is good. Because it does one thing: it solves problems
before they develop.
In our State, we have had a National Monument that has been
designated by Presidential proclamation for almost 20 years now. We are
still dealing with issues of what kind of grazing rights were or were
not included in that proclamation, what kind of roads were or were not
open. Even though we tried to solve the problem, because the President
had no concept of what School Trust Lands were in that area, and we
have tried to exchange those out, not all of those exchanges have yet
to be consummated.
Another of the monuments that the President recently proposed, they
have already come to us and said there are problems within the
boundaries of that monument. We have found private property we didn't
know existed. We don't know whether there are provisions in there to
allow duck hunting to go on, but we are not quite sure how you
accomplish that. We are really not quite sure which land agency is
responsible for the administration.
Those issues are all the issues that could be settled before you make
the designation. And if, indeed, the NEPA process was required, those
would become the issues that would be brought up, they would be
understood, and they would be dealt with before you make the
initiative.
So I have had people tell me that this is actually the ``No More
National Monuments'' bill. It would stop national monuments. It is
patently false. It is a false premise. It is a scare tactic, not an
argument. And it is incredibly wrong.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am here with my good friend from the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop,
and he made a passionate case. He cares deeply, as do many of us, about
issues affecting our public lands under the Antiquities Act. But the
real antique here is our outdated immigration system. That is the
antique.
When I have my town hall meetings in my district across Colorado, and
join my friends across the country, what I hear from my constituents is
not, Let's alter the process whereby a President might designate
something as a National Monument. That is not the number one issue.
That is not the number five issue. It is not the number 10 issue.
What my constituents demand, what Colorado demands, what our Nation
demands, is we replace our antiquated, out-of-date, ill-conceived,
completely
[[Page H2662]]
dysfunctional immigration system with one that works for our country,
with the principle of securing our borders, with the principle of
creating jobs for Americans, reducing our deficit, ensuring that people
who work here pay taxes, ensuring that companies have a responsibility
to authenticate and verify that their employees are here legally. That
is what the country needs. It is what more than 75 percent of the
American people support.
I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a bipartisan immigration
reform bill, H.R. 15. If we were to advance that bill to the floor of
the House, it would pass tomorrow. It would pass the next day.
But instead of that bill being even presented in the Rules Committee
for a vote and despite my repeated desires to the chair of that
committee, to the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, Mr.
Goodlatte, as Mr. Bishop has witnessed over a period of months, saying,
When will you bring forward this bill, when will you bring forward this
bill, when will you fix our broken immigration system, we have not
advanced one single immigration-related bill that addresses any one of
the flaws in the immigration system to the floor of the House this
entire legislative session.
So our patience is wearing thin, Mr. Speaker. And I have great
respect for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.
Great respect. And I understand it is the prerogative of the majority
party to control the bills that are being debated on the floor. But in
the absence of leadership, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of you bringing
a bill forward that allows us to fix our broken immigration system, we
the Members of this body, Democratic and Republican, have no choice but
to take it upon ourselves to bring this issue forward to the floor of
the House.
I am going to tell you a little bit about, Mr. Speaker, the way we
can do that.
These are the rules of the House. I strongly recommend them as a
bedtime read, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately, they have a provision called
the discharge petition that provides a way that the Members of this
body, 218 out of 435, meaning a majority of the Members of this body,
can sign a discharge petition for a bill. That means that despite a
Speaker or majority leader that refused to schedule that bill for
debate, if a majority of Members sign the discharge petition, it goes
right to the floor for a straight up-or-down vote.
That is all we are asking for, Mr. Speaker: a straight up-or-down
vote. I am confident H.R. 15 would pass tomorrow if we had that
opportunity. I call upon my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to
sign the discharge petition. Mr. Speaker, I call upon my friends across
the country to inform their Members of Congress that they want to see
action on this important issue.
In no way, shape, or form should this detract from the passion Mr.
Bishop has for obscure provisions of the Antiquities Act and the NEPA
process surrounding the establishment of public monuments, but this
simply isn't the issue that galvanizes our country. This simply isn't
the issue that reduces our deficit by $900 billion over two decades.
Whatever we do to the Antiquities Act does not create 150,000 jobs
for American citizens, does not boost GDP, and is not backed by an
unprecedented coalition of labor and business, farmworkers and
agricultural companies, the faith-based community, police and law
enforcement, and the business sector.
We have the opportunity to do something great for our country, Mr.
Speaker--the opportunity to show real leadership by, of course,
encouraging you, Mr. Speaker, to bring forward immigration reform. And
if you prefer to bring forward several components, we will work with
you to ensure that we can address some, if not all, of the issues
within our broken immigration system.
But failing your leadership, Mr. Speaker, the membership of this
body, under the rules of the House, has asserted itself under a
discharge petition to bring comprehensive immigration reform, H.R. 15,
immediately to the floor of the House for an up-or-down vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado may state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Is a discharge petition the process provided in the House
rules to allow a majority of the House, without the support of the
Speaker or the Rules Committee, to bring a measure to the floor that
has not been reported by committee?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The discharge process is addressed in clause
2 of rule XV.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that any House Member can file
a discharge petition if a committee has failed to act on a bill after
30 legislative days?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Member is free to consult the standing
rules of the House. The pending business on the floor debate is House
Resolution 524.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, are there any provisions in the current rule
that would allow for an up-or-down vote on immigration reform?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not construe the pending
resolution.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, is it true that H.R. 15, the bipartisan
immigration reform bill, has been pending before several committees and
has not even faced a vote in committee since it was introduced in
October?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the American people will determine what is
relevant and what is not.
Mr. Speaker, I think what is relevant here is the fact that this
body, which wasn't even in session last week, which is working 9\1/2\
hours this week, is simply not addressing the issues that the American
people are demanding that we address.
Mr. Speaker, one wonders why perhaps only 8 or 12 percent of the
American people approve of the institution of Congress. It is precisely
because of the issues that people care about and they want us to solve.
And it is not a partisan thing. These are the issues that my Democratic
and Republican and Independent constituents all want us to solve. They
all want to make sure that we reduce the deficit, secure our borders,
and implement mandatory workplace authentication of workers. These are
commonsense provisions that are supported across the ideological
spectrum.
There has not been a committee vote on H.R. 15. There has not been a
floor vote on any legislative proposal to address any dimension of our
broken immigration system.
That is why I join my colleagues in signing a discharge petition
under the rules of the House to bring forward this bill for immediate
consideration on the floor so that this body can work its will to
finally replace our broken immigration system with one that works.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am pleased to see the passionate fervor of the gentleman from
Colorado on this issue. I wish that that passion and fervor had been
there a couple of years ago when I had an immigration bill on the floor
that dealt with many of these issues.
Unfortunately, today, we have an issue that is extremely important to
those of us who live in the West. I think my county commissioners, all
of whom see this as a very, very critical issue, will take some kind of
umbrage to saying that this is not a significant thing, especially if
you are one of the county commissioners that lives in the West and the
Federal Government has control of your land--the entire county. Take
Wayne County, for example: 3 percent of its county is private property,
and that is not a small county. The rest is controlled by the Federal
Government.
There is the constant fear by these people that the President, by a
stroke of a pen or picking up a telephone, can make a ruling or a
proclamation that will change their lives significantly; that will make
their economy turn upside down. And there is not a thing they can do
about it. This is the reason we have asked for this bill--to at least
give these county commissioners the chance of having public input
before the decision is made. That is why this becomes so significant.
[[Page H2663]]
These county commissioners want to be treated fairly, as all people
want to be treated fairly, and one of the problems they have in being
treated fairly is simply this particular archaic act.
The original Antiquities Act was passed in 1906. Think about that for
a minute. What kind of environmental laws were there in 1906? Also
consider the state of the Nation in 1906. In 1906, the States of
Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma were not part of the
Nation.
{time} 1300
Even my State of Utah was less than a decade old as a State in this
particular Nation.
A lot is made often about how the Grand Canyon was created by using
the Antiquities Act. Actually, it was. Unfortunately, it was a monument
using the Antiquities Act, but the Grand Canyon had actually been a
national forest before it was created a monument; and when it was
created as Grand Canyon National Park, that was done by Congress
because only Congress has the ability to create national parks.
So one of the situations we have is the situation is extremely
different from 1906 till today; and one of the things that also is
different is that the Antiquities Act has been used in the past, but it
has basically been abused in the current time.
There are three criteria for which the Antiquities Act is supposed to
be able to be used to create a national monument. One is it has to have
a specific element that needs to be protected: archaeological,
historical, geographical.
Secondly, it has to be in imminent danger of being destroyed.
Third, it has to be in the smallest footprint possible, which meant,
when they were debating it in 1906 on the floor, the debate was very
clear they were talking about 2 to 300 acres.
President Bush created thousands of acres of a national monument.
Fortunately, it was in water, but he created one because it had a lot
of fish without ever deciding what the significant factor was.
The President has created a couple of national monuments, our current
one, for structures that were already under preservation status. There
was no imminent danger.
When President Clinton did the Grand Staircase-Escalante, that was
not 200 acres. That was 1.9 million acres, which is larger than a
couple of our small States combined. So the criteria for the use of the
Presidential authority has changed radically.
Also, the way it has been used has changed radically. Look, from the
Depression era to the beginning of 1976, let us say, roughly a half
century, the Antiquities Act was only used nine times.
President Roosevelt, in his four terms, only used it three times, and
one of those was reversed by Congress.
When President Carter came into office, he then used it 15 times in
his 4 years.
President Clinton then used it 22 times, all of which were in his
last 4 years.
President Obama has already used it eight times, and is counting.
It is very clear that we are doing it differently than it was in the
past. All those other uses of the Antiquities Act were done, actually,
to designate a specific topic and try to preserve it. What we are
finding now is it is being used as a political weapon, a ``gotcha''
effort, a power play, without letting anyone know about it.
In the case of the Grand Staircase-Escalante, the Governor, the
morning, at 2:00 in the morning, was explaining what public trust lands
were to the White House. At 12, the President then designated the Grand
Staircase-Escalante monument without ever dealing with the issue of
school trust lands in those particular areas.
What I am saying is, we need to change something now because we are
starting to use the Antiquities Act as a political bludgeon, and it
shouldn't be that way. The most mellow way, the most moderate way of
doing that is simply doing this bill that says, okay, we are not going
to take the power away from the President. All we are going to do is,
before you use it--you can't surprise people with it--you have to go
through the NEPA process, which requires public comment, public input,
which is what every other agency in the Federal Government has to use.
Congress has to go through that same process.
The only one who is exempt from public comments is the President.
That is why this is important. That is why this is vital, especially to
people who live in high rural areas that have a lot of Federal land in
which they are frightened that the President could upend everything
simply by a stroke of a pen, and they don't have an avenue to give
input. This bill gives them input. It is easily the most moderate
approach that will ever come about the Antiquities Act on this floor,
and I think it is worthy of supporting the rule and bringing it to the
floor for a final vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, let's replace the antiquity that is our
broken immigration system with one that reflects our values as a
country. The hole in our border security is wider than the Grand Canyon
the gentleman from Utah mentions. Let's fix that.
The hole in our values is wider than the Grand Canyon. Let's fix
that.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a
vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that honors our American
values.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Chu) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to
demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that provides
an earned pathway to citizenship.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has
been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Does the gentleman from Utah yield for the purpose of this unanimous
consent request?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for this purpose.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah does not yield;
therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Garcia), the chief sponsor of the bipartisan immigration reform bill,
for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15
to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites
our families and moves our country forward.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Utah yield for the
purpose of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for this purpose.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah does not yield;
therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Horsford), a champion of immigration reform, for a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that
unites our families, keeps our families together, moves our country
forward.
We demand a vote, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Utah yield for the
purpose of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. May I ask an inquiry?
Was that for a vote on Tule Springs or something else? Apparently, it
was something else.
Mr. POLIS. Was your inquiry through the Speaker?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my earlier
announcement that all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. I
am not prepared to yield for any other purpose.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah does not yield;
therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to try until the
gentleman from Utah allows our consent request.
I am proud to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky), a true leader on immigration
[[Page H2664]]
reform, for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that
unites our families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Would the Chair inquire of the gentleman from Utah if he
does accept the request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah indicated he will
not yield for any request for unanimous consent.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. POLIS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, does the Record show a response for the
gentleman from Utah to the request from the gentlewoman from Illinois?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understood that that is the
feeling of the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. POLIS. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. How does the Speaker know the ``feelings'' of the
gentleman from Utah?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman stated that he will not yield
to any more unanimous consent requests of this type.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Ben Ray Lujan), a leader in the fight for immigration reform, for the
purpose of a unanimous consent request to bring up H.R. 15.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration
reform bill that honors our American values.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Becerra), the chair of the Democratic Caucus, for a unanimous consent
request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair first asks the gentleman from
California to please remove the badge from his lapel.
The gentleman from California may now proceed.
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a
vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that has been held up
for more than 733 days to honor our American values so that I can wear
this tag later on in the future with great pride.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Veasey), a leader on the fight for immigration reform, for a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15
to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites
families and moves our country forward.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. POLIS. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a response on the last four
inquiries from the gentleman from Utah. I was hoping the Speaker could
pose the question to him, if he would accede to our request for a
unanimous consent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the understanding of the Chair the
gentleman from Utah would not yield for any more unanimous consent
requests, and therefore, they will not be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. I would ask the gentleman from Utah--and I will be happy
to yield him a moment for an answer--how many of us need to come
forward and ask for a vote on replacing the antiquity that is our
broken immigration system until you will accede to a simple request for
an up-or-down vote?
I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman for giving me his time,
which I would be happy to talk about the bill that is actually before
us and will be here because it is a wonderful bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Utah
chose not to answer the simple question of how many people we need to
have to bring up this bill. I know that we can get more people to come
down because, guess what? We stand ready to solve the issue of our
broken immigration system. We also stand ready, as Americans, as
Democrats, as Representatives, to work with our friends on the other
side of the aisle to fashion a solution that works for our country.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 15, the bipartisan comprehensive
immigration reform bill introduced by Mr. Garcia that is nearly
identical to the measure already passed by the Senate.
We need comprehensive immigration reform. And if the leadership of
this body, Mr. Speaker, yourself, and the leader, Mr. Cantor, are
serious about wanting to pass a jobs bill, are serious about wanting to
reduce the deficit, they will act on this bill, because the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting this bill reduces
our deficit by $900 billion over 20 years. It boosts economic output,
raises capital investment in our country, and increases the
productivity of both labor and capital.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, what we have here and what we are doing under
the rules of this body is we are using another method called the
previous question where we, in the minority party, can actually get a
vote where, if we defeat the previous question, we can then bring
forward immigration reform, H.R. 15, the bipartisan bill. That is all
we ask, Mr. Speaker, is that we ask our friends on both sides of the
aisle to join us in a procedural motion to defeat the previous
question.
Since the gentleman from Utah has thus far refused to allow a
unanimous consent request--although I certainly am hopeful that he will
as more Members of this body request that, out of courtesy, at least to
have an up-or-down vote on immigration reform--we do have another
outlet, and that is the previous question, which will be forthcoming.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for
the purpose of a unanimous consent request, another leader in the fight
to replace our broken immigration with one that works.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a
vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that provides an earned
pathway to citizenship.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Cohen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request so that this
House can address replacing the real antiquity that is our broken
immigration system.
Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a
vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that reduces our deficit
by $900 billion over the next 2 years, according to the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, and $200 billion in
[[Page H2665]]
the first year, and gives people an opportunity to participate out of
the shadows of government and yet, be taxpaying citizens out in the
front of society and be Americans who contribute to our economy and
provide workers that we need to be a 21st century economy that is
effective in keeping us as the world's number one economic power.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
As the Chair advised on January 15, 2014, even though a unanimous
consent request to consider a measure is not entertained,
embellishments accompanying such request constitute debate and will
become an imposition on the time of the Member who has yielded for that
purpose.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, with due respect, our desire that we are
placing before you is to have a debate about immigration.
Mr. Speaker, not 1 hour, not half an hour, not 10 minutes, not 1
minute of floor time for the last entire year and a half has been
scheduled for debate on this important topic: replacing our immigration
system with one that works. There is no desire to embellish or debate
through motions. There is an earnest desire to debate the merits of the
bill. We can accomplish that in three ways here, Mr. Speaker:
We can defeat the previous question and bring up immigration reform;
the continued enthusiasm from my colleagues can convince Mr. Bishop to
allow for the unanimous consent request to bring up H.R. 15; or, third,
my colleagues can sign the discharge petition now at the desk, and once
that petition receives 218 votes, it will advance immediately to the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Lujan
Grisham) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the
bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites our families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al
Green), a leader in the fight to replace our broken immigration system
with one that works, for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request.
{time} 1315
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring
up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill
that provides an earned pathway to citizenship.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from
Utah how many more of my colleagues need to urgently request that this
bill come forward before he would kindly consider our unanimous consent
request to allow this bill to be debated on, even recognizing you may
be opposed to it and others may support it, at least allowing us to
have this debate?
How many more Members need to come forward and request that for him,
as a courtesy, to consider that?
I am happy to yield for an answer.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I, again, appreciate the gentleman from Colorado
giving me the opportunity to speak about the issue that is at hand. I
would even be happy if he would give me the opportunity to speak about
a good immigration bill, which is mine, but since that is not the case,
let me go, once more, to the issue that is at hand.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah
is immersed in the arcane aspects of antiquities law. I certainly
understand his passion for that. I truly do.
The gentleman from Utah and I have had a many great discussions on
managing our public lands, which is a big part of his district and is
certainly a big part of the district that I represent, but the true
antiquity in the room is our broken immigration system.
The gentleman from Utah has the ability to allow us, through
unanimous consent, to bring H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform,
to the floor of the House to solve this issue.
Every Member of this body, Democratic and Republican, has the ability
to sign a discharge petition. Once it reaches 218 signatures, no
Member--not the Speaker and not the majority leader--can prevent that
bill from being voted on in a straight up-or-down vote. It is time to
simply demand a debate, demand a vote on comprehensive immigration
reform.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to act on legislation that has
already passed the Senate with more than a two-thirds majority,
including support from the home State of the gentleman from Utah, the
senior Senator.
We passed a bill that the President would sign. We have a chance to
pass bipartisan legislation that reduces our deficit, that secures our
borders, that requires workplace authentication.
I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that just this morning, Congressman
Garcia filed a discharge petition on H.R. 15, finally allowing the
membership of this body to go around a Speaker or a majority leader
that is unwilling to address the issue of immigration, to bring forward
our solution, our bipartisan solution, H.R. 15.
Now, again, I and many Members of this body are happy to consider
other proposals. The gentleman from Utah has mentioned that he has a
proposal. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have a number of
proposals.
Some have even passed through the Judiciary Committee, but not one
immigration bill has been debated or voted on in the entire year and a
half of this legislative session.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from California
(Mrs. Napolitano), a leader in the fight for immigration reform, for
the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Polis) for allowing me to ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that
reduces our deficit by $900 billion. This is an American values reform
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think reducing our deficit by $900
billion is a good idea. I really do. I think the American people agree
that reducing our deficit by $900 billion is a good idea; and if all
that stands in the way of us reducing our deficit by $900 billion is
allowing this request to move through, I would certainly urge my friend
from Utah to reconsider.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time for the moment.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the majority of the American people,
regardless of where they stand in the ideological spectrum or their
party--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, Libertarians--all
agree that the time is now to pass immigration reform. A recent CNN
poll showed 81 percent support for immigration reform.
Another poll showed that 72 percent of Republicans support the
package of reforms that are included in the Senate bipartisan package
and the House bipartisan package.
So what are we debating here, Mr. Speaker? Are we simply refusing to
discuss any solutions? Mr. Speaker, we have offered unanimous consent
request after unanimous consent request, which the gentleman from Utah
has not agreed to one of those; and, Mr. Speaker, on others, you have
read his mind and assumed that he hasn't agreed, although we haven't
heard from him on each of those.
We filed the discharge petition. I hope that that soon has 218 votes,
but very soon, Mr. Speaker, there will actually be a vote right here in
this body on the previous question; and if we defeat that motion on the
previous question, we will bring forward H.R. 15, the bipartisan
immigration reform bill.
A similar version passed the Senate with more than two-thirds'
support, and I am optimistic that that bill will pass the House today.
Let's have some debate on immigration reform. Rather than working
9\1/2\ hours this week, the American people
[[Page H2666]]
want to see a Congress that tackles problems and works towards
solutions.
They want to see a Congress that creates jobs for Americans, makes
sure that we have workplace enforcement of our immigration laws, and
secure borders. It doesn't happen by itself.
Absent this body taking action, the hole in our border security will
continue to be as wide as the Grand Canyon, as the gentleman from Utah
has mentioned.
The hole in our national spirit and our identity and our values will
be just as wide if we continue to refuse to act to unite families and
bring together Americans and to finally reflect our history as a nation
of immigrants and as a nation of laws.
It is not inconsistent to be a nation of immigrants and a nation of
laws, but under the current chaos and disorder that is our immigration
dysfunction, we appease no one.
It is not good for our security when we don't know who is here. It is
not good for American business when they don't know who is here legally
and who is not, nor when companies that hire people under the table for
cash are rewarded.
It doesn't reflect our values, as a country, to tear an American
child from their parent and, at taxpayer expense, sending a parent back
to another country away from their child.
It doesn't reflect our values to, at taxpayer expense, keep people
detained for months or even years who have committed no criminal act in
our country.
These should all be addressed, Mr. Speaker, through a bill with broad
bipartisan buy-in, with support from across the ideological spectrum
that would pass tomorrow if we can simply defeat the previous question
or if the gentleman from Utah will entertain one of my colleagues'
unanimous consent requests or if 218 of us sign where I have signed on
demand a vote, the discharge petition now at the desk on immigration
reform.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am actually prepared to close and will reserve
the balance of my time until that time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity in this body to
address an issue that is in the hearts and in the minds of people
across our country, of businesses across our country, of faith leaders
across our country, and that is reconciling our immigration system with
our values and with our economic needs, as a country.
We can do it, Mr. Speaker. We can, with one bill, reduce our deficit
by $900 billion. We can, Mr. Speaker, secure our borders and prevent
people from entering this country illegally. We can, Mr. Speaker,
ensure that every company verifies the people that work for it are
legally here through a national database.
We can, Mr. Speaker, create 151,000 jobs for Americans. We can, Mr.
Speaker, grow our economy by an additional 4.8 percent over a 20-year
period. We can, Mr. Speaker, unite an American child with their
parents, so they can grow into the great Americans that they will
become, if only we let them.
There are millions of aspiring Americans throughout our country--in
my district, in my State of Colorado, and across the country--people
who want nothing more than to play by our rules, to speak our language,
to pay taxes, and to spend money in our stores, generating jobs for our
economy, if only we will let them.
We need immigration reform, Mr. Speaker, which is why an
unprecedented alliance has come together from across the spectrum in
support of immigration reform. In the faith-based community, leaders in
the evangelical movement, the Catholic Church, the Jewish faith, and
many others have joined arm-in-arm saying: demand action, the time is
now.
The business community--from the tech community to the farmers to
agriculture--are united around replacing our broken immigration system
with one that works, so we have the pipeline of talent we need, so that
America remains competitive and to prevent the offshoring of jobs
overseas.
Workers across the country are united, in organized labor, in saying:
we want to replace our broken immigration system with one that works
because, when we have a large illegal workforce in our country, it
undermines wages for American workers.
We need to prevent the undermining of wages for American workers by
replacing our immigration system with one that works and one that
requires workplace authentication of all people that are employed.
At this time, I will move down to the well, where I have a sign that
will be displayed with me, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to ask
unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 and demand a vote on the
bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites our families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to ask the gentleman from Utah if he has
changed his mind and will yield for that purpose?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have not.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we will not give up. The American people will
not give up. American companies will not give up, whether they are
Fortune 400 companies, whether they are tomorrow's start-ups, which
contains an entrepreneurship visa bill within immigration reform. We
will not give up.
This issue gets larger and larger, bigger and bigger the longer we
wait. There may be 10 million people here illegally today. If this body
takes no action, Mr. Speaker, there might be 15 million people here
illegally in 10 years.
The problem does not solve itself. We need to have enforcement of the
law and border security and a rational way to deal with the issue
within our country.
I encourage my friends, Mr. Speaker, on social media, on Twitter, on
Facebook, to demand a vote and join me in simply allowing this body,
Congress, the only body that can solve this bill--I know, Mr. Speaker,
many of our State legislatures have debated around the edges and
discussed whether instate tuition works or what benefits might be
denied to people who aren't here legally.
But our State legislators across the aisle--Democratic and
Republican--know that only Congress can secure our borders and replace
our broken immigration system with one that works.
{time} 1330
That is why I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to join me in demanding a
vote, demanding a debate, and bringing to the floor comprehensive
immigration reform, or, if you prefer, Mr. Speaker, a series of bills
designed to address issues within immigration reform to see how we can
move forward to get on the same page with the Senate and fundamentally
address this issue in a way that creates jobs for Americans, secures
our borders, restores the rule of law, and reduces our deficit by $900
billion.
I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the
bipartisan immigration reform that reduces our deficit by $900 billion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. The longer we delay in passing immigration reform, the
greater costs of inaction. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
shows that H.R. 15 would reduce our deficit by $900 billion. Imagine
including that, $200 billion in the first decade, in the baseline
budget for the House of Representatives being worked on by Mr. Ryan and
his associates on the Budget Committee.
What could that $200 billion do? Could we reduce the marginal rate?
Could we reduce tax rates for corporations that keep jobs here rather
than outsource them overseas? Could we reduce our deficit with that
$200 billion? Could we invest it in tomorrow's infrastructure to help
America remain competitive?
The answer is yes. $200 billion is generated from fixing our
immigration system in a commonsense way that more than 80 percent of
the American people support. Immigration reform means that housing
units would be increasingly in demand and residential construction
spending would increase by $68 billion per year over a 20-year period.
Under immigration reform, over $100 billion more in additional taxes
would be paid, allowing, again,
[[Page H2667]]
tax reductions to others or investments in education and
infrastructure, including revenues to State and local government.
I hope the majority is listening to former Speaker Hastert who said
in an op-ed recently:
Immigration reform will make us safer, and it will make us
economically stronger. It is politically smart and morally
right.
And when we look at ourselves at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we
do need to stand for what in our own faith traditions and in our own
conscience is morally right. And I know, Mr. Speaker, that what is
morally right is an immigration system that reflects our values as
Americans, one that honors our ancestors, one that honors my great-
grandparents who came to this country from foreign shores at a young
age and had their families here and allowed their great-grandson to
serve here in the United States Congress.
Today's immigrants are no different from my great-grandmother who
came in 1905 to this country from Eastern Europe. If only we will
provide them the opportunity and a pathway for them to be and become
the good Americans that they already are and contribute to make our
country stronger, we will be strengthened as a nation; jobs will be
created for Americans; we will prevent foreign workers from undermining
wages for American workers; we will secure our borders to prevent
people from sneaking across and working in this country illegally; and
we will require that companies authenticate the legal status of all
workers.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my plea has not fallen upon deaf ears.
I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the
bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites our families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Utah has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous
consent cannot be entertained.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, every day we fail to act, the economic and
human toll increases. Every day we fail to act, we sacrifice
significant levels of investment in our country as well as lose out on
talented and entrepreneurial potential Americans to overseas
corporations.
I represent a district that contains the Colorado State University
and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Like a lot of great schools
across our country, many of our graduate students in computer science
and engineering are from other countries. They are here on student
visas. And when they receive their master's or their Ph.D., rather than
allow them to stay here, work here, and make our country stronger, we
force many of them to return overseas where the jobs follow them to
make another country stronger. In some cases, countries that have
differences of opinion with us on a geopolitical landscape, like Russia
and China, allow these students to make their countries stronger rather
than ours.
Our economy, our faith leaders, our businesses, our workforce, and
our families are all crying out for the House to debate this bill and
to demand a vote now. I urge House leadership to heed their calls and
put H.R. 15 on the floor for an immediate vote. It will pass; it has
the votes. It will become the law, and it will solve this issue. The
time is now. Our country and our families demand a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. In all due respect, I have been called very sarcastic in the
past, and I probably am. So as I speak to you now, Mr. Speaker, I don't
want to be considered flippant in anything I say, but in all due
respect, the speaker was not just divining what I was thinking at the
time. I clearly said at the very beginning of what my purpose was and
for what I would yield, and you did that very well.
The continuous requests for unanimous consent were for immediate
consideration of a bill which, in my humble opinion, I think is a
poorly written bill. There are better bills out there. I have one of
those. In fact, a couple of years ago, I had one of those that I would
have liked the support of the other side, as well.
Perhaps if we had talked about some of those that I think actually go
to the point of the issue and are properly written, it may have been
somewhat different. But, instead, I am going to come back to the issue
that is at hand which deals with the Antiquities Act and how the
Antiquities Act has been abused.
Congress has recognized that in the past. It is kind of ironic, and I
don't think many people realize this, but not every State allows the
Antiquities Act to be used in their State. Congress, in 1944, withdrew
the use of the Antiquities Act in the State of Wyoming. Responding to
an abuse later on, the State of Alaska was withdrawn from that
consideration. Even the ranking member of our committee has introduced
legislation and voted for it, and it passed this House, which would
limit the use of the Antiquities Act in his district.
So people are recognizing that there is a reason--a reason--that the
use of the Antiquities Act has changed over the years, and not
necessarily for the better. The best way of solving that problem is not
necessarily taking that act away or that power away, but simply making
sure that the President of the United States gets public input before
he actually pulls the trigger.
Now, you may ask why I consider this such a significant issue. Well,
to be honest, it is for two reasons: one, I am from the West; and
number two, I am a schoolteacher.
You see, when the Antiquities Act is used without public input, it
has the potential--and has in the past and could in the future and I
think will in the future--to destroy economic patterns that take place,
especially in rural counties. When that happens and that disruption
takes place, then the ability of raising revenue for local needs
becomes significant. And it is more difficult in the West than it is in
the rest of the Nation. Let me try to illustrate why.
The States that are in red are the States that are considered public
land States. Those are the ones that have the greatest potential of
having abuse of the Antiquities Act foisted upon them. The States that
are in yellow have very little public lands. In fact, two-thirds of
everything the Federal Government owns is found in the red States.
What I am holding up here is the ability of these States to generate
funds for their education system. As you can look over the past two
decades, those States in the eastern portion of this country--the
yellow States--have increased their education funding at twice the rate
of those of us who live in the West. And the simple question has to be:
Why do you think this takes place?
There is a distinct correlation to the amount of Federal land and the
inability of States who have all that Federal land to raise money for
their education systems. That is one of the continuous complaints that
we have.
When monuments are made without getting the input of local citizens,
the chance of making this even worse is a reality. It has happened in
the past, and it will happen in the future. So I am not saying do away
with the act altogether. What I am simply saying is make sure that the
people who live in these red States who have a more difficult time
funding their education system have the ability of making a statement
before final action takes place, before simply a pen is signed to a
proclamation that can change the dynamics of everything. It has
happened in the past.
So that is why this is not simply a procedural bill for me. This is a
bill that impacts my kids. It impacts my profession. It impacts the
future of education in the West and should not be dismissed as
insignificant. That is why this issue becomes so vital to those of us
who live in the West because it has a direct impact on the way we live.
The gentleman from Colorado did say one thing in which I agree. He
said that at some time we should all play by the same rules. That is
the purpose of the underlying bill. The President should play by the
same rules Congress has to use and as every agency of the Federal
Government has to use, which is simply to come up with the concept that
before decisions are made you get public input. And that is why all the
discussion I have seen in blogs and from special interest groups are so
confusing to me, because at one time we say, yes,
[[Page H2668]]
it is important that we get public input, except for this particular
bill in which public input is bad. That does not make sense. That is
mental gymnastics of the worst variety.
If this bill were to pass, it would not change the Antiquities Act,
it would not prohibit the President from making national monuments, and
it would not prohibit Congress from establishing national parks. All it
would do is simply say you have got to go through the NEPA process
which requires public input, especially from those who are going to be
directly impacted.
And we have seen that if you mandate that ahead of time, you solve
problems before they develop. We have practice, we have proof, and we
have examples of where the monument was created without getting the
input and problems developed which still have not been solved.
Don't do that. Do it the right way. We can do that, and we can make
this effort happen. And, once again, of all the concepts of how to deal
with the Antiquities Act and the problems it presents for those of us
who live in the West, this is easily the most moderate approach, a
simple approach which simply says, look, before you do it, listen to
us. Let us have the chance to say something.
That is the way it ought to be and the way it should be. This bill is
actually a vast improvement on a 100-plus-year-old bill that has
outlived its usefulness and has changed not necessarily for the better
over that course of time.
So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the comments that had
been made. I would have appreciated it if people would also recognize
the significance of this bill to those of us who live in the West. I
wish they would also look at the bill as it is written. It is a very
positive approach. It is something which we can all support, and it is
a very good bill. I am biased because it is my bill, but it still is a
very, very good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to close to reiterate the fairness of not only
the bill but also of the rule, the other parts of the rule, the
appropriateness of the underlying pieces of legislation, the potential
of putting up other issues that are significant that must be addressed
this particular week.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 524 offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
15) to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 15.
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________