[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.

                          ____________________