[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 104 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5370-H5380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4760, SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ACT 
                                OF 2018

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

[[Page H5371]]

call up House Resolution 954 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 954

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4760) to 
     amend the immigration laws and the homeland security laws, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), 
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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 954 provides for the 
consideration of a bill aimed at curbing the flow of illegal 
immigration across our southern border by combining a strong border 
wall and security measures with targeted modifications to the current 
immigration visa process.
  The rule provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 4760, the Securing 
America's Future Act of 2018, with 40 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes controlled 
by the Committee on Homeland Security.
  The rule provides for the adoption of the Goodlatte amendment 
reflecting a number of provisions, which were negotiated with numerous 
parties since the bill was first introduced in January of this year. 
This amendment will be incorporated into H.R. 4760 upon adoption of the 
rule today.
  It also includes the McCaul amendment, which makes technical 
corrections to the underlying bill.
  Further, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  The laws and legal agreement currently governing our enforcement 
efforts along the southern border are between 20 and 60 years old. 
America is a Nation built and continually supported by immigrants. 
However, the world has changed and how we accept new immigrants may 
adapt as well.
  H.R. 4760 begins the process of reforming our immigration system for 
the first time in decades, and I encourage the passage of the rule to 
consider this important bill.
  The Securing America's Future Act refocuses legal immigration for the 
skills that our country needs. It also secures our border, strengthens 
interior enforcement, and makes changes to the Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals program. The diversity visa lottery program, which 
awards 50,000 green cards to a randomly selected pool of applicants, is 
eliminated, along with visas for relatives except for spouses and minor 
children. Overall, immigration levels are decreased, while visas for 
skilled workers are increased and the agricultural guest worker program 
is reformed to better meet the needs of our farmers and food 
processors.
  Construction of a border wall system is authorized, including the use 
of additional cameras, sensors, and aviation assets. Recently, 
President Trump approved the use of the National Guard along the 
border, increasing capacity by over 1,100 personnel and 14 aircraft. 
This bill would also authorize the use of the National Guard aviation 
and intelligence support. It requires full implementation of the 
biometric entry-exit system at all ports of entry and provides for 
10,000 border patrol agents and officers.
  To strengthen interior enforcement, the bill mandates E-Verify so 
that all employers check the immigration status of their employees. It 
combats sanctuary city policies by withholding law enforcement grants 
and allows the Department of Homeland Security to detain dangerous, 
illegal immigrants who cannot be immediately removed from the country.
  Many illegal immigrants without legal status claim asylum when 
apprehended by border agents. While there are legitimate claims of fear 
of persecution, there are also instances of immigrants being coached to 
say the correct phrase to obtain asylum. To combat this fraud, the bill 
increases the credible fear standard. It also makes being a gang member 
a removable offense and qualifies illegal presence as a Federal 
misdemeanor.
  In 2015, Kate Steinle was killed by an immigrant without status while 
walking with her father in San Francisco. The man responsible for her 
death had been deported multiple times and should never have been in 
the country on that day.
  Constituents of the 26th District of Texas experienced a similar 
tragedy in 2013 when a young girl in a crosswalk was struck and killed 
by someone in the country without legal status.
  While the recent enforcement policies along our southern border have 
led to a temporary separation of parents and children, a father and a 
grandmother in the 26th District of Texas will never be reunited with 
their daughter and granddaughter.
  Kate's Law enhances criminal penalties for multiple illegal reentry 
to help prevent future tragedies. Inclusion of this provision will 
reduce the possibility of the tragic killing of American citizens.
  Finally, the bill provides for a 3-year renewable legal status for 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival recipients that allows them to 
work and travel overseas. This will apply to approximately 700,000 
individuals who are currently in the United States. While it was not 
the fault of these then-children that they entered the country without 
legal documentation, the fact of the matter is that they are here now 
and we need a solution.
  While I do not support an expedited path to citizenship, I do support 
allowing them to get in line and apply just like any other law-abiding 
potential immigrant. The bill does not allow for a special path to 
citizenship. However, it does allow the Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrival recipient to obtain a green card and apply for citizenship like 
any other law-abiding applicant.
  Recently, we have heard a lot about the enforcement policies along 
the southern border. Mr. Speaker, this crisis is not new. In 2014, the 
number of unaccompanied alien children increased exponentially and 
reached crisis levels. It remained steadily above 400,000 apprehensions 
from 2013 until the present.

  During a visit by the Honduran First Lady in 2014, she was asked if 
Honduras wanted their children back, and without hesitation, she 
responded that they did. So a planeload of women and children was sent 
back to Honduras that resulted in an immediate reduction in the 
attempted crossings of unaccompanied alien children. However, because 
there was no follow-on enforcement actions, the numbers again began to 
increase, reaching above 563,000 in 2016.
  In the lead-up to the 2010 election, the numbers increased, because 
then-candidate Trump spoke about securing our border with a wall that 
would finally end the possibility of illegal entry along our southern 
border. When candidate Trump became President-elect Trump, this number 
dramatically decreased because potential immigrants believed that 
construction of the border wall was imminent.
  As a Member of Congress representing a border State, I have 
maintained regular contact with Customs and Border Protection and the 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. What we heard during 
this period, 2016, was that immigrants crossing the border illegally 
wanted to get into the country before the possibility of a Trump 
election occurred and could direct construction of the border wall. 
They were under the impression that if

[[Page H5372]]

you crossed our border, at a point of entry or illegally, you would be 
granted amnesty and welcomed into the country. While we do welcome 
legal immigrants, this perception led to only more vulnerable children 
being entrusted by parents to human traffickers, typically for large 
sums of money, to bring their children to the United States.
  On this journey, children could experience harsh conditions. Some 
were abused physically, sexually, and emotionally. And this abuse is 
not a threat just from the adults that are supposed to care for them, 
but also it can occur from their fellow travelers. A lot of these kids 
are just trying to survive, trying to make it to a life where they may 
one day thrive, but this existence is often all they have known, and 
they react in a way that reflects this reality.
  While there is a concern about children arriving with parents who are 
then prosecuted for illegal entry and subsequently placed in the 
custody of the Health and Human Services Office of Refugee 
Resettlement, numerous children never get to make this journey with 
their parents or even relatives. Many adults are now bringing 
nonrelated children with them in an attempt to be released into the 
United States because of their association with a child that cannot, 
because of the Flores Agreement from 1997, be held in custody.
  When the influx of unaccompanied alien children began exceeding the 
capacity of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, I traveled to the 
border area specifically to visit these facilities. I engaged with the 
Office of Refugee Resettlement to fully understand the care that these 
children were receiving in 2014, 2015, and 2016. The Office of Refugee 
Resettlement responded to my concerns about threats of communicable 
diseases from foreign countries being brought to our homeland. Mr. 
Speaker, there was not even a physician employed in the Office of 
Refugee Resettlement in 2014 before I raised this issue.
  The issue became a concern because there were members of Customs and 
Border Control that actually felt that they were perhaps developing a 
condition as a result of contact with people because of a skin parasite 
that was easily communicated. And the question arose, could other 
diseases be communicated as well? And people were rightfully concerned 
about that. It is not just an illness like scabies; it is an issue like 
multiple-drug-resistant tuberculosis that people were most concerned 
about.
  While treatment in facilities has vastly improved in the last couple 
of years, the path by which immigrants come here is still dangerous. On 
one of my visits near the border at McAllen, Texas, I traveled with 
border patrol agents along a cactus-strewn, dusty road, mesquite bushes 
growing in from the sides. They brought a bus down there, a big bus. 
They stopped, they flashed their lights, they honked their horn, and 
the bus filled up with people. The bus went off to town, bouncing 
across this dusty road, and I remained back with the Customs and Border 
Patrol.
  Then a State agent came up, someone from Fish and Wildlife, and said: 
I need help. I have got people over here that I think belong in your 
jurisdiction because you are the Federal Government.
  And Customs and Border Patrol went over to the area that he had 
pointed out, and here were a number of women, small children, and 
teenage boys. They had come across the river, delivered by traffickers, 
just literally on the other side of the river, and dropped there. They 
had no idea what was the direction to town. They were not equipped to 
travel in the harsh conditions. It was probably 110 degrees outside 
that day. Small children, children, babes in arms, probably 1 year of 
age or less: this is what the traffickers left on the side of the 
river.
  Had the Fish and Wildlife Service not come by and the U.S. Customs 
and Border Patrol not come by, I don't know how these people would have 
made it to town. And it is quite possible they would not have made it 
safely.
  So the situation along the southern border is not just a border 
crisis, it is also an immigration crisis. Attorney General Sessions 
announced a zero-tolerance policy to finally and fully enforce our 
laws. I believe he did this so that Americans and immigrants alike 
would recognize and remember that we are a Nation of laws, and also to 
demonstrate that the dangerous journey to our southern border is 
sometimes not worth the risk and the struggle required to make it 
within just a few miles of a fence.
  The ebb and flow of border crossings has consistently reflected the 
rhetoric of American leadership and perception of enforcement of our 
laws. The rate of border crossings rapidly increased in the last year 
because there has been no significant visible action by the Congress to 
President Trump's request for a border wall. However, this is not the 
only factor.
  It is no secret that countries in what are called the northern 
triangle, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, are some of the most 
dangerous countries in the world. Yet, these countries receive millions 
of dollars of aid each year for economic development, for military 
financing, and security initiatives.

                              {time}  1045

  This funding rapidly increased to more than $600 million each year 
beginning in fiscal year 2014, mostly in response to the growing crisis 
with unaccompanied alien children. So I think it is appropriate to ask 
ourselves, is the funding being allocated in a way that will help 
improve domestic conditions on the ground and reduce the desire to 
leave?
  To address this concern, I introduced the Unaccompanied Alien 
Children Assistance Control Act, and I offered this bill as an 
amendment to H.R. 4760. Simply put, this bill would reduce foreign aid 
allocations to Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala by $15,000 
per child to each country if their child crosses the border illegally 
or if they are referred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement for 
custody and care.
  While this may not seem like a lot, the reality is that each child 
cared for by the Office of Refugee Resettlement costs the American 
taxpayer about $35,000. Even Attorney General Sessions has stated that 
the care these children receive is better than the average American 
child.
  While we cannot leave children without care, we must recognize that 
prioritizing alien children over our own sends the wrong message. 
Removing that $15,000 of foreign aid per child will send a message to 
Mexican and Northern Triangle leaders that our accepting their children 
will not be without cost to them.
  As we all know, Mr. Speaker, if you want to make it important, it has 
to be about the money.
  Unfortunately, the accountability in these countries is poor, and the 
use of funds largely goes unchecked. They rely on American aid, and we 
must ensure that it is being used appropriately and wisely to combat 
the forces that are driving their future generations--it is their 
future--away from their own countries.
  By withholding funding in the face of rampant corruption, we not only 
provide a potential funding stream for President Trump's proposed 
border system, but we send a signal that we will not willingly deprive 
the children and desperate immigrants of the life they desire and need 
in their countries of origin.
  The best place for a child and a family is their home. Because of the 
condition in the Northern Triangle countries, home for many children is 
now a stark facility along a foreign border.
  It is time to take steps that would not only strengthen our 
immigration laws for the security of American citizens, but is in the 
interest of restoring and maintaining the home from which many would-be 
immigrants try to escape.
  Congress has not successfully reformed our immigration laws in 
decades. It is time to begin that debate to align our immigration 
system with current realities. For this reason, I encourage the 
adoption of the rule to begin consideration of H.R. 4760, Securing 
America's Future Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.

[[Page H5373]]

  This rule makes in order H.R. 4760, the so-called Securing America's 
Future Act, and two amendments in the legislation.
  Before I speak on the legislation, let us consider why we are here 
today. President Trump has created immigration crisis after immigration 
crisis. President Trump is the reason Dreamers are at risk of 
deportation. President Trump is the reason families are being separated 
at our Nation's borders. This is a Trump-manufactured crisis, plain and 
simple.
  President Trump's executive order, signed yesterday, does nothing to 
fix this. His order does nothing to reunite the thousands of children 
separated from their parents. In fact, his order directs his 
deportation force to now jail families at the border, which is in 
direct violation of current court orders. It will lead to more family 
separation, and the only difference now is that families will wait 20 
days before being separated.
  I want every Member of this body and everyone watching at home to 
imagine what it must be like. Imagine traveling thousands of miles to 
flee some of the most dangerous countries in the world, countries with 
the highest murder rates, and then, when you finally think you are 
safe, having your child ripped away from you.
  In 1946 to 1948, during the Truman administration, human experiments 
were conducted in Guatemala. American doctors infected mostly 
uneducated and indigenous people with syphilis. Today, in the Trump 
administration, we are forcing drugs in pill form and injection on the 
indigenous children seeking asylum.
  So this brings us to why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, everyone 
watching this debate should be crystal clear on what this bill does. 
This bill fails to solve the separation of families on our Nation's 
border. It reduces legal immigration. It fails to offer DACA recipients 
a path to citizenship. It adds $25 billion to our growing wall of debt 
on top of the $2 trillion that we already added when Republicans voted 
for their tax scam.
  This bill makes it harder for those seeking asylum to receive 
protection, and it fails to protect the 2,000 children who have already 
been separated from their parents.
  Many will call this legislation the more conservative option that the 
House will consider today. But let us be clear, this bill is not 
conservative at all.
  After adding trillions to our Nation's debt through the tax scam, 
Republicans now are putting us in another $25 billion debt. Where are 
we going to borrow this money from?
  Remember, colleagues, President Trump has declared a trade war with 
China. What will happen if China decides to cash in on that debt?
  In addition, President Trump's family jails will cost the American 
taxpayer 10 times more than the alternative policy he ended for family 
migration.
  Conservative? Absolutely not. Cruel? Inhumane? Absolutely, yes.

  Mr. Speaker, last night, during consideration of this bill in the 
Rules Committee, my colleagues and I offered many fixes, which were all 
blocked by this rule. My amendment to replace the bill with the Keep 
Families Together Act, which would have reunited families, was blocked.
  Representative Roybal-Allard and Representative Polis joined me in 
offering the Dream Act as an alternative, but that was blocked also.
  Another Rules Committee Member, Representative Hastings, and his 
amendment to fix TPS, blocked.
  But not all amendments were blocked. Just like President Trump's 
executive order contained misspellings, this bill contained a giant 
typo to give President Trump an additional $100 billion for his wall.
  So which is it? $25 billion? $100 billion? Are Mexicans going to pay 
for it? What is it?
  The committee has said that they are making this correction, and they 
did so in the middle of the night. But I doubt President Trump would be 
happy to hear that, so we will wait and see.
  If this truly is a mistake, these kinds of corrections could have 
been caught if Democrats had been allowed to participate in this 
process, if we would have had a committee hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this cruel 
legislation now, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a crisis of President Trump's making. Those 
of us who served here during the Bush administration were aware that 
this was a problem. Certainly, those of us who served during the Obama 
administration were aware that this was a problem.
  When President Obama declared the Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals in 2012, it was immediately followed, 2 years later, by the 
wave of unaccompanied alien children who came to our southern border. 
This crisis has been a long time in the making. Congress does need to 
solve this problem. The President is quite correct in that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, Leviticus Chapter 19: 33-34, in the Old 
Testament--Democrats can quote the Bible also. As a practicing 
Catholic, let me do that.
  ``When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat 
them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-
born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the 
Lord your God.''
  When did, Mr. Speaker, this barbaric, xenophobic, anti-immigrant 
modern agenda begin? Let's go through it quickly.
  One, the birther issue: An embarrassment to this country by the 
administration, the head of the administration.
  The Muslim ban: Imagine banning people that profess a particular 
religion.
  Third, Charlottesville: That debacle, equal opportunity.
  Fourth, the incendiary talk that painted the entire Mexican 
population--our ally, probably our third or fourth leading trade 
partner, our ally--with a wide brush of pure prejudice, pure. He 
painted the entire population.
  To say that Democrats are for open borders, that is a lie. You know 
it; I know it. I am standing up to reject it. You sit quietly. You sit 
quietly and say nothing.
  I was on the original starting gate at the Homeland Security after 9/
11. Democrats, just as well as Republicans, worked together to put that 
together. How dare anybody insinuate that we don't accept the security 
of this Nation.
  By the way, by the way, we have four borders, not one. The people who 
attacked us on 9/11 came from Canada. They didn't come from Mexico. You 
have never met a Mexican terrorist, and I certainly haven't met one 
either.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that, under current conditions, 
current laws, the United States of America takes in 1.1 million new 
citizens every year. We are the most generous country on the face of 
the Earth. American citizens should be rightly proud of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today is simply 
insane.
  For 8 years, Republican leaders have blocked every attempt to debate 
bipartisan immigration bills. They blocked Senate-passed comprehensive 
immigration reform. They blocked the bipartisan Dream Act, which has 
203 cosponsors.
  Speaker Ryan has refused to consider the Dream Act, all while 
shedding crocodile tears over the 700,000 Dreamers for whom America is 
the only home they know. Instead, he has held the Dreamers hostage, 
used them as bargaining chips, used them as leverage to waste tens of 
billions of taxpayer dollars on a senseless wall and to militarize our 
southern border.

[[Page H5374]]

  Now, as our Nation is haunted by imagines of children being ripped 
from their parents' arms and by the sounds of their cries, Speaker Ryan 
decides this is the time to bring two of the most hateful, bigoted, 
anti-immigrant pieces of legislation I have ever seen to the House 
floor for debate under a closed process--no amendments, no committee 
hearings.
  This is a scandal, Mr. Speaker. Republicans should hide their faces 
in shame.
  It didn't have to be this way. If the bipartisan queen-of-the-hill 
discharge petition was allowed to move forward, we could be having a 
real debate on immigration. We could take up these two hyperpartisan 
anti-immigrant bills, and we could also consider two bipartisan bills 
to protect the Dreamers, namely, the Dream Act and the USA Act.
  The petition was nearing 218 signatures, but Republicans couldn't 
stand considering anything they disagree with. They couldn't even stand 
debating them. This rule will kill the discharge petition because 
Republicans fear a fair fight.
  This is an insult to this institution and to the many Members on both 
sides of the aisle who have waited so long to vote on these bills.
  The Rules Committee even came back at 10 p.m. for an emergency 
meeting to fix a so-called drafting error in this bill.
  Do you know what the drafting error was?
  $100 billion. That is right. Republicans almost accidentally gave 
President Trump $125 billion for his border wall instead of the $25 
billion. That is quite an error, although I am sure President Trump 
would have loved it.
  Oh, my God. This is what happens when you jam bills through with no 
hearings, no markups, no CBO score, which would have caught this 
enormous mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's executive order will only lead to 
keeping these children behind bars, some with and some without their 
parents, in unlimited, indefinite detention. And these Republican bills 
turn this cruel policy into the law of the land.
  This is not a solution, Mr. Speaker; this is cruel and inhuman 
punishment.
  The President of the United States must stop his vicious approach on 
immigration. It is immoral. And he must stop his hate peddling and he 
must stop his lies.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule that kills the 
discharge petition; reject this rule that kills any hope for action on 
bipartisan immigration bills. I say to my colleagues: Have zero 
tolerance for this rule and have zero tolerance for these bills.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I just remind people in this body that 10 years ago the 
Democrats were in the majority. Indeed, then in the 2008 election that 
occurred 10 years ago, they strengthened that majority. House 
Republican Members were so far in the minority as to be irrelevant in 
all exchanges.
  There was a 60-vote majority over in the Senate. You may recall that 
is where the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank and other pieces of 
legislation that I would have thought would never pass actually did 
pass in that environment.
  A question that I hear a lot is: Why didn't Democrats do something 
about the Dreamer problem when they controlled all the levers of power? 
And it is a valid question.
  Senator Durbin had a bill, as you will recall, in that next session 
of Congress that began in January of 2009. Senator Durbin had a bill to 
deal with the Dreamer situation, and he worked on it all year. It never 
came up until December of 2010.
  Now, you remember in November of 2010, actually, the majority changed 
in the House of Representatives and there were enough Republicans 
elected that the Democrats would not be in the majority the next year.
  So here we are in a so-called lame duck session of a party that is 
exiting power, and I think it was December 8 of that year that, in the 
House, the Democrats brought Senator Durbin's bill up and passed it on 
the House floor, as would be expected. They did have a significant 
majority.
  They lost one vote over in the Senate, as I recall, and had 59 
Democrats. Speaker Pelosi told me at a Rules Committee hearing several 
months ago that it was then that the Republicans blocked that vote from 
happening in the Senate.
  But that is not exactly true.
  Three Republicans voted with the Democrats on the Durbin bill. Five 
Democrats voted in the negative, and that is what killed the Durbin 
bill when the Democrats controlled all levers of power in 2010, the 
last time they did.
  Mr. Speaker, don't blame this problem on President Trump. It has been 
in existence for some time, but it is up to us to solve it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind Mr. Burgess that he has the levers of 
power now, and I predict that today, the two measures that we are going 
to be dealing with are not likely to reach the President's desk.
  But none of this was happening 4 months ago. None of this was 
happening 2 months ago. But a policy that was announced by Jeff 
Sessions is what brought us to this, and that had to come through the 
President.
  Last night, at our Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would 
have provided a pathway to citizenship for certain long-term temporary 
protected status holders. Not surprisingly, in this historically closed 
Congress, my amendment was not made in order.
  Let me repeat that. This historically closed Congress--89 closed 
rules. Never in the history of this body have we had as many closed 
rules.
  As we discussed the need for Dreamers to have a path to citizenship, 
which they must, I wanted to make sure that those who are in our 
country under temporary protected status are not passed over and 
forgotten. They are from El Salvador. They are from Honduras, 
Nicaragua, Nepal, Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, and Haiti.
  These individuals are hardworking taxpayers, many of whom have U.S.-
born children or U.S. citizen spouses, and they contribute to our 
economy and our communities. They pay taxes, and in myriad and dynamic 
ways they work at our airports and our service industries, in our 
healthcare sector, and on our construction sites.
  They are fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers. They are members of 
our faith-based communities. And every single one of them, to a person, 
hails from a country still recovering from natural disasters, internal 
violence, or both.
  I will give you just one example.
  On January 12, 2010, Haiti was devastated by a 7.0 magnitude 
earthquake. 1.5 million people were displaced, 300,000 buildings were 
destroyed, and 8 years on, tens of thousands of people remain in camps.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, then they had a hurricane. The hurricane 
was the first category 4 hurricane to hit Haiti in over half a century, 
claiming 1,000 lives and displacing more than 2 million people.
  Haiti, quite simply, continues to climb out from the rubble of the 
earthquake, cholera outbreak, and Hurricane Matthew, and we in the 
United States have tried to help them to do so, as we should.
  In its wisdom, the Trump administration has decided to end TPS for 
Haiti and many other countries. Not only does this conclusion fly in 
the face of the facts as we know them, but it needlessly inflicts 
countless wounds on our communities and our families.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and the author of H.R. 4760.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time and for his hard work on this issue as well.

[[Page H5375]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill. It is not something that was 
cooked up overnight. This bill was introduced 6 months ago. It is based 
upon legislation that has passed out of the Judiciary Committee in 
previous Congresses, and some of it in this Congress. It is a good 
effort to make sure that we are addressing all three aspects of 
immigration law that need to be addressed.
  It has a very good proposal with regard to the DACA recipients. They 
get a legal status permanently for the rest of their lives, renewable 
every 3 years, as long as they don't commit a crime. And that is a 
statutory protection.
  That is not something that is subject to court challenges. That is 
not something that is subject to the whims of any President, past, 
present, or future. It is something that allows them, then, to avail 
themselves of existing pathways to citizenship, and it is something 
that will allow them to work in the United States, live in the United 
States, own a business in the United States, and travel in and out of 
the United States.
  I think it is a good first step in addressing this situation.
  Secondly, the President has made it very clear, and people watching 
the news coverage know, the difficulties that the administration--any 
administration, this administration, the Obama administration, the Bush 
administration before it--has with laws that need to be corrected to 
make sure that loopholes are not followed at our border.
  We have, now, a waiting list of 600,000 people applying for asylum. 
Historically, asylum, which is a very good part of our immigration law, 
has been granted to 5,000--some years, maybe as many as 10,000--people.
  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the great Soviet dissident, who wrote ``The 
Gulag Archipelago,'' got political asylum in the United States. But 
when everyone who is apprehended coming across the border illegally 
trying to avoid detection, when they are apprehended then says, ``Oh, I 
am here for political asylum,'' and you create a backlog 600,000 people 
long and then they are released into the interior of the country and 
don't return for their hearings in many, many, many instances, that is 
a very flawed aspect of our immigration system. This bill addresses 
that, as it does the problem with unaccompanied minors.
  Children 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 years of age, mostly young boys, coming 
across all of Mexico and then through the desert or across the Rio 
Grande River and then thinking that this is an acceptable thing for 
them to do to enter our country, they need to be returned safely home, 
and the laws need to be reformed to accomplish that.
  We need to reform many other aspects of our border security laws, 
close these loopholes.
  We need to have greater technology. We need to have, along some 
segments of our border, improved wall technology. We have fences and 
some walls already. The fences have big holes in them. People come with 
chain cutters and cut holes through them in a matter of seconds and go 
through them when it is foggy there in San Diego or other times when 
they have that opportunity.

  We need to have a more secure border both with technology and with a 
wall in some places and with the necessary personnel to handle this, 
including not just Border Patrol, but the judges and other officers who 
are necessary to process people when they are apprehended. This is a 
very serious problem, and it is addressed in this legislation.
  We also need to move toward a merit-based immigration system.
  We have, as the gentleman from Texas has repeatedly noted, the most 
generous immigration policy in the world. We have tens of millions of 
people who come to visit this country every year: some to work, some to 
go to school, some to conduct business. For more than 75 different 
categories of reasons they come here.
  We also have more than a dozen immigrant visa categories that allow 
people to come to the United States, and we give out, on average, about 
1.1 million green cards a year to people who go through the process 
lawfully. That is the most generous system in the world. We need to 
recognize that as we do that, we have to move toward a system where we 
are meeting the needs of American citizens, as well, as we do it.
  Areas where we have shortages so that we can keep businesses in the 
United States rather than having them move elsewhere in the world where 
they can find the workers they need is an important part of this. So 
eliminating things like the visa lottery, where we give 55,000 green 
cards out for no good reason at all other than the pure luck that 
people attain from that and instead use those to have a new system 
where we have the opportunity to move towards a merit-based system, 
which is not in this bill but should be the successor to this bill, is 
an important thing to do.
  I think that all of those measures are contained in this legislation. 
I think it is very, very good legislation.
  But this bill contains two important provisions that are not in the 
second bill, and I want to particularly address those.

                              {time}  1115

  First, we have in this bill the E-Verify program. This is a program, 
a very fine program, that exists today. More than 800,000 businesses 
use it. Many large businesses use it. I would bet that probably a 
majority of the people who process job applications today utilize it. 
But it is certainly not utilized by everybody.
  As a consequence, it is not being totally effective, because the 
people who aren't using it either don't want to know whether somebody 
is lawfully present in the United States, or they think they are 
unlawfully present and don't want to have a system that uncovers that.
  But this bill, applying prospectively only--you don't have to apply 
it to your current employees--works 99.7 percent of the time. It is 
very, very accurate. And most importantly, it has a safe harbor for 
both the worker and the employer. So that if you get a false positive, 
and if you are getting that three-tenths of a percent of the time--that 
is still a significant number of people when you use the E-Verify 
system--the new law actually gives them a way to work out the catch-22 
situation that workers and employers find themselves in.
  Because under the current law, we use the I-9 forms. Oftentimes, 
someone will look at it and say: I am not sure these are genuine 
documents. But if they refuse to hire the individual and it turns out 
that they are genuine documents, they can be sued for discrimination.
  And on the other hand, if they hire the worker and it turns out they 
are unlawfully present, they can be prosecuted for hiring someone 
unlawfully present in the United States.
  And so the safe harbor says, you can go ahead and hire that person 
until we work out whether it is a false positive or a false negative 
without that consequence, and only until we know that, will you then 
have to not employ that person. You will face no consequences in doing 
that. That is good for the worker and it is good for the employer as 
well.
  When you do that--there is no doubt that there are sectors of our 
economy where we have a lot of people who are not lawfully present in 
the United States working. And by far, the number-one sector that is 
affected by that is our agricultural workforce. There are some 
estimates that as many as 80 or 90 percent of people working in 
agriculture, beyond the actual family members who own a farm, are not 
lawfully present in this country.
  Some estimate that more than 1 million people who are working, are 
not lawfully present in this country. Wouldn't it be great if we could 
turn that workforce into legal workers where they have the opportunity 
to go back and forth across the border, to go home to where their 
family is without the fear of being apprehended and prosecuted?
  That is what this bill does. It gives farmers a much more reliable 
workforce. It gives them a much better program where they can self-
certify, where the worker can come in for up to 2 years at a time. And 
in the dairy industry where they have no program at all today, or in 
processing plants, raw-food processing plants, they have no program at 
all today, we have the ability to help those farmers.
  This is an area of our economy that is very much affected by 
international competition. It is exceedingly important that we pass 
this legislation to

[[Page H5376]]

move immigration in the direction it needs to move, and this is an 
enlightened way to do it. It is not a bad bill. It is a good bill for 
the American people.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Goodlatte just clarified that his 
bill has been in print for 6 months. I thank the gentleman for 
clarifying. The American people should know that your real intention 
was to allocate $100 million for the Trump wall, and it wasn't until we 
shined the light on that, that in the middle of the night the 
Republican caucus scrambled to reduce that amount to $25 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her leadership on America.
  I had the privilege of traveling with her, under the leadership of 
our colleagues Juan Vargas and Susan Davis, to their districts earlier 
this week to see firsthand what was happening at the border.
  So I come to the floor now with that fresh information. And I come to 
the floor as a mother of five children, grandmother of nine, who knows, 
as many of you here who are parents know and all of you here who are 
children know, the importance of the bond between parent and child and 
how breaking that bond is outside the circle of civilized human 
behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to quote a favorite President, I am sure of yours 
and many in this body, President Ronald Reagan.
  In his final days of the Presidency, President Ronald Reagan said: 
``And since this is the last speech that I will give as President''--my 
colleagues, I want you to hear this because this is about Ronald 
Reagan. Maybe you don't want to hear it. Okay. They don't want to hear 
it.
  President Ronald Reagan said: ``And since this is the last speech 
that I will give as President, I think it's fitting to leave one final 
thought, an observation about a country which I love.''
  President Reagan went on to say: ``Yes, the torch of Lady Liberty 
symbolizes our freedom and represents our heritage, the compact with 
our parents, our grandparents, and our ancestors. It is that lady who 
gives us our great and special place in the world.''
  President Reagan went on to say: ``For it's the great life force of 
each generation of new Americans that guarantees that America's triumph 
shall continue unsurpassed into the next century and beyond.''
  These are the words of President Ronald Reagan in the final days of 
his Presidency as he said in the ``last speech that I will give as 
President.''
  Beautiful values.
  Today, we are considering two Republican bills that insult our 
Nation's values and tarnish our heritage, as the President said, ``as a 
beacon of freedom and opportunity.''
  Both do absolutely nothing to solve the heartbreaking and horrific 
situation for children on the border. According to the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, both bills ``perpetuate child detention 
and undermine existing protections relating to such detention.''
  That is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Both 
of these bills fail to provide a permanent legislative fix for our 
Dreamers, selling out their American Dream to build the President's 
obscene border wall.
  Both are loaded full of every anti-immigrant provision imaginable, 
dismantling legal family immigration, slamming our doors to millions 
who have followed the rules and have been waiting for years for a visa, 
and cutting off the lifeline of asylum to countless vulnerable 
refugees.
  In terms of those refugees, in testimony that was given at the House 
Democratic Steering and Policy Committee meeting that the Democrats 
had--the Republicans didn't come--the National Association of 
Evangelicals testified that the United States Refugee Resettlement 
Program is the crown jewel of American humanitarianism.
  And, yet, it is horrible what they do in these bills to cut off the 
lifeline of asylum to countless vulnerable refugees.
  The Speaker's bill carries out the President's family deportation 
agenda. It paves the way for long-term incarceration of families in 
prison-like conditions and the denial of basic health and safety 
protections for children.
  The Republican plan is a family incarceration plan. It replaces one 
form of child abuse with another, and it brazenly violates children's 
human rights. Why do Republicans think traumatized, terrified little 
children at the border do not deserve the same basic respect that their 
own children do?
  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, family detention 
poses serious dangers to children's health and can result in ``lifelong 
consequences for educational achievement, economic productivity, health 
status, and longevity.''
  Congress should be working day and night to protect vulnerable 
children. We should be working on legislation that protects Dreamers, 
keeps families together, and respects America's heritage as a land of 
newcomers, as spelled out by President Reagan in his last speech as 
President of the United States.
  These bills will not go anywhere in the Senate. Yet, a vote for these 
bills is a vote to destroy the queen-of-the-hill discharge petition, 
destroying the best chance this Congress has to provide a bipartisan, 
permanent legislative fix for Dreamers.
  Republicans need to walk away from these bills. They need to call on 
the President to rescind his family incarceration policy, which is as 
much a stain on our Nation's history as is his family separation 
policy, tearing children away from their parents.
  Democrats reject this outrageous legislation and reject the 
Republicans' attack on Dreamers, vulnerable children, and families, and 
we reject your zero policy. It has no place.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on both of these bills in this rule and any 
subsequent rules that come up.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Ms. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
Goodlatte bill and in opposition to the rule.
  Do you know how many Democrats were involved in crafting the 
Goodlatte bill? Zero. If they had included Democrats, we could have 
told them that this bill does nothing to resolve the humanitarian 
crisis happening at the border.
  Do you know how many hearings we had on the Goodlatte bill? Zero. If 
they had included Democrats, we would have told them that this bill 
does nothing to provide meaningful relief for Dreamers, and is dead on 
arrival in the Senate.
  How many Dreamers does this help earn citizenship? Zero.
  How many children does this bill put back in the arms of their 
parents? Zero.
  How much compromise does this bill show people in need? Zero.
  This administration likes to talk about zero tolerance. Well, we have 
zero tolerance for this President's anti-immigration agenda and the 
Republicans who enable it.
  Bottom line, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sham. It is the Republican's 
attempt to make it look like they want to help Dreamers, but, in 
reality, it is a nonstarter, and it is another heartless action taken 
by this Congress. Oppose this bill. Oppose this rule.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, these rules would mark the capitulation by a large 
number of Republicans who, for a time, reflected the views of 86 
percent of the American people and the hopes of the Dreamers those 
Americans support. If they vote for this pretense of reform and 
security, they will have abandoned the principles they mouthed and the 
people who relied on their courage.
  Contrary to the Speaker and majority leader, the test for bringing 
bills to

[[Page H5377]]

the floor must not be whether the President, untethered to principle, 
would sign them, but whether they reflect the will of the people and 
this House.
  The Speaker refuses to put options on the floor supported by, at one 
time, 247 Members of this House. Now, 240 Members have supported a rule 
to give us four competing options to address the Trump-caused crisis. 
That number may not comply with the Hastert rule, but it does comply 
with democracy.
  And it would give the Speaker his option as well. The Speaker clearly 
fears that his alternative will fail. As a result, he has opposed an 
open process. So much for the leadership that claimed--falsely--to 
pursue transparency, openness, and a willingness to take the tough 
issues head on and individually.
  The bill it would bring to the floor, contrary to what Speaker Ryan 
and Leader McCarthy claim, is no compromise. A compromise, by 
definition, requires both sides to come together and meet in the 
middle. We did. And we built a majority of support for a bill.
  The Ryan bill is a capitulation by those who have professed support 
of the Dreamers. Indeed, the only compromise in this bill is how it 
compromises our values, our principles as Americans, and how it 
compromises our economy and national security.
  The conservative Cato Institute has said that only 12 percent of 
Dreamers would ever actually attain citizenship under this hoax of a 
bill.

                              {time}  1130

  For those seeking refuge from fear for their lives and from assault, 
and from having their children torn from their arms and separated--as 
Laura Bush pleaded, ``immoral''--this bill does not provide a solution. 
Instead, it provides for locking up those children in prison with their 
parents. Isn't that a wonderful option?
  The American people are overwhelmingly outraged by what is happening 
at the border and want to see Congress take real action. As John McCain 
stated, such a policy that is being promoted by the President and the 
Republicans in Congress ``is an affront to the decency of the American 
people.''
  In addition, the Ryan bill imposes new restrictions on legal 
immigration. Democrats will strongly oppose this noxious bill.
  Mr. Speaker, please summon the courage to let the people's House work 
its will and demand that the President return to a policy of treating 
these children as we would want our own children to be treated. That is 
not what these bills do. Reject these bills. We are America. We are 
better than these bills.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there are lots wrong with these bills. I 
will discuss that during the debate on the bills. This is about the 
rule. For my friends on the other side of the aisle, they need to 
understand that this is a self-executing rule. When they vote ``yes'' 
on this rule, they are voting to strip $100 billion from funding 
President Trump's wall.
  Let me say that again. A vote for this rule is a vote to take $100 
billion out of building President Trump's wall. I want them to 
understand that they are going to have to go home and explain to their 
constituents why they voted to strip $100 billion out of funding 
President Trump's wall.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to strike the text of this rule and insert House 
Resolution 774, Representative Denham's bipartisan queen-of-the-hill 
resolution. This rule would bring up four separate immigration bills to 
be debated and voted on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Aguilar) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today to ask every Member who believed in 
bipartisan, open debate on DACA here in the House to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question.
  Every one of the 216 Members who signed the discharge petition should 
join me. Why? Because a vote against the previous question is a vote 
for queen-of-the-hill rule, and because if we defeat the previous 
question, we will immediately offer the queen-of-the-hill rule and 
finally start this debate.
  There will be no more waiting for the last two signatures on the 
discharge petition to materialize. There will be no more waiting until 
the next discharge Monday comes up in the calendar. There will be no 
more waiting. We will end this process and vote on queen of the hill 
now.
  Today, Republicans are bringing up two partisan, anti-immigrant 
bills. Democrats were completely cut out of the process that produced 
these bills, and, as a result, they will not get any bipartisan 
support. It is questionable if either of these bills can actually pass 
this House. If that is the case, then what is the point of all of this?
  Is the goal to have a fake debate on DACA and have everything fail so 
we are in the same place as the Senate? What good does that do?
  Dreamers are still left wondering when and what Congress will do to 
help them stay in this country.
  Let's end this charade and actually have a bipartisan debate, and 
let's pass a bipartisan bill to provide a pathway to citizenship for 
Dreamers.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a crazy week for sure. But one thing is 
clear: If we want to pass a fix for DACA, then we need to come together 
and pass a bipartisan bill. This previous question vote gives us the 
chance to do just that. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and bring 
up the queen-of-the-hill rule.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
from California for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the closed rule for H.R. 
4760. I was proud to sign on to the bipartisan discharge petition to 
force a vote on a Dreamer bill. Passage of this rule will not only kill 
that discharge petition, but any hope of this Congress considering the 
one bill that has enough bipartisan support to deliver a meaningful 
remedy for the Dreamers.
  What are we voting on instead? H.R. 4760 is an antifamily bill that 
maintains the cruel zero-tolerance policy, limits access to asylum, 
shrinks legal immigration, ends the diversity visa lottery program, 
abolishes protections for unaccompanied children, and builds President 
Trump's border wall.
  We are considering only H.R. 4760--a measure that may not have the 
votes to pass--to placate the most extreme elements of the Republican 
Conference. Mr. Speaker, something is fundamentally wrong and broken in 
this body when the will of a handful of extremists overrules the will 
of a bipartisan majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, is this institution broken or has our 
leadership fled the field?
  This rule will deprive the House of having a debate on the Dreamers. 
Eighty-two percent of the American people think these innocent kids who 
came here should be given legal status.
  The leadership has refused to allow us to debate. With the help of 
Mr. Denham, in a courageous display of independence, he has a discharge 
petition, the last remaining tool for a majority of this House to say 
to leadership: Give us a vote. Let us debate.
  But in an act of extraordinary irresponsibility--and I would say 
cowardice--the leadership is quelling, crushing, and incinerating the 
last vestige of independence in their own party.
  This rule takes away from the House that tool to rise up and say: We 
are ready to work for the American people and give legal status to the 
Dreamers.
  That is a disgrace. That is a reason why, if we care about ourselves 
as an

[[Page H5378]]

institution responsible to the people who elected us, we will assert 
our insistence that we vote. Vote ``no'' on this.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Panetta).
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 4760, and I cannot 
support this rule, obviously, for a number of reasons that we heard 
here today, but I would like to highlight two.
  This bill does not provide the DACA fix that our Dreamers deserve. 
Personally, I have nearly 20,000 Dreamers in my district in California. 
I have met with many of them numerous times at their work and at their 
jobs. Although they were brought here through no fault of their own, 
these kids want to stay here; they want to live here; and, most 
important, they want to contribute here.
  They don't want this given to them. They are willing to earn it. 
Unfortunately, this bill does not give them that chance. And that is 
why I cannot support it.
  Also, in my district, we lay claim to being the salad bowl of the 
world. Our agriculture industry is due to our farmworkers. Now, I 
appreciate that this bill addresses ag labor, and the added amendments 
have tried to make it better, but it is just not enough.
  This bill hurts our communities. Why? Because our ag workers are not 
just an important part of our ag industry, they are an integral part to 
our communities. Some of these people have been here 5, 10, 15, 20 
years. They have spouses; they have kids; and they have families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, because of the important role that they 
will play, and because of the lack of any information on what this can 
do for these ag workers, I am against the resolution.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1970, a Guatemalan couple decided to send their 
daughter to the U.S. That young girl was I. I was welcomed here in a 
loving home. I was not put in a freezing cell. My parents felt they had 
no choice. My mother died a couple of years later.
  These parents are making a choice that, frankly, I could not make 
today for my children. A few months ago, I was away from home for so 
long--4 weeks--that my grandson, a 3-year-old, felt he had to 
reintroduce himself to me because he had not seen me for 4 weeks. He 
didn't think that I would remember him. Imagine an infant when that 
infant is returned to their parent; they will be introduced to a total 
stranger.
  Pope Francis just tweeted: Pray together, walk together, work 
together. This is the way that leads to Christian unity.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this cruel 
legislation. Let's help those who can't help themselves in these very 
corrupt countries of the Northern Triangle. They are not s---holes as 
the President has referred to them. Let's give them an opportunity to 
live another day.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to you about a story of separation, a 
father and daughter who have been separated. Chris, my constituent, 
came to me with this story several years ago.
  He served his country in Iraq. While he was serving his country in 
Iraq, his wife developed cancer and died. Chris returned home to be a 
single dad to his daughter.
  His daughter went out with friends one night and was struck and 
killed by an automobile--an automobile driven by someone who was in the 
country without the benefit of citizenship.
  Chris comes to my townhalls and asks me: While I was serving my 
country, you were supposed to be enforcing the laws on the border. 
Because you did not do your job, I am now separated from my daughter in 
perpetuity.
  H.R. 4760, the Securing America's Future Act of 2018, is the product 
of months of work by Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman McCaul, and other 
stakeholders. This is an answer to our persistent problems with our 
immigration system that so many Members of this body have been talking 
about for years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and move 
the debate forward on this legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee report (H. Rept. 115-
772) to accompany House Resolution 954 should have included in its 
waiver of all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4760 a 
disclosure of the following violation:
  Clause 12(a)(1) of rule XXI, requiring a comparative print to be made 
publicly available prior to consideration of a bill amending or 
repealing statutes to show, by typographical device, parts of statute 
affected.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 954 Offered by Mrs. Torres

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That on the next legislative day after the adoption of this 
     resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, the House shall resolve 
     into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
     Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4760) to amend the 
     immigration laws and the homeland security laws, 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 Majority Leader and the Minority Whip or 
     their respective designees. 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 shall 
     be in order except the amendments in the nature of a 
     substitute specified in section 2 of this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order specified, 
     may be offered only by the Member designated, shall be 
     considered as read, and shall be debatable for 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived (except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI). 
     Clause 6(g) of rule XVIII shall not apply with respect to a 
     request for a recorded vote on any such amendment. If more 
     than one such amendment is adopted, then only the one 
     receiving the greater number of affirmative recorded votes 
     shall be considered as finally adopted. In the case of a tie 
     for the greater number of affirmative recorded votes, then 
     only the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative 
     recorded votes shall be considered as finally adopted. After 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendment as may have been finally 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. The amendments in the nature of a substitute 
     referred to in the first section of this resolution are as 
     follows:
       (1) A proper amendment in the nature of a substitute, if 
     offered by Representative Goodlatte of Virginia or his 
     designee.
       (2) A proper amendment in the nature of a substitute, if 
     offered by Representative Roybal-Allard of California or her 
     designee.
       (3) A proper amendment in the nature of a substitute, if 
     offered by Representative Ryan of Wisconsin or his designee.
       (4) A proper amendment in the nature of a substitute, if 
     offered by Representative Denham of California or his 
     designee.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4760.

        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.

[[Page H5379]]

     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. BURGESS. 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.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 190, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               YEAS--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Black
     Collins (GA)
     Jeffries
     Kustoff (TN)
     Payn

                              {time}  1207

  Messrs. BIGGS and BRAT changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 195, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 280]

                               AYES--226

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith

[[Page H5380]]


     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--195

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Black
     Collins (GA)
     Jeffries
     Kustoff (TN)
     O'Rourke
     Payne

                              {time}  1214

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________