[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 104 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5438-H5447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6136, BORDER SECURITY AND 
                     IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2018

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 953 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 953

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6136) to 
     amend the immigration laws and provide for border security, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Washington 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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

[[Page H5439]]

as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the House Rules Committee 
met and reported a rule, House Resolution 953, providing for 
consideration of H.R. 6136, the Border Security and Immigration Reform 
Act. This legislation demonstrates a pivotal moment in our Nation's 
history, one in which we can choose to, for the first time in decades, 
make significant improvements to our Nation's broken immigration 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for just about 3\1/2\ years, 
and throughout that period of time, and even before as I was working to 
become a Congressman, I have always been clear with the people of the 
Fourth Congressional District of the State of Washington that fixing 
our broken immigration system is a top priority and one that I believe 
my district, my State, and the entire Nation desperately needs.
  With the rule that we bring forward today, I can look my constituents 
in the eye, and, with certainty, I can tell them that I believe that 
this legislation, the underlying bill, this consensus legislation that 
we have before us, is the best opportunity this body has had in many, 
many years--in fact, decades--to get something signed into law to make 
a true, lasting, substantive difference to improve our broken 
immigration system.
  While it may not be perfect--few bills are--H.R. 6136, the Border 
Security and Immigration Reform Act, includes several main tenets to 
addressing our immigration crisis, and, I should add, it is the only 
bill that we are considering that includes all four pillars that the 
President, on numerous occasions, has stated must be a part of any 
legislation that he will sign into law.
  First, this legislation includes desperately needed appropriations 
for border security. The bill appropriates funding for further 
construction of the border wall, as well as technology, personnel, and 
modernization of our ports of entry.
  Our border security system is broken and must be fixed, so I would 
look to my fellow conservatives and say: This is our one shot to get 
this done. This is our one opportunity to live up to the commitment we 
gave to our constituents when we said we would secure our border.
  Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that this is our only chance, and we 
can't waste it. We can't squander it. Let's get our border secured once 
and for all, and keep our commitment to our people.
  It also includes a desperately needed solution for the DACA 
population. I have shared with many of my colleagues time and time 
again that I have the second highest number of DACA recipients in my 
district in the State of Washington out of the entire Republican 
Conference. A full third of Washington State's DACA population lives in 
my district of central Washington.
  I can tell you that I have met with literally hundreds of them, 
including just this week. Monday afternoon, I met with about half a 
dozen of these young people. They are smart, hardworking, respectful, 
caring members of our community, people that you would be proud to call 
your own constituents. I am proud that this legislation provides them 
with the certainty that they need so that they can continue moving 
forward with their educational and professional endeavors, and continue 
to be productive, upstanding members of society.
  Do you know what they told me that they wanted and that they need? 
They would like hope. We can give it to them with this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also, importantly, addresses the terrible 
situation that we have all been witnessing regarding family separation 
at the border. Children should not be taken away from their parents. We 
can enforce our laws and enforce our border while also keeping families 
together.
  This situation has shown one more broken piece of an immigration 
system that is not working for anyone, and another example that shows 
why reform is so desperately needed. It makes clear that minors at the 
border must remain with their parent or legal guardian.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to share an excerpt that comes from an interview 
that I just watched with one of our Border Patrol agents, a Mr. Chris 
Cabrera, and if I may quote him, Mr. Speaker.
  ``We've had this situation going on for 4 years now, and for some 
reason, we haven't fixed it. I don't think you can necessarily blame it 
on one administration or the other. It started under one and is 
continuing under another. It hasn't been fixed, and it needs to be 
fixed.
  ``Right now, we have this beacon of, `We'll leave the light on for 
you and let you come illegally into the country.' If you've seen some 
of the stuff we've seen down here, you would understand just how 
important it is to have a tough stance to divert people from coming 
here. When you see a 12-year-old girl with a Plan B pill--her parents 
put her on birth control because they know getting violated is part of 
the journey--that's a terrible way to live. When you see a 4-year-old 
girl traveling completely alone with just her parents' phone number 
written across her shirt, something needs to be done.
  ``We had a 9-year-old boy last year have a heat stroke and die in 
front of us with no family around. That's because we're allowing people 
to take advantage of this system.
  ``Let's be honest here, if we want this law changed, then that's on 
Congress. That's on nobody else but Congress. They need to get to work 
and change this law.''
  So I would respectfully challenge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, but on the other side of the aisle especially, do not join 
Senator Schumer, who says there is no need for a legislative solution. 
There is a need. I urge you to reject much of the rhetoric that I have 
heard on the floor just today rejecting funding for border security.
  It can be easy to make this political and refuse to move a solution 
forward that actually has a chance of being signed into law in an 
effort to score political points. That is really easy. But this is just 
too important. Congress can legislate on this. Congress must legislate 
on this. And with this bill before us, we can fix this.
  Now, to me, something important this legislation does not address is 
the desperate need for a reliable, efficient, and fair program for 
American farmers to access a legal, stable supply of workers. Our 
broken H-2A and guest worker program has hobbled much of the 
agricultural industry from attaining a reliable workforce.
  Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee has been a 
steadfast advocate for reforming this system, and I thank him for his 
dedication to this matter over the years. I am heartened by the 
commitment the Speaker, as well as the majority leader, have given to 
me and others for a stand-alone vote on agricultural workforce 
legislation before the August recess. And I pledge to Chairman 
Goodlatte to work with him and all of my colleagues on that 
legislation.
  So while this bill does not fix every broken aspect of our 
immigration system, it does take a major consensus-based step toward 
addressing several main components, including providing certainty for 
DACA recipients and finally securing our border once and for all.
  Honestly, Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are asking me a pretty 
hard question: Why isn't this bill bipartisan? Why aren't any Democrats 
supporting it? I don't know the answer to that, but it may be just as 
simple as this: Because it is actually something that the President 
will sign into law.
  Even though it provides certainty for the DACA population, which we 
all want, even though it addresses the terrible situation of family 
separation at the border, which I hear is something everybody wants to 
fix, anything that actually fulfills the President's goal of securing 
the border my Democratic colleagues seemingly refuse to vote for.
  Now, I don't engage in hyperbole, but I do not think it is hyperbolic 
to say that my Democratic colleagues may not want to secure our border 
or enforce our immigration laws. That is what I see. It is clear to me 
their desire

[[Page H5440]]

to not give the President a ``win'' is more important than their desire 
to actually fix and find a solution to these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, compromise is hard. It is tough stuff. Consensus is 
always difficult. Both of these things seem to have become four letter 
words. The same goes for cooperation and negotiation. But these are 
values that I, and many of us, have tried to espouse as we have worked 
together with colleagues from both sides of the aisle for these many 
months to find a solution to DACA while also securing our border.

                              {time}  1430

  But at the end of the day, we should all be operating under one 
reality--one thing that maybe some people do not want to accept or 
admit--whether you like it or not, the President has made it clear what 
must be included in any bill in order to be signed into law, he has 
told us what he needs. Now, I have acknowledged this, and I admit, it 
may be easier for some of us to admit than others, but that is the 
reality. If my colleagues refuse to accept that the President's top 
priority is securing the border, then consensus, Mr. Speaker, is just 
not possible.
  I believe our President has shown good-faith willingness to 
compromise on the issue of DACA. He has come a long way.
  Unfortunately, we have not seen that same good-faith effort coming 
from all of our colleagues. It is disappointing, my friends on the 
other side of the aisle refuse to work with us to try to find a 
solution here.
  Mr. Speaker, history will be our greatest judge. It is always easy to 
be a no, but I will always strive to get to yes for the betterment of 
our Nation's future. There is simply too much riding on this 
legislation for us to not work as hard as we can to get to yes. The 
people of this country deserve nothing less.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support 
the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am strongly against this rule and the underlying 
legislation. We have a human rights catastrophe on our hands. In less 
than 90 days, the Trump administration has ripped 2,500 children out of 
their parents' arms.
  I am the father of a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old. I can only imagine 
what it would mean to have them taken to parts unknown, perhaps even 
locked in a cage, not knowing, not being able to find out what is 
happening to them.
  This was a conscious decision that President Trump and Attorney 
General Sessions made to separate children from parents. It was not the 
congressional intent of the law. It was not the way that President 
Obama implemented the law. It was not the way President Trump 
implemented the law until 90 days ago. But then President Trump made 
this mean-spirited decision to literally take little children, even 
babies, away from their mothers in our country, to place innocent 
children in facilities that have mats on the floor or thermal blankets 
for warmth, away from the loving embrace of a mom or a dad.
  The President called this a zero-tolerance policy. It was simply the 
only reason that these families that are fleeing to the U.S., who are 
trying to keep their children safe, are being treated like criminals 
and having their young children taken away from them.
  Children are being moved around this country faster than the Office 
of Refugee Resettlement can even track. We already know that the Office 
of Refugee Resettlement has a history of literally losing children, 
losing track of them while they are in custody, and now they are 
responsible for even more young, innocent lives.
  Young children are being placed with host families as far away from 
the border as Michigan and Washington State. Parents don't even know 
where their children are. And young children are simply terrified about 
what happened to their loving mom and their loving dad, and how our 
country, the United States of America, could be complicit in separating 
them from the only parents they know.
  This is an embarrassment for our Nation, and it must end.
  And it is offensive when these bills before us are talked about as 
consensus or compromise, when no Democrats were involved. It may be a 
consensus between far-right Republicans and rightwing Republicans, but 
it is not a consensus among moderates, independents, or a single 
Democrat.
  And when it comes to caring about these kids, I know my Republican 
colleagues care as well. So show it by supporting a true compromise 
bill, like the Dream Act, like other bills that we have had before us, 
like comprehensive immigration reform that, of course, will get votes 
from both sides of the aisle because they are the right thing to do for 
our country.
  There are long-term consequences for this shortsighted policy. The 
very act of separating a family has traumatic and long-lasting impact 
for young girls like this, taken away from their mom and dad, their 
culture, their support system. They don't even have the tools at a 
young age to process what is going on or the trauma or the reality of 
the situation.
  One Colorado pediatric emergency doctor treating children removed 
from their parents said: ``The children clung so tightly and completely 
to their foster mothers, both at the emergency department and at home, 
that they were literally unable to put them down. They were terrified 
that their world would be broken for a second time.''
  The Trump administration is creating a generation of thousands of 
kids, many of whom will grow up in our country, whose first and 
sometimes most formative memories is of somebody wearing the badge or 
the flag of our country tearing them apart from their mother or their 
father while they are screaming, while they are crying out in the void 
of a fluorescently-lit warehouse funded by your taxpayer dollars.
  According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, responsible for the 
care of these kids, many children remain in these shelters for 57 days 
on average.
  It is further disturbing that President Trump would willingly pull 
families apart and not have any plan for reuniting them even with his 
executive order, no plans to unite the over 2,500 children who have 
been torn apart from their parents.
  According to the former director of ICE, these family separations may 
become permanent, literally leaving hundreds of kids here in the U.S. 
left in an already stressed and underfunded child welfare system, where 
they literally have a mom or dad fully capable of giving them care and 
loving them that has been forcibly separated from their own young 
children.

  My office has been flooded with calls--I know yours has too, Mr. 
Speaker--some callers crying on the other end, demanding that we do 
something.
  Yet, instead of ensuring that we provide resources families need and 
reunite them and heal the trauma, the Republicans are bringing to the 
floor partisan bills that would detain families indefinitely and 
criminalize even more immigrants. But this is what happens in a broken, 
failing, unaccountable immigration system. On that, we agree.
  So, please, begin the discussions of compromise, of consensus. And 
that doesn't mean yourselves, Republicans. You control this body. You 
get to say what we vote on. It means involve caring independent, 
unaffiliated, Democrats, moms and dads, the faith community, the law 
enforcement community. Don't just have this discussion behind closed 
doors and come out with even more draconian measures that tear even 
more families apart.
  So instead of bringing two bills to the floor that have widespread 
opposition, even in your own party--Republicans failed to pass their 
own bill--there are bipartisan solutions that would not only pass the 
House, but would get a large majority of the House. We could probably 
get to two-thirds of this House voting for compassion and love if we 
only were willing to try, bills that truly balance and include border 
security and safety and the values of our country, so we know that we, 
as Americans and as taxpayers, are not complicit in tearing a young 
girl's world apart.
  Look, in Congress we often argue on policy issues. And I respect Mr. 
Newhouse, my friend from Washington. And I would tell him that what a 
compromise means, Mr. Newhouse, is not

[[Page H5441]]

you compromising with Stephen Miller; it means you compromising with 
Luis Gutierrez or Zoe Lofgren or me or the faith community. It is not a 
compromise when reasonable people like Mr. Newhouse and Mr. Curbelo go 
into a backroom and have the reason beaten out of them by hateful 
fearmongering that is, frankly, un-American.
  Look, I urge my Republican colleagues to imagine that these children 
were theirs, because they are ours, they are our wards, they are in our 
country. This cannot be allowed to continue. We need to reject this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this heartless, inhumane 
bill and begin a true process of compromise and consensus that can 
secure our borders, fix our broken immigration system, unite families, 
restore the rule of law, and reflect our values as Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman that the Dream Act 
that he says is supported by many people in this Chamber would do 
nothing to address the issue that is happening at the border right now. 
The only piece of legislation before us today is the bill that we have 
in front of us, H.R. 6136, that if we pass that would solve that 
situation now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. 
Love).
  Mrs. LOVE. Mr. Speaker, in the past few years, we the American people 
have been presented with false choices: between following the rule of 
law or showing compassion to people in need.
  I have had the privilege of being born in the United States, but I 
grew up with parents who faced the hardships of living under a 
dictatorship. They came to America hoping that the peace and the 
opportunity they heard about really did exist. They worked hard jobs, 
scrubbing toilets, they learned our language, studied our history, 
learned our system of government and our Constitution. And after many 
years, when they finally had the privilege of taking the oath of 
citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the American flag, they 
knew exactly what they were saying and they meant every word of it.
  They were not just enjoying the blessings of what this country had to 
offer, but they were willing to take on the responsibilities that came 
with it. They gave me an appreciation for this great Nation and told me 
every day that I was blessed to be born in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to attend a naturalization ceremony and 
see the journey and the sacrifices that people have made to achieve 
citizenship. I think every American should take that oath of 
allegiance.
  The goal of any immigration reform should be about family, safety, 
economic and community stability. The practice of separating loving 
families from their children at the border is heartbreaking to watch, 
which is why we should support this bill.
  We are a Nation of laws. We should provide laws that create certainty 
about the fate of these families.
  Although H.R. 6136 is not a perfect bill for everyone, it does end 
the policies that make it easier to be here illegally than it is to be 
here legally. And it hits the sweet spot, allowing us both to follow 
the rule of law and show compassion to those who seek freedom and the 
blessings this country has to offer.
  We cannot hide behind procedures and posturing. We must take a vote. 
We must be accountable to the people who we represent. It is our turn 
and our time to follow what the Constitution says in Article I, Section 
8, to create a uniform rule of naturalization.
  I am a daughter of immigrants. We are a proud American family of 
patriots. We believe that this country is worthy of all of our greatest 
efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, all of us, to support the rule for 
this bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Reuters today 
titled: ``U.S. Centers Force Migrant Children to Take Drugs.''

                     [From Reuters, June 21, 2018]

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

       Immigrant children are being routinely and forcibly given a 
     range of psychotropic drugs at U.S. government-funded youth 
     shelters to manage their trauma after being detained and in 
     some cases separated from parents, according to a lawsuit.
       Children held at facilities such as the Shiloh Treatment 
     Center in Texas are almost certain to be administered the 
     drugs, irrespective of their condition, and without their 
     parents' consent, according to the lawsuit filed by the Los 
     Angeles-based Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law.
       The Shiloh center, which specializes in services for 
     children and youths with behavioral and emotional problems, 
     did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
       The lawsuit was filed on April 16, days after the 
     introduction of the Trump Administration's ``zero tolerance'' 
     policy to separate children from parents who crossed the 
     U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Trump abandoned the policy on 
     Wednesday.
       ``If you're in Shiloh then it's almost certain you are on 
     these medications. So if any child were placed in Shiloh 
     after being separated from a parent, then they're almost 
     certainly on psychotropics,'' said Carlos Holguin, a lawyer 
     representing the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional 
     Law.
       Officials at the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), 
     which oversees such centers, were not immediately available 
     for comment.
       Taking multiple psychotropic drugs at the same time can 
     seriously injure children, according to the filing, which 
     highlights the need for oversight to prevent medications 
     being used as ``chemical straight jackets,'' rather than 
     treat actual mental health needs.
       ORR-run centers unilaterally administer the drugs to 
     children in disregard of laws in Texas and other states that 
     require either a parent's consent or a court order, the 
     filing said.
       The lawsuit seeks a shift in ORR policies to comply with 
     state laws and prevent the prolonged detention of children.
       Some youths at Shiloh reported being given up to nine 
     different pills in the morning and six in the evening and 
     said they were told they would remain detained if they 
     refused drugs, the lawsuit said.
       Some said they had been held down and given injections when 
     they refused to take medication, the lawsuit said.
       One mother said neither she nor any other family member had 
     been consulted about medication given to her daughter, even 
     though Shiloh had their contact details. Another mother said 
     her daughter received such powerful anti-anxiety medications 
     she collapsed several times, according to the filing.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, ``Immigrant children,'' quoting from this 
article, ``are being routinely and forcibly given a range of 
psychotropic drugs at U.S. government-funded youth shelters.''
  Taking multiple psychotropic drugs can seriously injure children. And 
many youths in Shiloh detention facility are being given nine different 
pills in the morning, six in the evening. You are paying for them all, 
Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers are paying for pills and injections and drugs 
for 2-years-olds and 4-year-olds that have been stripped from their 
parents.
  One mother said she nor any other family member had even been 
consulted about their daughter being given powerful drugs.
  Many kids are being held down, forcibly given injections when they 
refuse to take the medication that our tax dollars are paying for.
  We need to stop this, Mr. Speaker.
  You don't need a bill to stop it. President Trump needs to stop it. 
He wasn't doing it till 90 days ago; then he started to do it. It is 
not the will of Congress. It is not the letter of the law. It is a 
policy that is un-American and far outside the intent of Republicans or 
Democrats in this body.

                              {time}  1445

  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up Ranking Member Nadler's bill, H.R. 6135, the Keep 
Families Together Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. This thoughtful 
proposal would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from 
separating children from their parents, of course, except in 
extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal prosecution of 
asylum seekers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal) to discuss our proposal.

[[Page H5442]]

  

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, the Keep Families Together Act is the only 
bill that is a real solution to the human tragedy of abuses of 
children, of family separation at our border. This bill prohibits the 
separation of children from their parents; limits criminal prosecutions 
for asylum seekers; and requires DHS to reunite children and parents, 
something that the Trump administration has no plan for.
  Mr. Speaker, the Keep Families Together Act is the bill we should be 
sending to the President's desk for signature, not H.R. 6136. H.R. 6136 
does absolutely nothing to address the abuses of children, and I want 
to make it clear that it actually makes things worse.
  Does anybody really believe that incarcerating children with their 
parents is the solution to family separation? or making children more 
vulnerable to trafficking? or eliminating basic requirements for 
confinement, like clean water and toilets?
  Mr. Speaker, 11 days ago, I met with mothers detained in a Federal 
prison after cruelly being separated from their children, and one of 
the mothers told me how she made the devastating decision to leave her 
blind child behind and take her other child to safety because she knew 
that the blind child would not be able to make this journey.
  These mothers and fathers are making impossible choices to come here 
to this country seeking safety, and H.R. 6136 does nothing to reunite 
these children, screaming ``Mama'' and ``Papi,'' with their parents. 
The best case scenario is that they would be incarcerated in a family 
prison camp.
  The President is responsible for this tragedy, and he has not 
reversed this policy. DHS has said that they don't even know where this 
child is.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6136 does not even address the crisis of Dreamers. 
I believe my colleague from the great State of Washington when he says 
he wants to fix that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an additional 15 
seconds.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. But, in fact, this locks 82 percent of Dreamers out of 
citizenship, while dismantling the family immigration system and 
revoking approved petitions for 3 million family members who have paid 
fees and waited for years.
  This is not a moderate bill. It is wrong.
  Let's stand up for these children. Let's bring the Keep Families 
Together Act to the floor for a vote. Let us stand up for America.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could use that 
picture that my colleagues had up because we are debating a solution to 
an issue that Congresses for decades have not addressed.
  Immigration is a difficult issue. It invokes strong feelings on both 
sides. But it is an issue that is long overdue. This vote today is 
important for showing the American people that we can govern.
  The President supports it because it is strong on border security, 
provides a permanent solution for the DACA population, supports merit-
based legal immigration, and codifies the law to allow families to stay 
together.
  Frankly, these are all issues I have heard Republicans and Democrats 
talk about fixing. I hope some of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle will vote for this bill, and I think, if we were in a different 
time, many would.
  But I am not sure that is going to happen. That is why we need every 
Republican to be with us.
  It is not an easy issue, but we were elected to lead. By passing this 
bill, which has the best chance of making it through the Senate and 
being signed by the President, we could be the leaders who finally 
secure our borders, provide certainty for people who were brought here 
as children through no fault of their own, move our legal immigration 
system to a merit-based process, and keep families together--all issues 
that both sides have talked about solving, but today, with this vote, 
we could be the ones who solve these problems for decades.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' because it is a vote to govern. 
Governing is hard, but I am confident that we can get it done.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, we were so close, so close. Some 
Republicans were finally willing to work with Democrats on a bipartisan 
way forward to give certainty to Dreamers, young people who want to be 
able to work and go to school here free from fear. We needed just three 
more Republicans to tell their party enough is enough, just three more 
Republicans to support our bipartisan effort to hold votes on an array 
of proposals and let the most popular one win the day. But sadly, when 
the time came, they abandoned that effort. They abandoned the Dreamers.
  They caved because the Republican leadership twisted their arms 
because the most hateful elements within their party don't want to fix 
these problems. They thrive off of them.

  They don't want these people who deserve citizenship to get it. We 
do.
  They don't think families deserve asylum or protection. We do.
  They don't think these people deserve a chance at the American Dream. 
We do.
  The bills we have before us today are a disgrace. They do nothing to 
stop the Trump orphan-creating machine, taking children from their 
parents and doing nothing to reunite them. And ultimately, they won't 
fix any of the problems we have because they won't become law.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are wasting time--
wasting time--while people and children suffer.
  The American people won't stand for this. They won't stand for 
corrupting the law and twisting the Bible verses to justify splitting 
up families. They won't stand for torturing, psychologically torturing, 
refugee children. They won't stand for cowardice and callousness. That 
is not what America is made of.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I have heard so many interesting words 
on this debate. The last gentleman, whom I respect, said how the 
Democrats care so much for these individuals, and yet let's be 
perfectly clear. They had ample opportunity after ample opportunity to 
solve the problem.
  In 2009, they promised that they would do it within 100 days. Then 
the President said that he would do it. Democrats had 60 percent of the 
votes in the Senate. They had huge majorities in the House, and they 
had a bipartisan bill ready to go, and yet they refused to do it.
  But this is not a moment to point fingers, as my colleague just spent 
all of his time doing. This is a moment to find solutions.
  Look, if you believe, like I do, that these folks who are here--no 
fault of their own--should have an opportunity to stay here, to be part 
of society, to be legalized and to, yes, obtain citizenship, this may 
be the best--it is the best and, potentially, the last chance for a 
long time to get that done, and this bill does that.
  If you believe that minor kids should not be separated from their 
families, and if you believe that the best way to guarantee that is 
through legislation, this is the best and, potentially, last 
opportunity to get that done because this bill does that.
  And if you believe that the United States has the right--no, the 
obligation--to determine who comes in and who leaves, this is, then, 
also the best and, potentially, last shot to get those three things 
done.
  So, again, a lot of rhetoric, but this bill does three things: It 
allows Dreamers to stay here and allows them to become part of society 
forever and with pathways to citizenship; it stops, legislatively, the 
separation of minors from their parents on the border; and it secures 
the border.
  That is what this bill does. Everything else, Mr. Speaker, is cheap 
rhetoric.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To my friend Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Newhouse and so many others, we 
stand ready to work with you, but instead, you chose to work with  
Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Stephen Miller.

[[Page H5443]]

  Come talk to us. We are ready. Democrats, to a person, are ready to 
support something that we don't fully agree with because we understand 
the Republicans control this body.
  So come talk to us, and stop talking to  Steve King, Louie Gohmert, 
and Stephen Miller.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, this bill also authorizes $24 billion to 
build a stupid wall.
  This bill also says it is going to be harder for family reunification 
by repealing two laws that already allow it.
  This bill also says that 3 million people who have done the right 
thing and are in line to become citizens are now going to be shunted 
aside.
  Don't kid yourself about what this bill says and what it doesn't say.
  This bill also is a sham. You know it and I know it.
  Now, previous speakers said that history is going to judge us. You 
are right. It will.
  On this issue, God is going to judge you as well. When you go to 
those gates and there is a little thing in there that says you went out 
of your way to use children for your political purposes, you really 
think that is a good mark to have in your book? I don't think so.
  When you talk about compromise, it takes a little bit more than just 
looking in the mirror and compromising with yourself. It actually means 
you have to deal with people who sometimes don't agree with you.
  This bill is a lousy bill. You know it; we know it; and America knows 
it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The previous speaker just made the point I was going to. If you are 
going to negotiate in good faith and arrive at consensus, you have to 
accept who the President is and what he requires in order to sign 
legislation whether you like it or not. And one of the priorities that 
he has made as clear as day is that there will be border security and a 
wall. Refusing to accept that fact pretty much closes the door on the 
opportunity or any possibility of negotiation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State 
of Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am relatively new to this 
body, but I have been following politics in this country for quite some 
time. For many years, I have been hearing Members of Congress on both 
sides of the aisle, but more so on this side, promising the country 
that we would secure the border, that we would disrupt the drug 
traffickers who are poisoning our people, and that we would disrupt the 
human traffickers who abuse and rape small children and others as they 
take them across the desert.

  This is the opportunity to fulfill the promise of securing our 
country's border, because this country, just like any other country in 
the world, has the right and the responsibility to secure its border 
and enforce its immigration laws.
  For a long time, I have also been hearing people talk about Dreamers, 
the victims of a broken immigration system, young immigrants brought to 
our country as children, who grew up here, went to school with our own 
children, pledge allegiance to the same flag, and today are 
contributing to this great country. A lot of people in this Chamber, on 
both sides, more so on the other side of the aisle, have been promising 
a solution for Dreamers for 17 years, with nothing to show for it.
  This is our opportunity to make sure these young immigrants are 
treated fairly and guaranteed a future in America with a bridge onto 
the legal immigration system. We take the exact criteria that the Obama 
administration laid out in the DACA program. That is in this 
legislation.
  This bill will also help us end family separation, which I think 
there is a great deal of bipartisanship for in this Chamber. Our 
country should have the ability to enforce its laws and to keep 
families together, which is exactly what the Obama administration was 
attempting to do until the courts got in the way. We can fix that here.
  And lastly, we need to modernize our immigration system. We are a 
nation of immigrants. I am the child of immigrants, and I am so proud 
of it. But our immigration laws are outdated. Our immigration system 
has to be modernized so that it is better aligned with our economy so 
that immigrants who come to this country have the best opportunity to 
grow, to prosper, and to contribute.

                              {time}  1500

  The alternative is the status quo. A vote against this legislation is 
the status quo.
  What is the status quo? A porous, wall-less border; uncertainty for 
Dreamers; young people who could lose their status within months; 
families separated at the border; and an outdated immigration system 
that dishonors every American.
  So this is our chance to come together. Is this legislation perfect? 
Every Member of this House could find an excuse to vote against this 
bill. But that is the problem with immigration, that nothing has ever 
been good enough. When nothing is good enough, you get nothing. And 
that is not fair to the American people.
  That is why I sat at the table, and I have been at the table for 
weeks, not just with Republicans, with Democrats, good colleagues like 
Mr. Polis. We sat long hours trying to reach a compromise, and it is 
always elusive. Let's change that now.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also remind my friend from Miami that we 
have reached several compromises.
  He and I are both members of the Problem Solvers Caucus. I am proud 
that the Problem Solvers Caucus--more than 25 Democrats, 25 
Republicans--we agreed. We reached a compromise bill--border security, 
addresses the needs of the Dreamers. I think it would get 60, 70 
percent of the votes on the floor of the House. Let's bring that bill 
up.
  Unfortunately, Republicans chose to set Mr. Curbelo's work and my 
work aside and proceed with a spiteful bill that makes the problem 
worse.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, last September, President Trump took our 
Dreamers, those incredible young people who are contributing so much to 
America, he took them hostage.
  Then, this month, he added to the hostages by ordering that babies, 
literally, be yanked out of their moms' arms. Today, with his 
Republican enablers, he is basically saying: Give me my $25 billion 
wall ransom, and give it to me paid in full. But I am not promising to 
release the hostages.
  Today's bill is wrong for Dreamers. It is wrong for taxpayers. It is 
wrong for those families who have been torn apart by this government-
sanctioned child abuse.
  How great that, with his latest U-turn today, the President is 
dispatching his wife, a mother herself, to the Texas border.
  I just happen to feel that the kids that are tied up in those cages 
don't want to see a mother. They want to see their mother.
  Tonight, they will cry themselves to sleep again, because the self-
described ``stable genius'' didn't bother to include anything in his 
executive order to reunite those families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would say, instead of taking these 
hostages and passing this bill, they need to build a great mirror and 
look in it to see how they have become willing accomplices to this 
wrongdoing. I bet Mexico would pay for that.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and would just like to respond to one thing that was said previously.
  All of us have been using examples of young people and how they are 
being treated at the border. I take exception to the implication that 
we will all be judged accordingly by our Maker for doing so, in a 
negative way.
  Let me just repeat what I said in my opening remarks, quoting a 
Border Patrol agent, Mr. Chris Cabrera. He told us that: ``If you've 
seen some of the stuff we've seen down here, you would understand just 
how important it is to have a tough stance to divert people from coming 
here. When you see a 12-year-old girl with a Plan B pill--her

[[Page H5444]]

parents put her on birth control because they know getting violated is 
part of the journey . . . something has to be done.''
  That is exactly what we are doing here with this piece of 
legislation, Mr. Speaker.
  If we pass this today, that will help solve this problem today. That 
is what we, as Congress, need to do. We need to be responsive to the 
plight of people trying to get here, as well as to the citizens of our 
own country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled 
``Pentagon Asked to Make Room for 20,000 Migrant Children on Military 
Bases.''

                            [June 21, 2018]

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

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

       The Trump administration is considering housing up to 
     20,000 unaccompanied migrant children on military bases in 
     coming months, according to lawmakers and a Defense 
     Department memo obtained by The Washington Post.
       The Pentagon's notification to lawmakers said that 
     officials at Health and Human Services asked the Pentagon to 
     indicate whether it can provide the beds for children at 
     military installations ``for occupancy as early as July 
     through December 31, 2018.''
       Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) addressed the issue on the 
     Senate floor Thursday morning.
       ``The Department of Defense has been asked whether it can 
     house 20,000 unaccompanied children between now and the end 
     of the year,'' he said. ``How will that work? Is it even 
     feasible?''
       The plan would seemingly have similarities to 2014, when 
     the Obama administration housed about 7,000 unaccompanied 
     children on three military bases. The Pentagon, in its 
     congressional notification to lawmakers, said it must 
     determine if it ``possesses these capabilities.'' As required 
     under the Economy Act, the memo said, the Defense Department 
     would be reimbursed for all costs incurred.
       The sites would be run by HHS employees or contractors 
     working with them, the memo said. They would provide care to 
     the children, ``including supervision, meals, clothing, 
     medical services, transportation or other daily needs,'' and 
     HHS representatives will be present at each location.
       The memo was sent to lawmakers Wednesday after President 
     Trump reversed his administration's unpopular policy to 
     separate children from their parents as they arrived at the 
     southern U.S. border.
       The president's executive order directed Defense Secretary 
     Jim Mattis to ``take all legally available measures'' to 
     provide Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen with 
     ``any existing facilities available for the housing and care 
     of alien families,'' and the construction of new facilities 
     ``if necessary and consistent with law.''
       Lt. Col. Jamie Davis acknowledged Thursday that the 
     Pentagon received the request, and said the department is 
     reviewing it.
       The Trump administration spent months planning, testing and 
     defending its family separation system at the border, taking 
     more than 2,500 children from their parents in the six weeks 
     prior to the president's executive order Wednesday bringing 
     it to a halt.
       The U.S. government has been examining for weeks whether it 
     can use military bases to house migrant children. 
     Representatives from HHS visited three bases in Texas--Fort 
     Bliss, Dyess Air Force Base and Goodfellow Air Force Base--
     last week to review their facilities for suitability, and 
     were scheduled to review Little Rock Air Force Base in 
     Arkansas on Wednesday, Davis said.
       The Obama administration temporarily set up temporary 
     centers in 2014 at three U.S. military bases: Fort Sill in 
     Oklahoma, Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and naval Base 
     Ventura in California.
       Asked about the possibility of military bases being 
     involved again, Mattis said Wednesday that the Defense 
     Department would ``see what they come up with'' in HHS, and 
     that the Pentagon will ``respond if requested.''
       Mattis dismissed concerns about housing migrants on 
     military bases now, noting that the Defense Department has 
     done it on several occasions and for several reasons.
       ``We have housed refugees,'' he said. ``We have housed 
     people thrown out of their homes by earthquakes and 
     hurricanes. We do whatever is in the best interest of the 
     country.''
       The secretary, pressed on the sensitivities of the Trump 
     administration separating children from their parents, said 
     reporters would need to ask ``the people responsible for 
     it.''
       ``I'm not going to chime in from the outside,'' he said. 
     ``There's people responsible for it. Secretary Nielson, 
     obviously, maintains close collaboration with us. You saw 
     that when we deployed certain National Guard units there, so 
     she's in charge.''
       Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Calif.), the 
     leading members of the armed services committees, wrote a 
     letter to Mattis on Wednesday requesting assurances that 
     members of Congress would have access to any migrant facility 
     established on a military base. The letter, sent before Trump 
     dropped his family-separation policy at the border, said that 
     it was essential to have access even in cases where only 
     short notice is provided.
       Mattis has approved temporarily detailing 21 military 
     attorneys to the Justice Department to help with the glut of 
     immigration cases that have emerged on the border. The order, 
     issued earlier this month, calls for 21 attorneys with 
     criminal-trial experience to assist as special assistant U.S. 
     attorneys for 179 days, Davis said. They will help in 
     prosecuting border immigration cases, he added, ``with a 
     focus on misdemeanor improper entry and felony illegal 
     reentry cases.''
       The possibility was raised in a congressional hearing in 
     May, and first reported as underway by MSNBC on Wednesday 
     night. U.S. law permits a judge advocate lawyer to be 
     assigned or detailed to another agency, including to provide 
     representation in civil and criminal cases.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is now looking to 
house up to 20,000 children taken away from their parents at military 
bases. They are looking to take 10 times as many children away from 
their parents as they already have.
  It is time to stop President Trump.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill wouldn't end the separation of 
children from their parents, but it would also provide that the parents 
could be put in jail with their children.
  The alternative, which is false, seems to be to put the mother in the 
cage with the toddler or they run free and we will never see them 
again. It is not true.
  There was something called the Family Case Management Program--100 
percent attendance rate at the immigration hearing. Those are not my 
figures. Those are figures from the Department of Homeland Security 
Office of Inspector General.
  One hundred percent of the people showed up at their hearing, either 
to get relief or to be removed, at a cost of $36 a day, as compared to 
$711 a day to keep a child in a temporary tent facility.
  We don't want to see the equivalent of internment camps, as we saw in 
World War II, for these asylum seekers.
  We need the orderly administration of the immigration laws. This bill 
will lead to mass incarceration of mothers and their toddlers.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, isn't that amazing? Republicans can't even 
find elected Representatives willing to come down here on the floor and 
defend taking kids away from their parents.
  They are out of speakers because Republicans are embarrassed. They 
know that they cannot face the American people, no less their Maker, 
knowing that they are complicit in tearing innocent children away from 
mom and dad.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the President created a 
humanitarian crisis that inflicts lasting trauma on children when he 
mandated that they be taken from their parents at the border.
  The President's executive action just trades one trauma for another 
by locking up children indefinitely.
  This is about the lives and the wellbeing of children. There are more 
than 2,000 kids who were taken from their parents. I want people 
watching this to think about those children. The President chose to put 
them through this to push his harmful and abusive immigration policies.
  The Speaker could allow a vote on bipartisan immigration bills today 
to reform our immigration system and to put an end to the President's 
policy of traumatizing these kids.
  Congress needs to stand up and fix our broken immigration system and 
put an end to the deplorable tactics of this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, this isn't who we are as a Nation. We need to fix our 
immigration system and save these kids.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I am proud to 
represent my conference and stand here with this piece of legislation 
that will provide the certainty and the hope for more than 1.8 million 
DACA recipients and Dreamers in this country. If you vote ``no'' on 
this bill, you will be denying those individuals what they for so long 
have been wanting.

[[Page H5445]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here representing my conference to do 
just that, to give them that hope, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Newhouse may be proud, but there are no 
other Republicans who have come to the floor to join him.
  We have so many Democrats who want to speak about how you can unite 
families that I don't even have enough time to give.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague Mr. Newhouse if he will yield me the 
balance of his time. Well, I wish he would, because no Republicans are 
willing to face the American people, because they know they are not 
working to solve this issue. They are working to tear more families 
apart. And they are lying about it, Mr. Speaker. They are lying about 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule 
and the shameful Border Security and Immigration Reform Act.
  I am dismayed and embarrassed that the Republicans are attempting to 
claim that this bill is a compromise. This partisan anti-immigrant 
legislation is the opposite to the idea of compromise.
  If Republicans were serious about compromise and protecting the 
Dreamers, they would have allowed the bipartisan discharge petition and 
queen-of-the-hill rule to move forward. Instead, Republicans have spent 
the last 10 months ignoring the will of the American people and holding 
Dreamers and young immigrant children hostage to implement their 
hardline agenda.
  This legislation does not provide a path to citizenship. It 
eliminates asylum protections, drastically cuts legal immigration, 
removes basic requirements for safe and humane detention, fails to end 
family separation, and does nothing to reunite the children who have 
been separated from their parents.
  Some of these children are being held 2,000 miles away from their 
parents, including in my district in New York, without any idea where 
their parents are or if they will ever see them again.
  This is cruel. What we need is a compassionate solution with a path 
to citizenship and reunification of these families. Instead, this bill 
is an attack on family values and an insult to our country's heritage 
as a beacon of freedom and opportunity for all.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington, a member of the Rules Committee, for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I really came down here to take part in this debate 
because, yesterday, for 7 hours, we were at the Rules Committee laying 
out what are known as Goodlatte 1 and Goodlatte 2, these two bills.
  This is the rule on what might be called Goodlatte 2. This is a rule 
and a piece of legislation that represents several years' worth of work 
that was done by Members of the Republican majority to approach an 
issue that is known as DACA. It is to take some 700,000 young people, 
and slightly older, who came to America not because they did it on 
their own fruition as even a young adult, but as a child, where they 
could not make a decision. They came with their parents to this 
country.
  We have been struggling for years to find the right answer on how to 
answer the question of how to deal with these Dreamers.
  It is the Republican Party that was challenged by our President who 
said: I would like for Congress to tackle this issue. It was the 
President of the United States that began debate and discussion on a 
bipartisan basis with Republicans and Democrats, Senators and House 
Members, down at the White House.
  It found itself at a point where, then, Members came back here and 
began working together. It did fall apart, but it did not end. It did 
not end because the Republican Party in our majority have groups of 
people who are from all across this country, as we have a Congressman 
Curbelo from Miami, Florida, as we have a  Dan Newhouse from the State 
of Washington. Each of these Members have care and concern about people 
who live in their district and who have come and petitioned them: 
Please, Congressman Newhouse, do something.
  What did they ask for? They asked for two things, very simply. They 
asked: Please allow us to come out of the shadows and recognize us. 
And, secondly: Give us legal status.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we are out of time.
  Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what these bills do. They address the 
issue in a compassionate, fair way.

                              {time}  1515

  They address the issues of coming out of the shadows, and they are 
given permanent legal status that gives them options for the rest of 
their life.
  I think that what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is more than what we 
were asked, and to not be a part of taking a vote on this today and 
voting ``yes'' is another opportunity that we are given here today.
  I hope the Members understand the importance.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Polis, for his 
leadership on the Rules Committee.
  I respect the chairman of the Rules Committee, but I respectfully 
disagree. He has presided over a Rules Committee that has the most 
closed rules in the history of the Congress of the United States. 
Competing ideas, opposing views were not allowed to be considered in 
either of the two bills the Republicans are going to put before the 
Congress. One we have dispensed with already.
  I oppose the rule and I oppose the underlying legislation. We are 
facing multiple immigration crises of the President's own making, and 
we must not be fooled by plans designed to cover that up.
  This is not the fix we need for migrant families separated at the 
border. President Trump's inhumane and morally repugnant policy to 
forcibly separate children from their parents as they seek refuge in 
America is beyond the pale. We cannot rely on the President's sudden 
change of heart. We must forbid this barbaric policy by passing the 
Keep Families Together Act, not this bill.
  This is not the fix we need for Dreamers, despite what Mr. Sessions, 
my good friend from Texas, just said. There are nearly 800,000 
Dreamers, including 2,400 in my district. They need an opportunity to 
work, to attend school, to contribute to our communities, and to become 
the Americans they, in fact, are.
  I had a Dreamer as my guest at the State of the Union address. She 
came to this country at the age of 1. She has never been back to her 
country of birth. She thought she was an American until she applied for 
a driver's permit at the age of 16. She is a proud American, and we 
would be proud to have her.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and to oppose 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, we have got so many Members coming wanting 
to speak. How much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Denham).
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
in support, not only of this rule, but on the underlying bill.
  It is time to get something done around here. Both parties have 
failed to address this issue for decades now; we finally have an 
opportunity, for the same kids that are in your district that talk to 
me in mine.
  The kids are just looking for the certainty of being able to have a 
job, being able to go to school, and, yes, some of them even want to 
sign up for the military and show their greatest act of patriotism.
  These are kids just looking for a path forward. This bill protects 
them on day

[[Page H5446]]

one, the day that this bill is signed into law. It not only protects 
the DACA recipients that signed up under President Obama's executive 
order, but some of them didn't trust that executive order. Some of them 
didn't trust that their information would be secure. This protects 
them, too.
  Now, there is another group of people here that did not qualify. They 
were not of age at the time. This will protect them, too. If you care 
about the Dreamers, 1.8 million will be protected on day one. You 
should support this bill, too.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to go to the definition of the word compromise, 
because I think that there needs to be education regarding what these 
words mean that are being tossed around. A compromise is an agreement 
or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making 
concessions.
  It doesn't mean looking at yourself in the mirror and conceding to 
yourself. It doesn't mean Republicans going into a closed-door meeting 
and coming out with a bill that makes things worse. It means 
Republicans and Democrats working together, each giving up some things, 
each living with what they can accept.
  I have worked hard on compromise with many of my Republican 
colleagues through the Problem Solvers Caucus to solve and provide a 
pathway to citizenship for Dreamers while securing our border.
  This bill makes things worse. It guts legal immigration. It 
eliminates two family immigration programs: married children of U.S. 
citizens, and siblings of U.S. adults. It doesn't even grandfather in 
people already in the system waiting to be reunited with their 
families, meaning that it will eliminate the current legal way that 
families can be reunified.
  This bill raises the credible fear standard for asylum seekers to 
begin the process by raising the standards to more probably than not. 
This bill does nothing to prevent the Trump administration's grotesque 
policy of separating parents and children at the border. In fact, it 
simply removes protections for those families who are currently not 
separated at points of entry.
  And now we are hearing that President Trump is preparing military 
bases to house up to 20,000 more kids that he plans to snatch from 
their moms and their dads.
  We can do better. This humanitarian crisis is entirely President 
Trump's making. He didn't do it before the last 90 days. He just 
started a misinterpretation of the law. His recent executive order is 
not a solution. Over 2,300 kids have already been separated from their 
parents and there is no plan to reunite them.
  This order doesn't even require any families be detained together, 
and the order doesn't contain any prohibitions barring family 
separation. We know that separating kids is wrong. I hope Americans 
agree that this is bad for kids.

  But let's also look at science.
  The American Academy of Pediatrics said that the incarceration of 
families and separation of families has long-term consequences for the 
health and wellbeing, mental and physical, for children and parents. 
Separation consequences include: post-traumatic stress disorder, 
developmental delays, and poor psychological adjustment.
  I dare say that these policies of the Trump administration, who on 
their own decided to tear 1- and 2- and 3-year-old kids away from their 
parents, is going to create even greater needs for these next 
generation of kids, many of whom will grow up here legally, those who 
successfully pursue their asylum claims.
  And while those immigration claims are being adjudicated, some might 
have to return to their native country. Some will be able to stay. 
Families should be together. No parent should have to see their own 
child stripped away.
  This bill is hemorrhaging support. I have an article that I include 
in the Record from Politico stating that the Koch network won't support 
the House immigration bills, entitled: ``Koch network raps Trump, won't 
support House immigration bills.''

                     [From POLITICO, June 19, 2018]

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

                          (By Maggie Severns)

       The political network founded by the Koch brothers is 
     taking a stand against both President Donald Trump's policy 
     toward separating families at the border and two immigration 
     bills due for votes in the House this week, dealing a blow to 
     GOP leaders who are marshaling support for their version.
       ``It's encouraging that the House will have a debate this 
     week on immigration bills that include protections for the 
     Dreamers,'' said Daniel Garza, president of the Koch 
     network's LIBRE Initiative, referring to a group of 
     undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. 
     ``Unfortunately, in their current form, both [House 
     leadership's bill and an alternative immigration bill] 
     expected to receive a vote fall short of the solution we 
     need.''
       Garza also called on Trump to ``take immediate action to 
     end the separation of families at the border by rescinding 
     the `zero tolerance' policy.''
       The Kochs' push for a more moderate approach toward 
     immigration legislation complicates the thorny debate in 
     Washington. Lawmakers have called on Trump to stop his 
     administration from splitting up immigrant families, which 
     has drawn public outrage since he implemented a zero 
     tolerance policy of prosecuting everyone who crosses the 
     border illegally. Trump has refused to act alone, saying 
     Congress needs to pass immigration legislation.
       The Koch brothers have pushed the Republican Party to 
     create a path to citizenship for Dreamers, who were extended 
     protections under the Obama administration that Trump has 
     tried to withdraw. The Kochs also have urged the GOP not to 
     make severe cuts to the flow of immigrants into the country, 
     even launching a seven-figure ad buy supporting their 
     efforts.
       House Republicans were coalescing around an immigration 
     bill supported by House leadership that would, among other 
     things, give some protections to Dreamers. Its path forward 
     was already complicated: Trump blasted the measure last week, 
     but later Tuesday he was expected to travel to Capitol Hill 
     to rally Republicans behind it.
       The Kochs' opposition to the GOP leadership bill could make 
     it even more difficult for House Speaker Paul Ryan to unite 
     his caucus behind it. Conservatives favor a second bill, also 
     due for a vote this week, from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
       Garza said in a statement that ``it's clear there's strong 
     support in Congress and among the American people to provide 
     permanency to the Dreamers,'' but neither bill ``affords the 
     Dreamers the certainty they need to make a full contribution 
     to American communities,'' and both ``include arbitrary cuts 
     to legal immigration.''

  Mr. POLIS. I don't agree with the Koch network on much. I do know 
that they fund many Republicans, but maybe now that the Republicans are 
taking children away from their parents, the Kochs will stop funding 
Republicans, because I am glad to hear that they are people of 
principle.
  The article says they ``push for a more moderate approach toward 
immigration legislation,'' and they have ``called on Trump to stop his 
administration from splitting up immigrant families,'' which this bill 
does not do.
  In fact, this bill ends those who are waiting for family 
reunification today. So there is a legal way to unite families. This 
bill eliminates that and will lead to more families being apart.
  This is a false crisis entirely of President Trump's making. I hope 
that even he has recognized that the American people will not stand for 
3- and 4-year-olds literally being put in cages, strapped down while 
they are given drugs and medicated and injected, with Americans 
complicit in this atrocity.
  It needs to be reiterated one more time that the votes we take on the 
rule today are more than procedural. They have a significant impact on 
young lives of innocent children.
  They will show which Members of Congress care about fixing our 
immigration system and are willing to compromise and work in a 
bipartisan way, and which Members of Congress vote to make all of the 
problems outlined here today worse and more widespread.
  We need to reject these bills, reject this rule. We need to keep 
families together. We need to begin the sometimes challenging work of 
compromise and consensus building between Republicans and Democrats, 
between Mr. Newhouse and Mr. Curbelo, and me and Ms. Lofgren and 
others--not with Stephen Miller,  Steve King, or Louie Gohmert.
  Reject these bills. Keep families together. Let's work together on 
border security, on fixing our broken immigration system, on uniting 
families, on a permanent solution for Dreamers, to ensure that this 
horror and affront to our American values ends and doesn't repeat 
itself ever again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5447]]

  

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, don't believe me. I would say don't believe Mr. Polis 
either. Believe the border security guard that I quoted earlier who 
said that the situation we have at the border happened under the 
previous administration as well as this one.
  Mr. Trump, our President, did not manufacture this crisis, but this 
bill before us will solve that situation, which is why we need to pass 
this rule.
  That whole issue takes away from one of the most pressing issues of 
our time, immigration reform. We will solve that, but we can also 
address immigration.
  I am proud of the bill we have before us. I am proud that we have had 
so many speakers come and speak on its behalf. This is the only bill in 
front of us that has any potential chance of becoming law. The 
President will sign this bill because it addresses his four main 
pillars: it provides for border security, which the American people 
want. And, certainly, as we have talked a lot today, it provides for 
those 1.8 million DACA recipients and Dreamers. It is a good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it is 
the right thing to do.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this closed rule and the sham underlying legislation.
  As the Ranking Member on Homeland Security, one truism that I hear is 
that you do not negotiate with terrorists.
  Yet, that is exactly what the House Leadership is asking us to do 
today.
  When the President said, in September, that he has ``a great heart'' 
for Dreamers, we were hopeful that a deal could be reached.
  However, since that time, the Trump Administration has executed a 
``campaign of terror'' in furtherance of one objective--getting 
Congress to pay for a border wall.
  On September 5th, the President announced the repeal of DACA.
  Then, on September 18th, he announced the end of the TPS program to 
give safe haven to Sudanese nationals.
  On November 6th, it was ended for Nicaraguans.
  Two weeks later, it was canceled for Haitians.
  In January, Salvadorans also lost these immigration protections.
  Arguably the cruelest, most inhumane tactical maneuver of the Trump 
Administration came on April 6th, when the ``Zero Tolerance policy'' 
was announced.
  The ``DACA crisis'', the ``TPS crisis'', and now the ``Family 
Separation crisis'' are all crises of the President's own making.
  And it is people--it is children--who suffer.
  Make no mistake, the measure before us today will not end the 
suffering.
  Instead of family separation, it offers family detention, an approach 
that DHS' own advisory committee has stated is ``neither appropriate 
nor necessary for families'' and is ``never in the best interest of 
children.''
  For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' on this rule and H.R. 6136, an 
Anti-Family Values bill.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as 
follows:

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

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     6135) to limit the separation of families at or near ports of 
     entry. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6135.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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.

                          ____________________