Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 104 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)

[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.

____________________