[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5759-H5765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6157, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE 
            PERIOD FROM JUNE 29, 2018, THROUGH JULY 9, 2018

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 964 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 964

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations 
     for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2019, and for other purposes. No further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution and available pro forma 
     amendments described in section 3 of House Resolution 961. 
     Each further amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment except amendments described in section 3 
     of House Resolution 961, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from June 
     29, 2018, through July 9, 2018 --
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing 
     for adjournment during the month of July, 2018.
         

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague from California (Mrs. Torres) 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CHENEY. 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 
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 964, 
which provides for the consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 
6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations

[[Page H5760]]

Act for fiscal year 2019. This rule makes in order an additional 29 
amendments: 8 Republican, 16 Democratic, and 5 bipartisan amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, as we discussed on this floor yesterday and many times 
previously, providing funding that our men and women in uniform need to 
defend this great Republic is by far the most important responsibility 
we have as Members of the United States Congress. Today's rule gives us 
the opportunity to get the input and hear the voices of additional 
Members as we listen to and consider their amendments to H.R. 6157.
  In the National Defense Strategy that was released late last year, 
Secretary Mattis described the situation facing our Armed Forces this 
way: ``Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware 
that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We are facing 
increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the longstanding 
rules-based international order--creating a security environment more 
complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory.''
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would say more than any that we have lived 
through and any that we have existed in since World War II.
  Without the kind of sustained and predictable investment that 
appropriations bills and the appropriation process needs, we will 
simply not be able to restore readiness to modernize our military or to 
maintain our strategic advantage. We will rapidly lose our ability to 
project our forces as well as our military advantage.
  We cannot allow that to happen. The rule and the underlying bill that 
we are debating today are both crucial steps to continue the progress 
that we have already made and crucial steps toward ensuring that the 
commitment that we made in order to provide 2 years of funding for our 
men and women in uniform is kept.
  This bill helps provide the very resources and modernization that the 
National Defense Strategy said were so crucially needed. We have to 
make sure that our Department of Defense can provide combat-credible 
military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our 
Nation.
  Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, gives us the opportunity to debate this 
important piece of legislation and get the input from Members of this 
body who would like to make it even better.
  One of the amendments, Mr. Speaker, made in order by this rule was 
offered by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and cosponsored by 
a bipartisan group of Members. It would allow the Department of Defense 
to dual buy CVN-80 and CVN-81. These are our next two aircraft 
carriers. The Navy has stated that this dual buy authority could likely 
save taxpayers $2.5 billion on these two aircraft carriers.
  This amendment serves two purposes. It helps ensure that we are using 
taxpayer resources wisely, and it helps move us toward the Navy's 
necessary and stated goal of a 355-ship Navy.
  There are several other good amendments, Mr. Speaker, made in order 
by this rule, some that I probably won't support. But the rule takes 
serious ideas about how we can strengthen the Nation's Armed Forces, 
how we can make the defense of this Nation our priority, and brings 
them to the floor of this House for our consideration.
  I look forward to considering each amendment and completing the 
Defense Appropriations process in this House. The work we are doing 
here is vital, but it is only part of the job, Mr. Speaker. We have to 
pass the appropriations bill through this body, and then we have to 
make sure that our colleagues on the other side of this building, our 
colleagues in the Senate, do the same. We can't hold funding for our 
military hostage to other priorities, even for additional domestic 
spending. We simply must provide reliable funding at necessary levels 
for the men and women in uniform who are putting their lives on the 
line for all of us.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule that will allow 
consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 6157.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the underlying bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order 29 amendments to H.R. 6157, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019. The 
underlying legislation is the product of bipartisan negotiations, which 
have been going on for months. Bipartisan negotiations are a really 
good thing, and I am glad that, on this one issue, we are finding ways 
to work together.
  In particular, I want to recognize the work that Representative 
Aguilar, Representative Hurd, and many of our colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle have been doing to create a path forward and look for a 
solution to President Trump's self-created Dreamer crisis. That is what 
we are supposed to be doing here: working together to solve problems.
  Unfortunately, this Republican leadership doesn't believe in working 
with the other side. They are only interested in negotiating with their 
own. So it is not surprising that it isn't going very well. That is why 
they pulled their own immigration bill last week.
  Maybe the Republican leadership, which has blocked the bipartisan 
Dream Act time and time again, and which has blocked the bipartisan USA 
Act time and time again, should trust their Members to craft and vote 
on compromise legislation.

                              {time}  1230

  But they don't have the courage or the vision to do that, do they?
  Now we have another crisis, which, again, the President has created, 
a crisis that has outraged our constituents. Thousands of children, 
even infants and toddlers, are ripped from their parents at our 
southern border, children who have done absolutely nothing wrong, 
children who did not choose to come here on their own, kids too young 
to know the name of the country that they came from, too young to know 
what asylum is, too young to know what illegal entry means. Some of 
these kids only know two words: ``mom'' and ``dad.''
  We have heard the recordings of these children crying out for their 
parents while being made fun of. Many of us have visited the detention 
centers, and it is heartbreaking and it is unnecessary.
  So, while I congratulate the Appropriations Committee for their hard 
work on the defense bill, I have to remind the Speaker that we have 95 
days to finish our work for funding the Federal Government. But I would 
challenge my colleagues to imagine one day, a single day, without their 
child, unsure if they would ever see them again.
  We have some time to do the defense bill, but on the issue of family 
separation, we cannot afford to wait another day. Congress should be 
addressing this crisis today. It is not going to be easy. This 
administration clearly did not think through this policy that they have 
created.
  Right now, we have children in HHS care, but where are their parents? 
Some are in custody of the U.S. Marshals or ICE, already deported, or 
maybe some are free on bond.
  HHS said yesterday that they were not reuniting kids with their 
parents who are in detention. What does that mean? Are they going to be 
free? If not, what is the plan?
  Let's look at the best-case scenario: a parent who gets out on bond 
and goes to HHS and asks for their child is told, ``Show us your 
documents. Prove you are really the parent,'' and this parent who has 
been in custody has nothing.
  Where is the plan to help these parents obtain their documents? Where 
are these plans to help these children reunite with their parents?
  Does the administration even know where all the parents are and how 
they are supposed to be reunited with their kids?
  How are they keeping track of the babies, the babies who are simply 
too young to even know their name?
  We have many unanswered questions. We should be making sure those 
kids get to their parents, making sure that every single one of those 
children is accounted for. That is doing our job.
  Instead, we are passing another appropriations bill with the full 
knowledge that we will probably do what we have done every year that I 
have been here: We will pass a CR at the end of

[[Page H5761]]

the fiscal year, and then we will probably pass another CR, and then 
another, and then another, and then another, because we can't legislate 
together.
  This rule makes in order 29 amendments, but not a single one of them 
deals with the issues of the kids. Why not allow a vote on the 
amendment I offered with Representative Schiff to prohibit detaining 
children at military facilities?
  Why not allow a vote on my amendment to block certain Cabinet members 
from using military aircraft until the children are reunited? Is it 
more important for Scott Pruitt to get on a plane than for a baby from 
El Salvador to get back into his mother's arms? or the amendment 
offered by my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis? 
Representative Polis' amendment would have prohibited the Department of 
Defense from transferring resources to the Department of Justice to 
carry out prosecution of migrant families.
  Don't our troops need these resources? Shouldn't our military be 
focused on keeping us safe from ISIS and North Korea, not toddlers and 
babies?
  And why is the Republican leadership afraid to allow us to have a 
vote? I guess babies are too controversial for the Republican caucus. I 
guess keeping families together is a poison pill amendment.
  By refusing Congress a vote, this House is giving up its 
responsibility to make immigration laws, plain and simple. This House 
should be a check on the administration. That is the way the system is 
supposed to work. But we are not doing that. Instead, by refusing to 
let us have a vote on the floor, the Republican House majority is 
endorsing President Trump's family jails.
  Mr. Speaker, this House majority owns this crisis. Let me be clear: A 
vote for this rule is a vote for more of President Trump's cruelty to 
these babies. It is a vote to keep innocent children from their 
parents.
  This House has the power to reunite these families. This House has 
the power to end separation. This House has the power to stop hateful 
immigration policies.
  But this House won't act. Because of that, thousands of families may 
be destroyed forever. We must defeat this rule and give this House an 
opportunity to act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this House actually is going to 
be taking up a bill that addresses these issues. Mr. Goodlatte's bill 
will come up within the next hour or so here on this floor. The bill 
itself would require that the Department of Homeland Security maintain 
the care and custody of aliens together, with their children, as well 
as providing funding for DHS family residential centers.
  So I think that it is fair to say that there is bipartisan concern 
for the plight of these children, the plight of these families. I think 
all of us who are mothers understand the emotions involved here and 
understand that we don't want to perpetuate a situation that, in fact, 
also was occurring when President Obama was in office.

  But I think it is also important to note that we have got to secure 
our border and we have got to be in a position where we are recognizing 
that people who come here illegally cannot be allowed to stay. People 
who come here illegally must, in fact, be deported, must, in fact, be 
apprehended.
  We need to end, as we have, the practice of catch and release that we 
saw during the Obama administration. It is a security issue for us.
  The pain and the emotion that we all feel for the families that have 
been separated I think we all also feel for the angel families, the 
families that President Trump has met with, the families that have been 
the victims of violence perpetuated by people who have come to this 
country illegally.
  So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is absolutely the wrong thing to 
do, as my colleague urges the notion that we should defeat this rule so 
that we can address immigration. It just simply is wrong on a 
procedural matter. We ought to, in fact, support this rule, pass this 
rule, not once again hold hostage the men and women in uniform to 
another issue.
  The position of the minority here is apparently that we should stop 
our bipartisan process and our bipartisan movement on funding the 
troops so that we can take up an issue that we are already planing to 
take up. It is not necessary and it is unjustified. I actually would 
urge exactly the opposite of my colleague from the Rules Committee. We 
ought to, in fact, pass this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, as we think about this issue, we have got to remember 
that there are families involved not just with respect to the issue of 
immigration; there are families involved with respect to the men and 
women who are defending all of us.
  I don't think that it is acceptable, I don't think it is justifiable, 
for us ever to be in a position where we are telling the mother or the 
father or the spouse of a servicemember that we couldn't get them the 
funding they needed because our process is broken, that we couldn't get 
them the funding that they need because we are bickering with each 
other. I think that is, in fact, absolutely an abrogation of our 
constitutional responsibilities and duties.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert), who is vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to complete 
consideration of the FY 2019 Defense Appropriations bill.
  I thank the Rules Committee and all the Members who submitted 
amendments to the Defense Appropriations bill. I commend the chairman, 
Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Lowey, Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Granger, and Ranking Member Visclosky for their leadership on the FY 
2019 Defense Appropriations bill. I would also like to thank our 
dedicated professional staff who have tirelessly worked on this bill.
  I have served on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for 
many years, and providing for our men and women in uniform is a 
privilege and an honor. This bill provides vital funding for our armed 
services, including a 2.6 percent pay raise. This bill is an investment 
in our future superiority on land, air, and at sea.
  Earlier this year, Secretary Mattis released the National Defense 
Strategy. As we know, our Secretary of Defense is focused on readiness 
and lethality. This bill meets the demands of the Department to restore 
readiness levels, invest in lethality, buy the equipment that will 
maintain superiority, and provide for the health and welfare of our men 
and women in uniform.
  We are at a unique time in history that demands U.S. leadership 
throughout the world. As we know too well, a power vacuum breeds 
instability and extremism. A strong U.S. military with our allies 
creates stability.
  After too many years of a budget-driven strategy, this bill reflects 
the investment needed to maintain and secure U.S. interests around the 
world. The investment we make here today, about 16 percent of our 
entire Federal budget, has dividends down the road for many years. The 
security of our Nation, and the peace of the world, depends on a strong 
U.S. military.
  The last time the House passed a stand-alone Defense Appropriations 
conference report that was signed into law before the end of the fiscal 
year was September 2009. Let's turn the page on CRs that cripple the 
Department and return to regular order.
  I again thank my colleagues who crafted this bill, our military 
leadership, and the men and women of the United States military. I urge 
passage of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that a primary duty of this Congress 
is to fund the military, absolutely. There are military families 
serving in our Nation and abroad that deserve to get paid.
  So I would like to take this moment of privilege to remind this 
Congress that, before I got here, my son, who joined the United States 
Air Force, was going to have his pay withheld. I remember him telling 
me, Mr. Speaker:

       Mom, I signed up to serve our great Nation in the United 
     States Air Force, and I signed up to defend and protect my 
     country. I did not sign up to defend and protect the men of 
     my country, but I signed up to protect all of the people in 
     my country. And I resent Congress withholding my pay or tying 
     my pay to the reproductive rights of women.


[[Page H5762]]


  So let's keep all of those things in mind when we talk about the 
priorities of this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this Congress once provided a check on 
excessive executive power. But today, in this House, it is all lapdog 
and no watchdog. Even terrified toddlers torn from their mother's 
embrace are not beyond the limit of this Congress.
  Until very recently, limitation amendments like those I authored to 
this bill to protect taxpayers from having funds misused were routinely 
approved for debate--no more.

                              {time}  1245

  Just as Trump undermines our democracy, so too do these House 
Republicans refusing to permit even the pretense of a fair debate on 
key national issues.
  Having enabled Trump's separation of children from their parents, 
often with their silence, Republicans have blocked amendments that I 
and 41 of our colleagues sponsored to prevent our military bases from 
being converted into internment camps for children and, in some cases, 
their families.
  Our military bases have an important mission. It is to ensure our 
national security, to ensure the utmost readiness for our troops, who 
may be called into action in many different parts of the globe at the 
same time. It is not their job to take care of 20,000 people, as the 
administration has requested, on two Texas military bases. The function 
there is a totally different one from that to which we have committed 
in this defense bill.
  These are real people, real children. They are toddlers who have been 
torn from their parents in places like McAllen, which I once 
represented; real children who cry themselves to sleep every night, 
held without their freedom and without their loved ones, while some of 
my former constituents are shopping right down the street.
  My constituents at home now in San Antonio, San Marcos, Lockhart, and 
Austin care about this. Over 1,000 people have reached out to my 
office, their hearts breaking for these children.
  Trump is truly testing the waters of dehumanization, seeing how many 
people blink an eye when he calls for suspending due process, 
guaranteed by our Constitution, for people who don't look like him.
  I do believe in a no-tolerance policy. The no-tolerance policy that I 
support is no tolerance for bigotry, no tolerance for the demonization 
of foreigners which regularly spews forth from this White House, no 
tolerance for using cages to hold children as hostages.
  No matter how grievous the wrong, how insulting the tweet, my 
colleagues sit here, idle and silent, silently blocking debate on 
congressional checks on this authoritarian-loving President who seeks 
to amass more and more power.
  Perhaps what we need in this House is a strong, professional ENT--an 
ear, nose and throat physician--because Republicans have lost their 
voice when it comes to standing up to Trump on much of anything. You 
could say that Trump's got their tongue.
  Whatever the reason, they are not there standing up for the children, 
won't even permit a debate on the issue of whether our military bases 
should be converted to this perverted purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, I will never yield to a President who knows no limits, 
and we will not yield in raising the issue of these children, their 
separation, and the detainment of their families indefinitely. We must 
speak out and use every opportunity afforded in this House to defend 
their presence and to defend a better policy and the use of our tax 
dollars for what they were intended, not to detain, indefinitely, these 
babies.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would thank my colleague very much for her son's 
service in our Armed Forces, and I would also just note that we agree. 
We don't think that our military servicemembers' salaries should be 
held hostage for any issue, no matter the issue. That is why we in this 
body believe we should pass a stand-alone Defense Appropriations bill. 
That is why we believe that we ought to pass the rule that we are 
debating today, so that we can get to the debate and the discussion 
about the stand-alone Defense Appropriations bill. That is why we 
believe the Senate should take it up and pass it that way as well.
  We shouldn't add any legislation to it. The funding that our men and 
women in uniform need should not be made a situation where it is held 
hostage to other political issues. It is simply not justifiable, no 
matter the issue.
  I would note once again, Mr. Speaker, and this is crucially 
important, that one of the fundamental values that our men and women in 
uniform are fighting for and defending is the rule of law, and for too 
long in the previous administration we had policies like catch and 
release that were sanctioned from the top. We had policies like 
sanctuary cities that were sanctioned from the top. We had situations, 
Mr. Speaker, where the laws of the Republic that were passed by this 
body, passed by the Senate, signed into law by the President, were 
simply not enforced. That is not a situation that we can allow to 
continue.
  I think it is important that we address the issue of the separation 
of families at the border. No one wants to see that happen or that 
continue. I think we need to focus on it. We need to make sure that we 
come up with solutions for it, like the kinds of solutions that are 
going to be presented on this floor shortly.
  I think, as we do that, we have also got to remember the larger 
issues involved, including the security of the Nation. That is not just 
about the resources that this bill provides; it is also about making 
sure that our borders are secure.
  One of the things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have refused to deal with and to address time and again is funding for 
a border wall. President Trump has made clear that part of securing 
this Nation is providing funding for a border wall. That is something 
that we have got to make sure we appropriate. That is also something 
that the bill that we will consider this afternoon does.

  I am hopeful that we will see support from the other side of the 
aisle for a bill that deals with the issue of separating children from 
families at the border.
  I also would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this House has been very 
dedicated and focused and very active in dealing with the issue of 
human trafficking. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know 
very well that many of the situations we are seeing at our border that 
involve children are not family situations. They are situations where 
those children are brought here by human traffickers. Those children 
are brought here to be exploited. That is something we have got to make 
sure we protect against.
  When we as a nation allow sanctuary cities to continue to exist, when 
we look the other way and say we won't enforce our immigration laws, we 
are, in fact, perpetuating a system where those children are put at 
risk, and we are not doing our duty, our fundamental obligation, to 
protect and defend those children.
  I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the concern for the children of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle were as broad as it needs to 
be, to encompass, frankly, all of the threats that these kids are 
facing.
  I think it is important that we pass this rule, we pass this 
underlying bill, and we move on to address and focus on the issue of 
immigration in a way in which Members on both sides of the aisle can 
agree.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that I absolutely agree with my 
colleague from the other side of the aisle on one thing, and that is 
that we should be absolutely focused and work together on the issues on 
which we agree, such as the USA Act.
  Mr. Speaker, why aren't we allowed to have a vote on the floor when 
that is bipartisan legislation created by a bipartisan group of 
Members?
  If we want to talk about the rule of law, Mr. Speaker, we can't talk 
from both ends. Either we support the rule of law or we don't. Yet this 
Republican Congress, time and time and time again, has been complicit 
with President Trump and his family's conflicts of interest when it 
comes to dealing

[[Page H5763]]

with China, when it comes to dealing with our trade agreements, when it 
comes to dealing with Russia and now possibly North Korea.
  Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has ripped thousands of 
children from their parents' arms at the border, sending them all over 
the country. Separating children from their parent poses ongoing 
psychological harm and trauma, yet the government has no clear plans to 
reunite those families. For that reason, if we defeat the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
Representative Bass' bill, H.R. 6236, the Family Unity Rights and 
Protection Act, which would require the Federal Government to reunite 
families which have been forcibly separated at the border.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Bass) to discuss this proposal.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, mothers and fathers who sought a safe haven 
for their children watched helplessly as their children were being 
snatched away from them by our government.
  These families were fleeing unimaginable violence. They had no idea 
where their infants were being taken. They had no idea the treatment 
they would receive. These parents, in many instances, still have no 
idea where their children are located or how to communicate with them.
  The Trump administration established no formal process to return 
these children. I am terrified at the thought that these parents may 
never see their children again. If the parents are deported and their 
children are sent all over this country, how will the parents find 
their children?
  Just imagine the mother from El Salvador who is deported back to El 
Salvador, who came here dirt-poor to begin with. She gets deported back 
to El Salvador. Her child is sent off to New York. How is she ever 
supposed to find that child again?
  It appears that the only real plan was to separate families as a 
deterrent to legal immigration. Coming to America should not mean 
permanently losing your child, especially if you came to America and it 
was not illegal. If you came in search of asylum, that is not illegal 
immigration.
  The zero-tolerance policy will have a lasting effect. Pediatricians 
and health experts agree that child-parent separation will result in 
neurological damage. I will tell you that I have received numerous 
phone calls from experts, pediatricians, social workers, and child 
welfare workers.
  The other night, I even received a very long email from a distraught 
internationally known psychologist, Dr. Phil McGraw. He shared with me 
his concerns about the impact child-parent separation will have on 
children. He highlighted that, when children are torn away from their 
parents and raised in institutions without a stable caregiver, it 
disrupts the formation of attachments, that children become anxious and 
fearful, and that this can last for years, if not a lifetime. Dr. Phil 
also expressed how this impacts a child's brain development, which can 
lead to negative health and well-being outcomes.
  We did this, and now we must undo this. If our government did this 
policy of separating children from parents, then it should be our 
government's responsibility to reunite those parents with those 
children, whether they remain here in the United States or, especially, 
if they are deported.
  This proceeded without a plan, without foresight, and without a 
second glance at the law or what we stand for as a nation. This is 
chaos. That is why I am calling for a vote on my bill, H.R. 6236, 
Family Unity Rights and Protection Act, to require the Federal 
Government to reunite the parents with the children, to establish a 
database of children separated from families, and to make sure that 
parental rights aren't terminated.
  We are told that parents can communicate with their children, but let 
me ask you how a parent in Los Angeles would communicate with a child 
who is 6 months old in another State.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, my bill also requires a report outlining the 
short- and long-term effects on these families and proposed solutions.
  As it is, our foster care system is already overrun with over 400,000 
children. We know that these kids are in detention right now, but 
ultimately they will wind up in foster care. Because of the opioid 
crisis, we don't have enough foster homes for kids who actually need to 
be in care.
  The long-term neurological effects that I describe even apply to 
children who should be removed from home because their parents have 
either abused or neglected them. So even when the children should be 
separated, that separation causes tremendous harm.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, if that is what happens to children who should 
be removed from home, we must call for an end to State-sponsored child 
abuse, because that is what this policy is. This is our Federal 
Government that is abusing children.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on ordering the 
previous question.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me remind this body of a brief history of our Nation.
  During World War II, this country chose to round up Japanese American 
citizens and put them in internment camps across the country.

                              {time}  1300

  Some were held in my hometown at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds, 
in Pomona, California.
  In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States that 
the government had every right to incarcerate families in the best 
interest of our national security. It was wrong and immoral then, and 
it is wrong and immoral now, and we look back at Japanese internment as 
a dark moment in our history.
  Just yesterday, the Supreme Court finally rejected the ruling and 
admitted that it was clearly unconstitutional to forcibly place 
Japanese Americans in concentration camps--74 years later. That is how 
long it took for our court system to catch up with the reality and to 
right a horrible wrong.
  We are facing a similar dark period in our country now with what is 
happening at our southern borders. How long will it take this time for 
us to realize that what this administration is doing at our southern 
borders is morally repugnant, wrong, and illegal?
  How long before we realize that what we are doing is causing 
emotional harm to families, especially to the children? How long before 
we consider how history will remember this moment and judge us?
  What national security threat are we facing today that warrants such 
a barbaric response towards families and children? They are exactly 
that: children, families, babies.
  They are coming to our borders pleading for help and protection. They 
are fleeing kidnapping, rape, murder, and threats. They are not MS-13; 
they are fleeing MS-13. They want to work and raise their children in 
peace. Is that so terrible?
  This administration is deliberately choosing to inflict trauma onto 
thousands of children, holding children hostage, using child abuse as a 
scare tactic to deter families from coming here seeking refuge.
  There are still more than 2,000 children separated from their 
families at this present moment. President Trump may have signed his 
executive order last week, but he failed to implement a plan to reunite 
these families--no plan to reunite these families.
  We are doing nothing to fix this problem today. And let's be clear: 
Speaker Ryan's bill, which we may or may not consider this week, does 
nothing to fix this problem either. All his bill does is pave the way 
for long-term incarceration of families in prison-like facilities. It 
would be replacing one form of child abuse for another.

[[Page H5764]]

  I visited some of these detention centers at our borders. The 
horrendous conditions we are exposing families to are completely 
unacceptable.
  Where are we, as a nation, when we place children in cage-like cells, 
inside warehouses, with nothing but an emergency thermal blanket and a 
thin mat between them and the cold concrete floor, with a toilet in the 
middle of the cell? Criminally prosecuting every individual, every 
child, who crosses between a port of entry, who poses no threat to our 
country, is not only inhumane, it makes us less secure.
  We have a limited number of prosecutors. We have to make choices. If 
you prosecute one crime, it means you are not prosecuting another. So 
when we send our prosecutors after every single border crosser, who 
benefits? Let me tell you who benefits. The murderers, the rapists, the 
drug traffickers, the drug dealers, the pimps, the muggers, and the 
human traffickers, that is who will benefit from this. We are taking 
away from where law enforcement agencies need the most and are wasting 
by traumatizing defenseless families. How does this make us safe?
  This administration's impulsive zero-tolerance policy is harming our 
moral credibility. It is harming our national security. Most of all, it 
is harming innocent babies.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I agree that the court determination, 
essentially rejecting the Korematsu decision yesterday, was the right 
one. And we agree that the episode in our Nation's history, in which we 
were holding Japanese Americans in internment camps, was a dark one and 
was something that should not have happened. But I think that it is 
unjustifiable, and I think, frankly, it just politicizes the challenge 
that we are all facing to compare the current situation at our borders 
with Japanese internment camps, or with concentration camps, or many of 
the other exaggerations and, I think, highly irresponsible language 
that we have heard throughout this debate.
  We all have to come together to solve the problem, but we have to 
come together to enforce our laws. If, in fact, my colleagues are 
interested in enforcing the laws, if they are interested in solving the 
problem for the families at the border, and if they are interested in 
closing the loopholes in the law that have resulted in the separation 
of those children, then I assume that they will be voting in favor of 
Mr. Goodlatte's bill that will be coming up for consideration today.
  I would also say, Mr. Speaker, it is not accurate for our colleagues 
to say that families seeking asylum are having their children ripped 
out of their arms. Anybody who is seeking asylum, who goes to a port of 
entry, is not going to be subject to prosecution and will not be 
separated from their families.
  I think it is very important for us to make clear that we are talking 
about people seeking to come into this country illegally, and, in many 
cases, as I mentioned before, we are talking about children who are 
being trafficked. We have to make sure, as we deal with this issue and 
as we come to a resolution and a solution that will help these kids, 
that, in fact, we do it in a way that addresses the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we focus back on the issue 
that we are here to talk about today, and that is Defense 
Appropriations.
  What we have seen this afternoon is the same thing that we seem to 
see every time this bill comes up. This is a really important, really 
good bipartisan bill, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
want to talk about everything under the Sun, apparently, except Defense 
Appropriations.

  If we don't get Defense Appropriations right, if we don't get it 
passed through this House and passed through the Senate and signed 
before September 30, we are looking at the possibility of another 
continuing resolution for the Defense Department.
  Now, we have seen this happen before. We saw it happen last year. We 
watched the Democrats in the Senate, for example, shut down the 
government because they wanted to hold our troops hostage, because they 
were in a position where they wanted to do everything possible except 
just pass Defense Appropriations.
  Tragically, Mr. Speaker, this isn't just a matter of words like 
``readiness,'' ``modernization,'' and ``capability.'' Those words all 
matter. But there are real men and women behind those words, and 
families behind them.
  So when we are in a situation where we abrogate our duty, and we 
don't provide the funds that our men and women in uniform need, we end 
up putting the lives of our servicemen and -women on the line. I don't 
think that any Member of this body ever wants to be in a situation 
again where the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, or the service chiefs come in and say that we, as a body, have 
done more damage to the military than any enemy has in the field. That 
is what we have heard consistently and repeatedly over the course of 
the last several years.
  Taking the step of passing this rule and making sure that we pass 
this underlying appropriations bill is a crucial part of continuing on 
the path of fulfilling the commitment that we made and fulfilling the 
commitment that the President of the United States made that he would 
rebuild our military.
  Every man and woman in uniform, who puts the uniform on, as Secretary 
Mattis has said, is essentially writing a blank check to this Nation, 
and it is a blank check that is payable with their lives. We ought to 
stop spending our time on this floor debating a whole bunch of other 
things. The Senate ought to stop spending its time stuck in the 
filibuster rule, stuck in the process of going on and on for hours and 
hours over matters that, frankly, don't have anywhere near the 
importance that funding our troops does, and they ought to move to get 
this bill passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 6157.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 964 Offered by Mrs. Torres

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 5. 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. 
     6236) to require the reunification of families separated upon 
     entry into the United States as a result of the ``zero-
     tolerance'' immigration policy requiring criminal prosecution 
     of all adults apprehended crossing the border illegally. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6236.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page H5765]]

     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.

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________