[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 116 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6053-H6057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 50, UNFUNDED MANDATES INFORMATION 
 AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
    3281, RECLAMATION TITLE TRANSFER AND NON-FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE 
                          INCENTIVIZATION ACT

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 985 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 985

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 50) to provide for additional safeguards with 
     respect to imposing Federal mandates, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered 
     as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. 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. Each such 
     further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the 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, as amended, and 
     any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3281) to 
     authorize the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the 
     transfer to non-Federal ownership of appropriate reclamation 
     projects or facilities, 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 equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 985, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule 
forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for 
consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and 
Transparency Act, and also H.R. 3281, the Reclamation Title Transfer 
and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, equally divided 
by the chair and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, respectively. It also 
provides for a motion to recommit for each bill.
  Last night, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from the 
sponsor of H.R. 3281, Mr. Lamborn from Colorado, about his bill and its 
importance for improving the management of water and water-related 
facilities. We also heard from my friend and a former Rules Committee 
member, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, on H.R. 50, which she introduced.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are, at their core, about promoting 
effective government and enhancing the cooperation and collaboration 
between the government and non-Federal entities.
  The Federal Government has its hands in a lot of things. That is not 
always a bad thing, but we see far too many instances where Federal 
involvement does more harm than good. That is why Republicans in this 
Chamber are committed to reining in the Federal Government where it 
needs to be reined in, to increasing its efficiency and transparency, 
and to giving the American people a louder voice in the decisions that 
impact them.
  H.R. 3281, the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal 
Infrastructure Incentivization Act, empowers water users and seeks to 
reduce the administrative paperwork and liability Federal taxpayers 
bear by streamlining the process through which some Bureau of 
Reclamation projects are transferred to non-Federal entities.
  Today, the Bureau of Reclamation is the Nation's largest wholesale 
water supplier, providing one out of five Western farmers with 
irrigation water and delivering trillions of gallons to people 
annually.
  Under the current law, the BOR is allowed to transfer day-to-day 
operational and maintenance responsibilities to project beneficiaries, 
but the Bureau cannot transfer title or ownership of any of these 
facilities unless

[[Page H6054]]

Congress specifically enacts legislation authorizing such a transfer.
  This legislation recognizes that Federal bureaucracy is not doing any 
favors for water users or for aging infrastructure projects. That is 
why this bill focuses on empowering local water users and incentivizing 
non-Federal investment in water infrastructure. This bill helps reduce 
regulatory paperwork and the Federal backlog on water infrastructure 
repair, while increasing efficiencies for water users.
  Where Congress can streamline Federal operations and increase local 
control to the benefit of taxpayers and end users, we should act. H.R. 
3281 is a step toward accomplishing both of these goals on Bureau of 
Reclamation projects.
  On the next bill, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of 
H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. As I 
mentioned earlier, this bill continues the trend of empowering State 
and local governments and lightening the grip of the Federal 
Government.
  In 1995, Congress acted through the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to 
prevent the imposition of burdensome and costly Federal unfunded 
mandates on State and local governments. That was a worthy goal 23 
years ago and remains so today.
  As a former appropriator at the State level in the State of Georgia, 
I understand, many times, what good-intentioned work from up here can 
do, actually, on impacts to State budgets and local budgets, and this 
is a worthy goal for us to take up.
  It has become clear, however, unfunded mandates are slipping through 
the cracks or, perhaps more accurately, flooding through gaping holes 
in the system. In fact, according to an Office of Management and Budget 
report, unfunded mandates and Federal regulations cost States, cities, 
and the public between $44 billion and $62 billion annually. Even in a 
town used to throwing around big numbers, that is a big number.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the communities in my home of northeast Georgia 
often struggle to make ends meet. Local governments are rarely flush 
with cash, and they have to make tough decisions about what priorities 
receive funding, and in what amounts, in order to best serve their 
communities. Unfunded mandates, particularly the unexpected ones, can 
significantly hamper those efforts.
  In fact, in recognition of this problem and in pursuit of a solution, 
those who are most affected by the issue of unfunded mandates--State 
and local governments--overwhelmingly support this legislation.
  The so-called Big 7 organizations representing the State and local 
governments and officials--the National Governors Association, the 
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the 
United States Conference of Mayors, the Council of State Governments, 
the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the International 
City/County Management Association--sent a letter earlier this year 
urging enactment of H.R. 50.
  The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act represents the 
type of action Congress is supposed to take. It identifies a problem, 
it acknowledges the need for policy updates, and it incorporates 
stakeholder feedback in order to solve that problem.
  The bill provided for by this rule closes loopholes in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act and applies the requirements of that law to 
independent agencies. The bill provides for expanded input from State, 
local, and Tribal governments, as well as from the private sector, by 
requiring agencies to consult with the government and with the private 
sector when they are developing significant regulatory mandates.
  Mr. Speaker, the importance of this update to the law cannot be 
overstated. I believe that the men and women eking out a living or 
building a business on the ground know what problems exist and how to 
remedy them better than the people who are currently residing in 
cubicles in Washington, D.C.
  When bureaucrats are writing regulations that impact northeast 
Georgians, they need to consult with and glean insight from northeast 
Georgians. They also need to understand that what works for northeast 
Georgia might not work for southeast Georgia, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, 
Ohio, or anywhere else besides where they are.
  If the Federal Government is going to implement regulations that 
impact private entities--which they do far too often, with far too 
little benefit, in my opinion--those entities need to have and deserve 
a voice in the process.
  H.R. 50 helps give the private sector that agency. It also requires 
rules that aren't preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
undergo a UMRA analysis if the effects on State, local, and private 
sectors total $100 million or more. The bill codifies longstanding 
regulatory principles regarding cost-benefit analysis and when to 
regulate, and supports more accurate economic analysis.

  Mr. Speaker, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was designed to promote 
informed decisionmaking throughout the legislative and regulatory 
process, in consultation with the entities affected by those processes. 
Those goals are just as important, if not more important, today as when 
the UMRA was originally signed into law in 1995.
  Congress needs to take responsibility to help reduce the burdens 
regulatory agencies have placed on State and local governments, as well 
as private entities. Without question, Congress must work to close 
these loopholes and reduce bureaucracy.
  These are the simple concepts, Mr. Speaker: Unnecessary, burdensome 
Federal regulations should be identified and reconsidered, and the 
people and businesses impacted by regulations should have a voice in 
the regulatory process.
  I believe government can operate more efficiently and effectively 
when we give local stakeholders a voice, when we seek to increase 
efficiency and remove unwieldy mandates, and when we work to reduce the 
Federal bureaucracy.
  The bill provided for by this rule takes steps in doing just that. I 
believe that they are steps that we in the House should support to help 
American communities, citizens, and consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This rule makes in order two bills and four amendments: H.R. 50, 
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017; and H.R. 
3281, Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure 
Incentivization Act.
  H.R. 50 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This is a bill that Congress already 
voted on in 2015 in nearly a party-line vote in the House before dying 
in the Senate.
  I understand my colleagues think that this is a very important issue. 
As a former mayor and council member, I know how difficult Federal 
regulations can be to implement. This legislation, however, does 
nothing except grind progress to a standstill, blocking improvements to 
our Nation's health, safety, and environmental protections.
  Perhaps that is why this rule also makes in order H.R. 3281, which 
assaults our Nation's environmental and health standards in a different 
way. This legislation, which I opposed in the Natural Resources 
Committee, would authorize a de facto privatization of Federal 
infrastructure across the Western U.S., all while stiffing our 
taxpayers.
  The bill does not require that taxpayers be compensated for the loss 
of publicly owned land and mineral interests. Imagine, once again, this 
Congress is putting the interests of private business ahead of our 
hardworking taxpayers.
  This legislation is a proposal from President Trump's infrastructure 
plan, which largely seeks to enrich developers and private businesses 
at the expense of our hardworking taxpayers and the general public as a 
whole.
  I could understand spending time on these bills if we had finished 
the pressing work before us, but with thousands--and I mean thousands--
of children still separated from their parents due to the cruel actions 
of this administration, is this really what we are spending time on? 
Where are the moral priorities and family values of this Congress?

[[Page H6055]]

  I have spoken with the Department of Homeland Security, and I have 
spoken with the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement, and there has been 
one constant answer from both of them: They have absolutely no idea 
what they are doing, no idea where the parents of these children are, 
no idea how many children have been put into foster care, no idea when 
these families will be reunited, and no idea what comes next.
  Congress has a responsibility to act, not next week, not next month, 
not next year, but today. Once we leave for August recess, let me 
remind you, it will be 39 days before we come back. That means 39 more 
days that we are going to allow children to be held in detention, in 
cages, in cold cells, without their parents.
  The Trump administration has already missed the first deadline to 
reunite families. What assurances do we have that they won't miss the 
second deadline, or the third one, or possibly the fourth one? How many 
more deadlines does this Congress, this administration, need before we 
realize that we are complicit--complicit--in separating children from 
their parents who care about them?
  And while we have them in our custody, we are complicit in not 
properly taking care of them. ``Full of dirt and lice,'' that is how an 
immigrant mother described her 14-month-old baby son who had been 
returned to her after 85 days of separation.
  We must act because this administration chooses not to. Failure to do 
so will mean more families are broken forever, more families like 
Yasmin's.
  On May 22, Yasmin and her two teenage daughters entered the United 
States and were immediately apprehended and then separated. The mother 
was transferred to the McAllen holding center--also known as the dog 
pound, as they call it--with a group of other separated mothers.
  After 7 days, the mothers were told that they would be deported 
without their children. Many of the mothers fainted when they heard 
this news. One mother had a seizure in a cell. After appearing in 
court, Yasmin was handcuffed, shackled, and given no information on the 
status of her children. Family values.
  After being transferred to another detention center, Yasmin was 
informed that her daughters had been reunited with their father. But 
Yasmin still remains in a detention center, where she has gone more 
than a month separated from her children. She has received absolutely 
no information about when she will see her children again and must 
simply wait and pray. Family values.

  These people are fleeing for their lives to the promise and safety of 
the United States, and we aren't even considering their asylum cases.
  Let me tell you another story, Mr. Speaker. A woman from El Salvador 
decided to flee to the U.S. with her two young boys, ages 4 and 10, 
after receiving grave threats from MS-13 gang members. Prior to fleeing 
to the U.S., she had sought protection from Salvadoran authorities 
through the legal process but had not received any protection.
  In March of this year, she presented herself to the border officials, 
after making a conscious decision not to enter the U.S. at an official 
port of entry. She had learned that CBP officials are turning away 
asylum seekers in direct--direct--violation of the United States and 
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  The mother and her two boys were apprehended and taken to a Border 
Patrol processing station. The mother was sent to an adult detention 
center in Laredo, and the boys were sent to a shelter for unaccompanied 
children under the Office of Refugee Resettlement within Health and 
Human Services.
  At one point, the brothers were separated from one another and placed 
into two separate foster homes, but were eventually reunited and 
released to family on the East Coast.
  Under current law and procedure--something this Congress could change 
today--the children have absolutely no right to an appointed lawyer. 
Without their mother to speak on their behalf, the 4-year-old and the 
10-year-old boys must make a case for asylum on their own in separate 
court cases.

                              {time}  1245

  This is what we could be doing today: One, fixing the broken laws 
that have toddlers, toddlers who are barely out of diapers, 
representing themselves in court and fixing the root causes of these 
issues with the Central American Family Protection and Reunification 
Act, legislation I have offered with Ranking Member Engel.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can use 
our limited time here to act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.J. Res. 31, sponsored by 
Representatives Deutch and McGovern and Raskin, which would reserve 
Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United by enshrining in the 
Constitution of the United States a democracy for all amendments, 
establishing the right of the American people to enact State and 
Federal laws that regulate spending in public elections.
  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 gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch) to discuss this proposal.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, and, Mr. Speaker, this 
proposed constitutional amendment will overturn Citizens United and 
will put voters back in charge of Washington.
  Over 90 percent of American voters want background checks on gun 
sales; three-quarters want aggressive action on climate change; 85 
percent want guaranteed paid sick leave; and 75 percent of the people 
in our country think we ought to raise the minimum wage.
  The problem is these are the priorities of voters instead of the 
priorities of donors, and right now, in this House, donors call the 
shots. Ninety-three percent of Americans believe that we don't hear 
their voices. The cynicism is deep and it is bipartisan.
  Only 5 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of Democrats believe that 
their views are heard by their elected Representatives. Why? The 
Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision held that unlimited 
election spending doesn't corrupt our political system.
  The Citizens United decision was wrong. To American voters, our 
Congress and our government institutions look like they are bought and 
paid for.
  In recent elections, just 150 wealthy families and the corporations 
that they control have flooded our elections with hundreds of millions 
of dollars. That money buys something. Unlimited money in our elections 
too often determines who can afford to run and sets the legislative 
agenda here in Washington.
  Here is what needs to be asked: If your family can't answer a 
politician's phone call when they ask for a donation, if they can't 
afford billboards and television ad buys, how are their voices being 
heard?
  It doesn't matter whether a wealthy donor supports policies on the 
left or right. Each side has its billionaires. Let's be clear about 
that. But none of them should be able to spend unlimited resources in 
our election.
  Unlimited spending doesn't produce more speech. It produces louder 
speech. It compromises the free speech rights of everyone else in 
America. It corrupts elections when people are sent to Washington to 
work on behalf of corporate interests rather than voters' interests. 
And it leaves our elections vulnerable to attacks from foreign 
adversaries.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to get big money out of politics; it is time 
to get secret, dark money out of our elections; and it is time to get 
foreign money out of our campaigns.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, for the sake of our democracy, it is time 
to overturn Citizens United and put voters back in charge of 
Washington.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules, who has been a leader

[[Page H6056]]

on this issue of money and politics for years.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues to urge Members to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring to the floor the 
Deutch-McGovern-Raskin bill and so we can at long last have a debate on 
campaign finance.
  The fact of the matter is there is too much money in our politics. 
The fact of the matter is that this money has a corrupting influence on 
our politics.
  Look at the bills that come before this House of Representatives. It 
is not about empowering people. It is always about a giveaway to a big 
corporation, changing the rules on who can sit on scientific advisory 
boards to include corporate cronies.
  The tax bill that my Republican friends brought to the House floor 
that they voted on and that they take such pride in, basically 85 
percent of those benefits went to the top 1 percent income earners in 
this country.
  The bottom line is this place is becoming a place where money can buy 
anything. There is a culture of corruption that exists in this House of 
Representatives. There is a culture of corruption that exists in this 
White House, and people are sick of it.
  When I talk to audiences back home--they could be liberal audiences 
or conservative audiences--the two issues that I mention where 
everybody nods approvingly are when I say that there is too much money 
in politics, everybody says ``yes.'' And then when I say that Congress 
is dysfunctional, they all nod their heads approvingly.
  Enough. We need to change this system. People all across the country, 
an overwhelming majority, want us to change the way we do our politics. 
They believe that they should have the power, not corporate special 
interests, not people who are the wealthiest in this country.
  Let's give the people of this country what they want. Let's have 
their voices matter more than the special interest groups.
  We have tried time and time and time again to bring these issues to 
the floor, and we are constantly rebuked. Look, we shouldn't be 
surprised, because this is now the most closed Congress in the history 
of the United States of America: more amendments routinely get denied 
in the Rules Committee; more bills have come to the floor under a 
completely closed process.
  We debate bills, again, that benefit the well-off and the well-
connected. We ought to debate some bills that help regular people. And 
having a real debate on campaign finance reform, having a real debate 
on how we get big money out of our politics is an issue we should be 
dealing with right now. It is what the American people want.
  Let's do, for once, what the American people want; let's do what our 
constituents want; and, Mr. Speaker, let me just finish by saying we 
can have that debate by voting ``no'' on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that to my colleagues, 
especially those on the Republican side.
  If you vote ``no'' on the previous question, we can have this debate. 
We can have a debate about how we get big money out of politics. We can 
have a debate about how we drain the swamp, how we clean this place up.
  You can go around and say you want to drain the swamp. That is just 
rhetoric, because what you are really doing is you are helping the 
well-off and the well-connected.
  The people who give the most money, they get their legislation to the 
floor. Regular people routinely get their interests blocked in this 
Chamber. It is time to clean up this place.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gallego) to speak on the continuing horror stories about 
what has happened at our Nation's border.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of a young 
mother. Her name is Rosa. Just like my mom, she came to America in 
search of a better life.
  Rosa's home was in Trujillo, Honduras, where she lived with her aging 
parents and her son, Juan. Violent gangs controlled the town, and Rosa 
feared her young son would be targeted like so many others in her 
neighborhood.
  Under these desperate circumstances, Rosa did what any loving mother 
would do. She took her modest life savings and her son and fled north 
in search of safety. When they finally made it to the U.S. border near 
Yuma, Arizona, Rosa and Juan were met by American authorities who asked 
her an ominous question: Don't you know we're separating children from 
their families here? She told them no, but it was too late. Rosa and 
Juan are still separated.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration is now reuniting a small number of 
these families due, in part, to Donald Trump's orders. But let's be 
clear. This isn't happening out of concern for their welfare. As usual, 
Donald Trump is only doing the right thing because a court is making 
him do it.
  Trump still wants to set up tent camps in our military bases. He 
still wants to eviscerate legal protections for migrant children, and 
he still wants to lock up families. Donald Trump's goal is to present 
mothers and children fleeing unspeakable violence with an impossible 
choice: immediate deportation or indefinite detention. That is 
appalling.
  On the other hand, the Members of this body have an easy choice: make 
excuses for Trump, or take a stand against the state-sponsored 
mistreatment of children. It is not a tough decision. We know what we 
need to do.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, as you know, many of us in Congress and the 
Nation are working hard to reunite children with their parents. Family 
reunification should be a time of joy, but, sadly, that is not always 
the case.
  One mother waited for 4 months to wrap her arms around her little 
boy. Another mother waited 3 months. These should be moments of joy, 
yet, when the children did not recognize their parents, this became a 
troubling situation.
  As a father of four, I know what it is to be loved by your children. 
As a father of four, I know what that parent-child relationship is 
like. To have children that fail to recognize you after a number of 
months because you haven't seen them, well, that is just not right.
  The separation of immigrants from their children is just 
unconstitutional, un-American, and simply wrong, and I demand that all 
families be united immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  One final story to remind all of us what is at stake here.
  Earlier this year, a Honduran father was separated from his wife and 
child just days after President Trump's zero-tolerance policies went 
into effect. Marco Antonio Munoz crossed the Rio Grande with his wife 
and 3-year-old son on May 12 near the tiny town of Granjeno, Texas. 
Soon after Marco and his family were taken into custody, they arrived 
at a processing station in nearby McAllen and said they wanted to apply 
for asylum.
  Border Patrol agents told the family that they would be separated. 
That is when Border Patrol officials literally ripped Marco's child 
from his arms. At no point did Marco attempt to attack or assault the 
Border Patrol staff, but due to his anguish, he was placed into a 
padded isolation cell.
  Marco began to pray, pray for his family and pray for their safety. 
Hours passed, and the next morning, after receiving no information 
about where his family was or when he would see them next, Marco took 
his life.
  Family values.
  This is the law and order President Trump has no respect for either. 
He is disrespecting the rule of law and violating court orders by 
detaining children, babies, and he is creating

[[Page H6057]]

hysteria among families and confusion among Border Patrol and HHS 
officials.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
the rule because we can do better than this. We have family values that 
we must stand for, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close by paraphrasing a comment that the 
Honorable Chairwoman Foxx made yesterday evening in the Rules 
Committee.
  By the way, I want to bring it back: There is a lot of discussion 
that we are going to have, but, actually, the rule is about two bills 
that my friends didn't discuss at all. I hope they vote yes on that, so 
we can move legislation that has helped move the bureaucracy out of the 
way, so that things can actually, with common sense, get done. We don't 
choose to talk about that.
  We have a lot of issues. I am in agreement on a lot of things that we 
need to do. We need to fix our immigration system. But today, let's 
remind ourselves on the floor what we are doing. It is a rule to deal 
with two specific bills dealing with regulatory issues.
  Ms. Foxx said this yesterday in far more eloquent words than I am 
offering right now, that those opposed to the Unfunded Mandates 
Information and Transparency Act are those who support unbridled 
regulations.
  I do not support unbridled regulations. I think there are some good 
regulations, and I think there are some regulations that are necessary. 
Far too often, we see the Federal Government flooding our community 
with regulations that do little to achieve their intended benefits, yet 
come with massive bills, and Washington expects the American people to 
foot the bill.
  Maybe my friends across the aisle enjoy that. Maybe my friends across 
the aisle want that to continue to happen. Maybe my friends across the 
aisle who want to vote no on this want to continue to see this happen. 
We don't. We believe that there is a better way.
  The bills provided for by this rule recognize the role of the Federal 
Government, but they take needed steps to magnify the voices of those 
closest to the issues.
  I support this rule, and I support the underlying bills. I encourage 
all to do so and look at it honestly from the perspective of those who 
pay our bills, the people who pay the bills for this government, the 
ones who go to work every day, who pay their taxes, who want their 
government to do what the government is supposed to do and stay out of 
the areas where they are not supposed to be.
  This is what this is about, Mr. Speaker, plain and simple, bringing 
it back to the truth of the rule that we are debating, and that is what 
I believe is important.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 985 Offered by Mrs. Torres

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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 joint 
     resolution (H. J. Res. 31) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States relating to contributions 
     and expenditures intended to affect elections. The first 
     reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the joint 
     resolution 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 joint 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the 
     joint resolution are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the joint resolution for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution 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 joint 
     resolution, 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 joint resolution.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Joint Resolution 31.
                                  ____


        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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida). The question 
is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________