[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.
____________________