[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13974-13988]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
 RULES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 700 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 700

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of September 5, 2014, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of measures relating to the 
     ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. southern border, 
     border security, and related immigration law.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of September 5, 2014, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to measures addressing 
     the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. southern border, 
     border security, and related immigration law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met to report a 
rule that would provide for same-day authority for any resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules related to the ongoing 
humanitarian crisis on the southern border, border security, and 
related immigration law through September 5, 2014. Additionally, the 
rule provides suspension authority through September 5, 2014, on the 
same topics.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is very straightforward. It allows the House 
the maximum flexibility to deal with the crisis on the southern border 
during the district work period by providing both same-day and 
suspension authority through September 5.
  Any legislation considered during this time period would still need 
to go through the regular process, by either a rule for consideration 
by the Rules Committee or under the standard suspension process. This 
resolution just allows for expedited consideration of those matters 
while preserving as much of the district work period as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule.
  The martial law authority created under this rule would last through 
September 5. In other words, the House Republicans can call us back on 
a whim, just to consider any kind of bill they call a border or 
immigration bill. So much for their 3-day rule. I wonder how much 
notice they have to give Speaker Cruz before they call us back?
  Let's just take a moment to remember how we got here.
  The Republican leadership put together a partisan, inadequate, and 
unacceptable emergency supplemental

[[Page 13975]]

bill that allegedly dealt with the humanitarian crisis at the southern 
border. That bill was mean-spirited and cruel, but it wasn't mean-
spirited and cruel enough to satisfy the far-right wing of the 
Republican Conference. So the leadership tried to add another mean-
spirited, cruel bill to block any further help for young immigrants 
under the DACA program, a program that has helped thousands of young 
people who have grown up in America come out of the shadows so they can 
go to school or hold a job without fear of being deported. But that 
wasn't mean-spirited and cruel enough for their base, so they pulled 
the whole package from the floor yesterday.
  So last night, we had yet another meeting in the Rules Committee, and 
that is when they came up with this rule, but not a solution. That is 
right, Mr. Speaker. They still don't know what they are going to do. 
But I have an idea. They are going to make their cruel, mean-spirited 
immigration bill even worse, and that may not be enough to placate the 
far right who simply don't like immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. The far-right wing of the Republican 
base will never, ever be satisfied. And the martial-law authority 
created under this rule would last through September 5, so if the 
Republicans can somehow come up with even more mean-spirited bills, if 
they can figure out a way to act even more cruelly, they can bring us 
back again and again and again to vote.
  Now, in case any Americans are still watching, they could be forgiven 
for being a little confused about what happened this week. On 
Wednesday, House Republicans voted to waste millions of taxpayer 
dollars to sue the President for what they claim is excessive executive 
action. But on Thursday, this is what Speaker Boehner said about the 
border crisis:

       There are numerous steps the President can and should be 
     taking right now, without the need for congressional action, 
     to secure our borders.

  So which is it, Mr. Speaker? Is President Obama doing too much or not 
enough? I have got whiplash. It would be easier to take the Republicans 
seriously if they would just settle on one set of partisan talking 
points.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the crisis at our 
border.
  There are nearly 50 million refugees around the world, 50 million 
people fleeing violence, brutality, oppression, famine, disease--50 
million. But when 50,000 minors, one-tenth of 1 percent of the total 
number, arrive at our border, my Republican friends have a collective 
hissy fit.
  Is this really the face of America that we want the rest of the world 
to see? The United States of America, a nation of immigrants, do we 
really want the rest of the world to see us like this, petty and mean 
and small? I hope not.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously, my friend and I are going to have a 
disagreement about the nature of the bill that I think will, in rather 
short order, be before us. Let's go back and look at a little bit of 
history here.
  The administration was warned in 2012 and 2013 that we were going to 
have a crisis on our hands if we didn't do something, that we were 
going to get a flow of unaccompanied minors. They did absolutely 
nothing. As a matter of fact, the President of the United States 
submitted a budget to us which cut money for enforcement and detention 
at the border, which cut money for support of people that were here 
while they were being processed, and that cut money for aid to the 
countries where most of these folks are coming from. That is real 
foresight.
  So we have been confronted with a crisis, and a crisis that, in our 
view, the President contributed to by unilaterally changing whole 
sections of the immigration law and leaving the impression, probably 
unwittingly, I would say, but leaving the impression to many people 
that, if we get to the United States, we are going to be able to stay.
  There is no question criminal elements have picked that impression 
up, broadcast it. Thousands of people have sent them tens of 
thousands--millions, really--of dollars and put children on a perilous 
journey of over 1,000 miles to this country.
  Now we are trying to act on that, and we think, number one, if we 
don't do that, the societies from which they are coming are going to be 
disrupted. And we have been told very clearly by the leaders of those 
countries: We would like our children back.
  Number two, if we don't stop this process, we are going to continue 
to enrich cartels to an extraordinary degree. Frankly, as one border 
agent told me, he said, from a cartel standpoint, this is actually 
easier than drugs, because with drugs we try to interdict you every 
step along the way, and if you get to the border to cross, we continue 
to try and interdict you. In this case, we actually, once they bring an 
illegal unaccompanied minor here, complete the transaction. So it is 
encouraging the flow, and that is dangerous for the young people 
involved.
  We all know that in the course of that journey there is a risk that 
sex trafficking will take place. There is a risk that people will be 
lured or forced into drug dealing. There is a terrific physical risk. 
We know a lot of those folks are abused in the course of this process 
or sexually assaulted, so we need to stop this flow. We need to do it 
in a humane and appropriate way.
  The President, by the way, has suggested that this is due to the 2008 
law which we all passed, in good faith, to deal with sex trafficking. I 
personally don't think that is the case, but if that is true, then we 
ought to make some tweak to that law. We don't need to repeal it, but 
we need to make sure that we do something so that we don't have an 
enormous backlog here and we can actually handle the flow 
appropriately.
  We have waited in vain for the President to tell us what that tweak 
is. I mean, it was his Secretary of Homeland Security that actually 
raised this issue and said we need to be able--he said this in 
testimony in front of the United States Senate--we need to be able to 
treat people coming from the three Central American countries 
essentially the same way we treat Canadian and Mexican minors that 
arrive at our border. That was the position, but we have not seen any 
more requests.
  So if you look at our bill, frankly, number one, it is going to take 
care of that problem with a tweak. Number 2, we are going to provide 
additional moneys to handle this process through the end of the fiscal 
year and the end of the calendar year. Number 3, then we can work, 
because there will probably be additional resources needed next year, 
under the caps in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement and redirect that 
flow of money from less urgent to more urgent problems.
  So we think it is a responsible way to proceed. I think, essentially, 
that is what we are going to try and put before the House. Regardless, 
once we pass something, then the Senate can pass something.
  I am sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that the other body was unable to do 
anything yesterday and it has adjourned and gone home. Frankly, we were 
unable to get things done yesterday in a way that I think I certainly 
would have liked, but we stayed here, and we are going to continue to 
work through the problem, present a product. Hopefully, the Senate will 
come back and do the same, and then we can proceed legislatively and 
provide the resources and legislative corrections that are needed to 
deal with the situation.
  I am pleased that we are in session. I am pleased that we are working 
toward a solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in today's paper, there is an op-ed. It is written by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the new majority leader. 
And in

[[Page 13976]]

that op-ed he said: ``I have always believed that you must win the 
argument before you can win the vote. In Congress, committees act as 
idea factories for policies from both sides, and as majority leader, I 
will commit to the committee process and regular order.''
  Apparently, he didn't start yesterday doing that. And we don't start 
today doing that. This legislation has not been considered by 
committee, subcommittee, and none of us have seen it at this point in 
time.
  I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma say that the legislation is going 
to do this, that, and the other.
  We haven't seen it. It is 10:15. We haven't seen it. No regular 
order. No exercising of responsibility. We saw irresponsibility rampant 
yesterday in the House of Representatives. We saw a few months ago, 
shutting down government if you don't do it my way.
  I will tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, none of the leaders of 
the Republican Party have reached across to say, how can we do this in 
a bipartisan way. And so, because of their unwillingness to do that, 
Mr. Speaker, the Senate is gone. What we do today will be useless, a 
show, a form without substance, a pretense, a political message to 
their base of how hard they can be because they are moving in exactly 
the opposite direction of trying to create bipartisanship.
  So I urge my colleagues, stand up for doing the right thing and 
giving the resources necessary to meet the challenge that America has 
and America ought to be meeting today and yesterday and the day before.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to disagree with my good friend, the minority whip, on a 
point.
  I don't think the Senate left yesterday because of anything the House 
did. It failed to act, and it left. It went home because it couldn't 
pass a bill. That is something we are not going to allow to happen 
here. We are going to pass legislation. We are going to get our part of 
the job done.
  The Senate, then, will be free to come back and pass something, and 
we can go into a conference and do exactly what my friend suggests, 
work out a compromise. So hopefully that is where we will end up in 
this process.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, there are two real crises before us, and the 
Republican response was the misbegotten legislation, withdrawn 
yesterday, as it should have been, but the other wasn't even on the 
table in any form.
  There were 236 new fires started in the Western United States last 
night. There are 31 large fires that are uncontained. And the Forest 
Service and the BLM are running out of money. In the Senate bill--
which, granted, it didn't pass--but in the President's proposal was 
emergency firefighting money. But somehow, the Republicans here don't 
think those fires are an emergency and they don't care about the loss 
of resources, the potential loss of life, and the loss of property that 
is going to result.
  When those agencies run out of money, they can't stop fighting the 
fires, but they have will have to cut back on programs of preparedness 
and things that would mitigate the disaster of future fires, deal with 
forest health, fuel reduction, and all those things. But they couldn't 
care less. They are taking no action. They didn't even put forward a 
lame proposal on that, unlike their very lame proposal on the border.
  Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman may be surprised to find that, actually, we are not too 
far apart on the issue.
  Now, currently, we have over $700 million still on hand to deal with 
wildfires. The gentleman and I actually cosponsored legislation that 
our friend from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) has offered so that we can actually 
deal with this and change the structure of how we fund wildfire 
fighting. I suspect that issue will come back again. As a matter of 
fact, I was willing to work during the budget process with some of my 
friends on the other side of the Rules Committee to actually write the 
change into the budget. We had the votes on our side, working with our 
friends, to do that. For some reason, the Democratic amendment was 
withdrawn. I don't know why, and I cast no aspersions. But that is an 
area where we would like to work with you. I don't think it is 
particularly appropriate to be done in this bill.
  This bill is about dealing with the crisis on the southern border. It 
shouldn't be a Christmas tree or a grab bag. If we need additional 
resources, we should come back to do that. Again, we have sufficient 
resources on hand. Congress will be back in session in September, back 
in session after the elections. So I think we are going to have 
multiple opportunities to deal with this.
  I look forward to working with my friends on this particular issue 
when those opportunities occur.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we would like to work on that. As I said, no 
option has been given to us for that. Secondly, you are not following 
regular order on the legislation. What is needed now are resources. And 
the reason the Senate didn't act is because no Member of your party 
would support action.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Garcia).
  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I am a fortunate man. I am a fortunate man 
because half a century ago, my father, at 17 years old, arrived at this 
country with my mother. And this country gave them refuge. Later, the 
rest of our family came. This country has been tremendously generous, 
as we were brutalized by a leftwing dictatorship, the Castro 
dictatorship.
  And to think, Mr. Speaker, that a fellow Cuban American sits in the 
other House, dictating to this House that we should strip away rights, 
strip away rights from children, is unacceptable. It is un-American.
  I am a fortunate man. And we are a rich and plentiful country, a 
country of laws.
  We have an opportunity to do the right thing, to pass the bipartisan, 
comprehensive bill that the other House passed. It has now been 1 year 
and 1 month since that happened. The time has come. Let us pass 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to disagree with my friend on the root of this issue. I don't 
think whether or not we passed immigration reform has anything to do 
with the border crisis. I really don't. Frankly, what is occurring 
there would be illegal had we passed what the Senate passed. So it just 
simply doesn't address the problem.
  What the problem here is, by our own actions in this country, we have 
sent a message that if you get here, you can stay, whether you are 
legally entitled to or not. And it is going to take so long to process 
you, you will essentially never be sent back.
  And we have allowed criminal cartels to distort our position and to 
make tens of millions of dollars off of this. That needs to be stopped. 
That needs to be reversed. It is not helpful to anybody.
  Now, again, we may differ on the ideas. Although, I would point out 
for the record once more, the administration did ask: Please do 
something about the 2008 law. They asked that a month ago. And then 
they have sort of gotten quiet since then. We don't hear anything else 
about that.
  They have asked for resources. We have looked at what they need. We 
said we will be willing to do that. We are going to take them from 
existing moneys. We are not going to spend new money. This is an urgent 
priority. We think you are right. We are going to redirect that. And by 
the way, if you are going to need additional resources next year, we 
will work with you again

[[Page 13977]]

there. We are going to do it under the Ryan-Murray budget cap. We are 
not going to go outside the process. And we are using that.
  I think my friend from Maryland, the minority whip, is correct. We 
are using exceptional procedures--but they are procedures within the 
traditions of this House--to react to a crisis situation, and we are 
trying to stay here to get our work done and hopefully challenge the 
Senate to come back and do the same thing. So we are working the 
process and the crisis as best we can. With that, we will continue to 
work.
  And I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I spoke on the connection 
between comprehensive immigration reform and the crisis that we have at 
our border. And I said then--and I will say it again--that it is the 
height of hypocrisy to be talking about trying to do something about 
our border security when we can't even bring comprehensive immigration 
reform to this floor that would have provided the funding for increased 
border security. You can't have it both ways.
  But the Republican leadership said earlier this week and yesterday 
that, in fact, maybe the President should use his executive authority 
to deal with the issue at the border. But on Tuesday, they provided 
funding--some $2 million--to sue the President for excessive use of 
executive authority. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. But it 
seems like some of our colleagues want to do that.
  And then finally, a colleague from the Valley just said this morning: 
The problem we have is that some of our people just don't want to 
govern. That is correct. They don't. Once again, we are seeing politics 
trump good public policy for the people of our country.
  What we ought to be doing is returning back to regular order. What we 
ought to be doing is putting together a bipartisan effort to solve our 
border problems and to bring about comprehensive immigration reform for 
all the people of this country. That is what we ought to be doing.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I am here as a Member of this body who was 
sent here to work--quite frankly, which is the main reason why most 
immigrants come to this country--to work, to contribute to our economy, 
and to do the jobs that most of us are unwilling to do.
  But the point that I want to make at this moment is that what the 
Republican proposal tried to do yesterday--and it failed--and what they 
are trying to do today is to strip away the rights of a child to live. 
The Republicans want to indiscriminately return children to their 
death.
  And I challenge any American to look into yourself and realize and 
find out that many of these children will be returned with or without a 
change of the law today. They will be returned. But the ones that 
deserve to live should be able to stay. And the law was passed 
unanimously in 2008 to give that opportunity to those children, to 
these children, the children that are breathing today, the children who 
came to the most giving, loving, caring land ever created on Earth. And 
that is now about to change if they are successful.
  Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.
  I think we need to step back from the emotion a moment and look at 
the realities of the situation. Number one, anybody that seeks refugee 
status in the United States can go to any of the embassies in the 
country and request it. You don't have to travel 1,000 miles. You can 
go request it, and we will look to see whether or not you qualify.
  Number two, the President of the United States has said that the vast 
majority of these children will be returned. That is not us. That is 
the President. He has said that. We are trying to do it and work with 
him in an expeditious way because we think sooner is better.
  Number three, we are not returning them to criminals. We are 
returning them to the custody of their governments, their own 
officials, who are probably better situated to make these decisions 
than we are 1,000-plus miles away.
  So let's be real. Nobody is stripping any rights away from anyone. We 
actually have a situation--a 2008 law--where a loophole has been 
exploited by criminals. That is what is happening. And we are trying to 
stop the loophole and keep people from embarking on a dangerous journey 
and discourage people from giving thousands of dollars of their hard-
earned money to criminal cartels to participate in that. That is the 
effort that is underway here.
  Nobody would have fewer rights than the people that are currently 
here from Mexico or Canada. We would still have the ability to 
adjudicate issues. The process would be a lot faster and, we think in 
that sense, more humane and more efficient and more expeditious.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle don't have the intuitive gift to know that every child or the 
majority of every child that is there doesn't have a right to refuge 
and doesn't have a right to asylum.
  That is why we have been so tenacious about protecting a law that 
provides due process, adjudication, and representation for these 
children, so that they have a fair opportunity to get refuge and to get 
asylum as the law prescribes.
  The previous bill that failed dismantled that. Ted Cruz did not give 
it his seal of the approval, so it didn't get out of the Republican 
Caucus. Now, before us, we have a rule that is fraudulent, we have a 
forthcoming law that will be fraudulent, and it will be worse than the 
previous one.
  Now, we are going to codify getting rid of DREAMers and DACA into 
this law. What is the purpose? To turn out a base? Is this a political 
strategy? Is this a political expediency on the shoulders of children, 
on the shoulders of the American values, and on the shoulders of our 
history?
  How shameful, how cynical--vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to make the point to my friend. 
Nobody is trying to strip away the rights from anyone. The 2008 law has 
been abused. Those people have found a loophole in it, and they have 
clogged the legal system. We have offered not a repeal, but a 
relatively minor fix.
  The President of the United States and his administration have also 
said this law is at fault. As a matter of fact, they are actually the 
ones who put that suggestion out there. The President of the United 
States is the person who said the vast majority of these people need to 
go home and will eventually go home. So if he has a better way to do 
this, we would love to see the proposal.
  What he sent us was a funding proposal with no fix at all. It is a 
proposal aimed at better managing the flow of people, but not reversing 
that. It is a proposal, frankly, that goes well beyond this fiscal 
year, well beyond this calendar year, and allows him basically to 
operate outside the budget agreement limits--the caps--that we have all 
agreed to. We don't think that is appropriate. We think you 
reprioritize money toward the more urgent issue.
  We agree with the President. This is an urgent issue. We are willing 
to find the savings in other parts of the budget. We are not willing to 
break the budget, and we are not willing to break the budget caps that 
both sides agreed to. That is really, I think, the essence of the 
difference. We are trying to offer a solution. It may not be the final 
solution.
  I hope the Senate will offer their solution. We can go to conference, 
and we can work with the President, but so far, the only ideas that 
have been put forward to actually fix the problem, I

[[Page 13978]]

think, have largely come from our side of the aisle.
  I am sure that won't last indefinitely. I think my friends will do 
the same thing, but certainly, they dominate the Senate. The Senate can 
do the same thing. Sooner or later, they will get it done.
  We will continue to work on this, but for right now, again, nobody's 
aim is to strip anybody's rights away, but we are going to try to 
confront an urgent crisis, and we are going to try and do it in an 
expeditious way, in a responsible way, and in a limited way.
  We can come back here and look at the larger issues in September and 
after the election. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. McGOVERN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. The gentleman said 
that they have offered a solution. Is H.R. 15 contained in this rule or 
is any legislation to deal with our border contained in this rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the resolution. 
That is a matter for debate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Can the Chair at least inform us whether or not there 
is anything of substance in this rule other than a martial law rule 
that allows them to call us back at any point from now until September 
5?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As stated, the Chair will not interpret the 
pending resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a sign: ``Not our kids, not our problems,'' 
held angrily by a mob, shaken with ``go home,'' to a group of little 
children who have made a perilous journey to this country. That really 
epitomizes what the Republican approach to this problem is.
  They care about these children so much that their proposal is to tell 
them to get out of here just as quick as they can, before they can 
present their claims that they were trafficked, or that they suffer a 
return to violence, murder, and rape at home.
  The second thing they do, instead of unclogging our broken 
immigration system, is to say we need more semiautomatic weapons and 
military uniforms on our borders to greet these little children.
  Finally, they say to another group of students, those who have told 
us ``I have a dream,'' our DREAMers, that they want to turn that dream 
into a nightmare and send them away also.
  I think that is the wrong approach. It is time for them to get off 
Cruz Control and join us for comprehensive immigration reform.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I couldn't disagree with my good friend from Texas more. 
I think everybody on both sides of the aisle cares about these 
children. Now, we care about them enough to restore the cuts that the 
President made in the aids to the country of origin.
  We care about them enough to restore the cuts that he made in his 
budget to our own border security. Yes, our border security does need 
to be armed, not to deal with children, but to deal with the criminals 
that brought them here and abused them in the process. That is what we 
are talking about here.
  Now, there is nothing to be gained by continuing this flow. Even if 
some of you would like every particular person that got here to stay--
and, again, I quote the President, the ``vast majority'' will not be 
allowed to, will be sent back--stopping the flow is what we ought to be 
focusing on and stopping people from giving thousands of dollars to 
criminal cartels to bring these children to the borders and abuse them 
in the process. The quicker that stops, the better off we are.
  We are willing to work with the countries of origin, I think, on both 
sides of the aisle. We had the President up here saying, pretty 
emphatically, that they needed some assistance in dealing with that. We 
think that is appropriate. We try to do that in legislation, and 
frankly, we have done it in the foreign operations bill, where we are 
more generous to the countries of origin than the administration has 
suggested we should be in its own budget.
  Mr. Speaker, we are interested in dealing with the problem, but we 
are also interested in helping countries keep their children in their 
country, which they tell us they want to do.
  We are also interested in making sure those children are never 
subjected to this journey, which I think all would agree is difficult 
and dangerous, and we are also extraordinarily interested in making 
sure that the criminal cartels who are making profit off this are 
discouraged from doing this, that they can't go and tell their 
potential customers: Give us the money and put your kid at risk, but if 
we actually get them there, there is a good chance they will stay.
  That false promise, that dangerous promise offered by criminals 
victimizing innocent people is frankly what we ought to be focused on 
and what we are trying to focus on.
  Again, we will continue to work toward that end. I hope, Mr. Speaker, 
that we have a good product. I think that we will. The House will 
consider it, and then we hope the Senate actually comes back from its 
district work period and deals with it as well, and we will go from 
there.
  That is the reason for the rule. That is the reason, so we can act 
during this multiweek district work period, should the opportunity 
actually occur to do that.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus, I rise again in opposition to this rule and against the martial 
law bill which has not been given to us to read, and I believe that 
that is the wrong thing to do to solve this problem.
  Instead of working with Democrats to come up with a viable and 
bipartisan solution to deal with the vulnerable Central American 
children who are fleeing from violence and death, my Republican 
colleagues are apparently drafting a bill that is even worse than the 
one they proposed yesterday, on Thursday.
  This new bill presumably continues the failed policy of enforcement 
only and will send thousands of these children back to certain death. 
If the funding levels remain the same as yesterday, the bill will not 
provide adequate funding to care for them while they are here.
  We should instead be spending our time debating and voting on the 
bipartisan Senate comprehensive immigration bill that the Speaker has 
refused to bring up for over a year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the martial 
law.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly 
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
that request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield. Therefore, the 
request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear to the House that if we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to 
bring up H.R. 15, our immigration reform bill.
  At this point, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

[[Page 13979]]


  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, which we have been promised consideration on for so long, to 
address this crisis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma would need to 
yield for the purpose of that request.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to yield to the unanimous 
consent request so we can deal with this immigration problem in a 
comprehensive manner.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield?
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield, and I do want to reiterate 
my previous announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of 
debate only. I am not yielding for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent and would ask my 
friend to allow the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill, 
H.R. 15, to be considered. It is a bill that I proudly cosponsor, and 
it would more than adequately address this humanitarian crisis at the 
border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, 
a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, to the floor. It 
was passed by the Senate over 1 year ago.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair understands that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Castor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring 
up H.R. 15, a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill to 
properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair understands that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Matsui) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, 
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address 
the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair understands that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly 
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair understands that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill 
to properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly 
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Nolan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 
today, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform measure to deal 
with the immigration problems we have and to properly address the 
humanitarian crisis at the border that is taking place today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Again, the Chair understands that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Honda) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I, as chair emeritus of the Congressional 
Asian Pacific American Caucus, ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly 
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has not yielded 
for that purpose.
  As the Chair advised on January 15, 2014, and March 26, 2014, even 
though a unanimous consent request to consider a measure is not 
entertained, embellishments accompanying such requests constitute 
debate and may become an imposition on the time of the Member who 
yielded for that purpose.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to 
properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
O'Rourke) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly 
address these humanitarian issues.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Ms. Gabbard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to bring real 
solutions to the problems at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Garcia) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, 
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address 
the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cardenas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly 
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.

[[Page 13980]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, 
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address 
the humanitarian crisis at our border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
(Ms. McCollum) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly 
address the humanitarian crisis at our border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to bring up H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform 
bill to properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Beatty) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly 
address the humanitarian crises at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, 
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address 
the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, 
which is a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill first 
brought to us by President Bush, a bill to properly address the 
humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be charged for the time accordingly.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly 
address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Brownley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill 
to properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 15 to the floor, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform 
bill to properly address the humanitarian crisis at our border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Al Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring 
up H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to 
properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Takano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, 
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address 
the humanitarian crisis at the border to the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada 
(Ms. Titus) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, 
a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address 
the humanitarian crisis at the border.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Huffman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to simply allow a 
vote on H.R. 15, a bill that has the bipartisan votes to pass today 
that we can have on the President's desk today to properly address this 
crisis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the gentleman from Oklahoma has 
not yielded for that purpose. Time will be deducted from the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 16\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text 
of the amendment that I will offer in the Record, along with extraneous 
material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, looking at the underlying bill, I have to 
wonder what my colleagues are afraid of. Are they afraid of these kids, 
children who are fleeing brutal violence in their home countries to 
come to our country to seek asylum? Are we so afraid of them that we 
would shortcut due process and send them right back into this violence?
  Mr. Speaker, are they afraid of the border, that they would send the 
National Guard when we are already spending $18 billion a year; more 
than on all Federal law enforcement combined; at a time when El Paso, 
Texas, the largest Texas city on the Mexican border, is also the safest 
city in this country; at a time when we are 70 percent lower in 
apprehensions at our southern border; and at a time when these 
apprehensions of children have fallen by almost 60 percent?

[[Page 13981]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask us not to be motivated by fear or anxiety, but 
instead the best traditions of this country: courage, compassion, and 
strength to do the right thing.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that the antislavery law 
has some loophole that is being exploited. That is not the truth. It is 
not what the Evangelical Immigration Table says. Here is what they 
write:

       By making the legal process clearer and more efficient for 
     children, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found that 
     the law is working. It should not be changed to address the 
     current temporary situation. The law allows for responses to 
     exceptional circumstances.

  That is not some open borders crowd. That is the National Association 
of Evangelicals. That is the Southern Baptists. That is the Council for 
Christian Colleges and Universities.
  I would note, also, that over a year ago we saw the Senate come 
together to pass bipartisan immigration reform. Republicans in this 
House have blocked a vote. We should vote on it today and get it to the 
President.

                                Evangelical Immigration Table,

                                                    July 22, 2014.
       Dear Member of Congress, In a matter of months, more than 
     50,000 unaccompanied children have arrived in the United 
     States. Millions of Americans have been moved by the plight 
     of these children who are currently awaiting processing, with 
     many asking how they can help.
       Children are vulnerable even in the best of circumstances 
     and warrant special protection beyond that offered to adults. 
     This vulnerability is compounded among children who flee 
     situations of criminal gangs, sexual violence, trauma and 
     extreme poverty, without their parents to accompany them.
       Evangelicals are guided by Jesus' admonitions to welcome 
     and protect children (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:37, Luke 18:15-
     17). As our nation responds to this humanitarian crisis, we 
     are thankful for laws that protect children and provide for 
     their needs. While our systems are currently stretched, our 
     laws uphold basic child protection principles.
       Accordingly, we are concerned about potential weakening of 
     protections afforded by the William Wilberforce Trafficking 
     Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) which was 
     enacted in 2008 and reauthorized in 2013. The TVPRA ensures 
     that victims of trafficking are not only identified and 
     screened properly but that traffickers are penalized and 
     brought to justice. It also appropriately assigns 
     responsibility for the care of unaccompanied children to the 
     Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and ensures 
     that children are placed with their families when possible. 
     By making the legal process clearer and more efficient for 
     children, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found that 
     since the passage and implementation of TVPRA 23% more 
     children were assisted. The TVPRA is working according to its 
     design. It should not be changed to address the current 
     temporary situation. The law allows for responses to 
     exceptional circumstances.
       Additionally, we urge you to provide the necessary 
     resources and policy guidance to address the current crisis, 
     and then hold the Administration accountable for fulfilling 
     its responsibilities under the law. Robust funding is needed 
     for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in HHS which has 
     extensive experience with vulnerable immigrants, including 
     UACs, refugees, and victims of trafficking. To respond to 
     this crisis, ORR is considering reprogramming funding from 
     other refugee programs. Funds must not simply be transferred 
     from one vulnerable population to another. More funding is 
     needed. There should also be increased funding for 
     immigration courts and judges to more quickly screen the 
     children and counsel for children going through legal 
     proceedings so they know their rights and can understand the 
     process. More robust investment in effectively addressing 
     root causes of migration in Central America and Mexico is 
     also imperative.
       As we pray for these children and also our nation, we are 
     reminded of Matthew 19:13-14 in which Jesus said, ``Let the 
     little children come to me, and do not hinder them.' Churches 
     and faith-based organizations have long partnered with the 
     federal government in serving immigrant children and families 
     in the United States. Many churches and faith-based 
     organizations are ready and committed to provide the same 
     type of assistance and pastoral care in the case of these 
     unaccompanied children.
       We offer our prayers and service as you make important 
     decisions about our nation's response to migrant children. We 
     hope that any response you make will strengthen our country's 
     tradition of providing safety and refuge to the vulnerable.
           Sincerely,
         Leith Anderson, President, National Association of 
           Evangelicals; Stephan Bauman, President and CEO, World 
           Relief; David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World; 
           Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development 
           Association; Russell D. Moore, President, Southern 
           Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; 
           William Robinson, Interim President, Council for 
           Christian Colleges and Universities; Samuel Rodriguez, 
           President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership 
           Conference; Gabriel Salguero, President, National 
           Latino Evangelical Coalition; Richard Stearns, 
           President, World Vision U.S.; Jim Wallis, President and 
           Founder, Sojourners.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to point out that if the 2008 law is not the reason, then my 
good friend's remarks need to be directed to the administration because 
they have told us it is the reason. The President has cited this as the 
reason. But if it is because we have sent a signal down there by 
unilaterally changing something, there is some explanation for a 
tenfold increase in the flow of individuals across our border.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, 102 years ago, I assume a very frightened 14-year-old 
boy made his way on a boat called the RMS Caronia from Cork, Ireland, 
with his mother on his way to the United States, a very frightened 14-
year-old boy who left behind his community, his friends and neighbors, 
and made his way to the United States. He later served in World War I 
and became a New York City police officer but didn't live long enough 
to see his grandson become a Member of the House of Representatives. 
But that 14-year-old boy contributed mightily to the United States of 
America in so many ways. He was a scared boy being brought to America 
in much the same way that children along our border today are coming to 
seek a better way.
  Don't turn our backs on these young children, these boys and girls, 
many of whom are suffering. Show the compassion and beauty of the 
United States. Welcome the best, the brightest, and the bravest.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the arrival of tens of thousands of 
children from Central America seeking refuge in our country has tugged 
at the conscience of the American people. It has demonstrated both our 
best and our worst instincts. The best are all of the people who are so 
generous in offering food and clothing and shelter to these kids who 
have come from so far. But we have also seen some bad instincts, like 
the armed militiamen in ski masks who have shown up at our southern 
border, whose leader has said that the way you keep people from coming 
to this country is that you point a gun at them and threaten to shoot 
them in the head. That is not America.
  The question that we must answer now is: What does it mean to be a 
refugee in the 21st century? Just as we offered that status to Cubans 
fleeing Castro, to those from the Soviet Union, to the Vietnamese, just 
as our adversaries have changed, they are not always state actors--they 
are al Qaeda; they are ISIS--I would argue that so, too, have our 
refugees changed, and we must recognize that.
  This bill is not good for our country, and it doesn't reflect who we 
are as a people.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.

[[Page 13982]]


  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my grandmother coming 
from Jamaica, West Indies, with two babies thought about this great 
country called America. I wondered as I went to the border and I looked 
into the eyes of a little 7-year-old who had just gotten off a bus by 
himself from someplace in Central America, or the toddler in a diaper 
who came here because there was true and actual violence, the beheading 
of their neighbors, the cutting of the throats of their young boys, the 
fear of the cartels, and to think of the words ``no room at the inn.''

                              {time}  1100

  Our Republicans are confused. They are prosecuting the children, not 
prosecuting the drug dealers, the criminals, and others. Why? Because 
they are taking away basic due process rights for humble children who 
have come just for opportunity. Not only that, they don't even want to 
give resources to all the cities in America who are helping, the Good 
Samaritans. And then they want legislation that literally undermines 
due process for these children.
  I will tell you this is a bad bill. Do not pass it. Pass 
comprehensive immigration reform. Pass it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in fervid opposition to this Martial Law 
Resolution and ask that you consider doing comprehensive immigration 
reform--a vote you would not even need to whip.
  Yet we insist on wasting valuable House Floor time while we could be 
doing comprehensive immigration reform, comprehensive tax reform, the 
Export-Import Bank Reauthorization, or the Voting Rights Act.
  As the GOP Majority reaches further to the anti-immigrant right to 
scrounge up the votes for what was already an inadequate and heartless 
proposal, we Democrats have a better idea: comprehensive immigration 
reform.
  The bipartisan immigration legislation that passed the Senate over a 
year ago offers comprehensive answers to the problems with our 
immigration system--but for more than a year House Republicans have 
refused to give the American people a vote.
  The humanitarian crisis at the border is a powerful reminder of the 
importance of an immigration system that honors our values as a nation. 
The time is now. While House Republicans search for the compassion to 
help desperate children, Democrats are demanding a vote on the 
comprehensive immigration reform our nation needs.
  The United States is a country made up of immigrants, and it is part 
of what makes us so strong and vibrant. And while immigration reform 
remains an unsolved challenge for our nation, House Democrats are 
leading the way towards comprehensive reform.
  Indeed, the decision made by President Obama two years ago to defer 
deportation action against young people who were brought here by 
undocumented parents but have been raised here in our country was an 
important step in the right direction.
  This decision has helped ensure that over half-a-million hard-
working, eager, and talented individuals who came here not of their own 
choice, and who are contributing to our economy and our defense, can 
remain here and continue to be part of building a strong future for 
America.
  Now we are faced, Mr. Speaker, with the surge of unaccompanied 
children on our southern border. They do not pose a threat to our 
national security; nevertheless the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act must be passed before Congress leaves town for its 
district work-recess.
  Contrary to the shrill rhetoric used by some commentators, the nation 
is not being invaded by an army of children dispatched to do us harm. 
In fact the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and I witnessed 
one month ago the deplorable conditions with your own eyes--babies as 
young as three years old.
  We are confronted with a humanitarian crisis resulting from the 
alarming scale of violence and economic desperation in three Central 
American countries: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Politicizing 
the issue will not solve the problem.
  In the short term, we need to allocate the resources needed to deal 
with the increase in unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the 
United States.
  Yet this Congress has failed to provide any resources needed to fund 
the courts and judges needed to send these children through the legal 
system; therefore, we should fund the number of immigration judges 
needed. Without them, the result is a current average delay of 578 days 
to hear over 366,000 pending cases.
  Because this situation is untenable for everyone--law enforcement, 
taxpayers, and individuals petitioning for relief, the first thing that 
we can and should do to reduce the backlog is pass the emergency 
supplemental and provide the funding needed to appoint 70 new 
immigration judges, as provided under legislation I recently 
introduced, H.R. 4990, the Justice For All Children Act.
  I remain committed to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan 
basis, on this very important issue, and would hope for a spill-over 
effect into the realm of comprehensive immigration reform.
  I remain committed to advocating for common sense enforcement 
measures as part of a broader immigration reform package that will 
further secure our borders, ensure agricultural interests have an ample 
labor supply, universities and businesses are not short workers, and 
proper workplace compliance is achieved, but also uphold our values as 
a Nation of immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, No Room at the inn! The Republicans are confused. Let us 
as Americans give relief to these innocent children. I ask my 
colleagues to reject this resolution and call for a vote on 
comprehensive immigration reform and the full funding of the emergency 
supplemental by hiring 70 new immigration judges, provide more 
resources for the border, to protect vulnerable children, and help 
communities that are helping these children.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the question may not 
be: Who are the children at the border, and why they are here? The 
question may be: Who are we as a Nation, and why are we here as a 
Congress?
  Our reputation has been never to turn people away, our reputation 
should never be to turn children away to what could be a certain death 
or a very difficult situation.
  This is not a crisis. This is a situation that we have had before and 
we have known how to deal with. This is a moment for our country to 
show who we are. The world is looking. These are children. It is not 
their fault that they are here. There are many conditions that have 
brought them here. But how we act will be our fault if we don't act 
properly. How we act will be our legacy.
  This is not who we are as a country--I repeat. We are much better 
than that. We have to understand that these are children, these are our 
children. Just because a border separates us, this doesn't stop them 
from being our children.
  Let's turn down and reject all of this nonsense that we are doing, 
and let's try to help them and help them in the proper way.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Dr. King reminds us that the 
truest measure of the person is not where you stand in times of comfort 
and convenience, but where do you stand in times of challenge and 
controversy.
  In these times of challenge and controversy, I stand with those 
children at the border and I stand for due process. I don't stand for a 
fast-track adjudication that mimics due process and makes a mockery of 
justice.
  I stand with the DREAMers. They have been given hope by our 
President. I will not vote for a bill that will destroy hope for those 
DREAMers. We must keep their hope alive.
  I stand for due process, I stand with the DREAMers, and I stand for 
hope. I stand with the President.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma how many speakers he has?
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask for a unanimous consent 
request, because the interest on this issue and the passion on this 
issue on our side is so great that we don't have enough time.
  So I would ask unanimous consent to extend the debate by 1 hour, 
equally divided. Like I said, we have a lot of speakers, and there is 
no pending business after this debate ends. At the very least, I think 
we can extend the debate.

[[Page 13983]]

  We were not allowed any amendments when the previous incarnation of 
this border bill was brought before the House. I think the least we can 
do, in the spirit of collegiality, is to expand debate, and I would 
like to make that unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
that request?
  Mr. COLE. I do not, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield for that 
purpose.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will try again.
  At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for the United States when 
Republicans in this Congress see a problem and then choose not to work 
with Democrats to solve the problem. That is exactly what has happened 
here today: their draconian way or the highway.
  Let's be clear about what the problem is: unaccompanied minor 
children, frightened, some fleeing violence, needing due process, and 
deserving due process.
  This is as much about who these children are as it is about who we 
are. As a mother and a legislator, I know that we should be compelled 
to act as a matter of humanity, but also as a matter of law.
  We know we have problems on the border that are in need of solutions. 
Republicans have rejected one solution--comprehensive immigration 
reform--to address the problem. They have rejected another solution--
the request of the President for a supplemental appropriation that 
includes resources for judges, representation, and services for minor 
children, and assistance to the countries of origin.
  Now today, in the eleventh hour, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle demonstrate once again their lack of humanity and failure to 
solve yet another problem for the American people.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
bill.
  Sadly, the Republican leadership is continuing to play politics with 
the lives of innocent children at our border by failing to bring 
forward a bipartisan supplemental spending bill that can pass the House 
and be signed into law.
  It is unbelievable that the failure to pass their own bill yesterday 
was not because of its completely inadequate funding level or the fact 
that it would undercut critical humanitarian protections in current 
law, but because it was not mean enough or punitive enough for their 
own Members to vote on.
  Working together, as Leader Pelosi offered Speaker Boehner but was 
refused, we could have come to a reasonable compromise.
  Instead, Republicans have resorted to martial law, not because it is 
in the best interest of our country or these children, but so they can 
have the time to write a bill that will appease the extremists in their 
party.
  Let's reject this rule and come together in the best tradition of 
this House to pass a clean supplemental bill that will address the 
humanitarian crisis at our border in a way that meets our government's 
urgent needs and upholds our most basic American values.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong opposition to this 
bill.
  I have been deeply saddened and distressed to see the images and hear 
the stories of so many unaccompanied minors at our border.
  But from Massachusetts, I have also read other stories. I have read 
the stories of the over 150 overdoses from heroin that we experienced 
in Taunton, with over ten deaths.
  I recently met with the DEA officials in Massachusetts, who indicated 
that the heroin drug trade alone with Mexico is over $40 billion a 
year; that the cartels have moved up into owning trafficking corridors 
throughout Mexico; that despite many of my other colleagues who are 
calling for the destruction of aid and reduction of aid to Honduras, 
Guatemala, and El Salvador, the United States bilateral aid is less 
than $200 million a year. Gang violence in Los Angeles alone costs over 
$1 billion a year.
  If we are truly going to address this problem, we have to get to its 
core. We have to take a good, hard look at what is driving an economic 
instability that is pushing young kids to figure that they have a 
better life by getting on a bus by themselves to our border.
  This is what our country is supposed to be all about: a better future 
for young children trying to make a life for themselves. I hope that we 
come to that conclusion.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend, my colleague on 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Rules 
Committee, my friend from Oklahoma, for yielding.
  I am not sure what it is that is happening here on this floor right 
now because the bill that is before us that everyone is rising to 
object to is the bill that allows us to bring up the same day, just as 
soon as we find a solution that can bring this House together, bring a 
bill immediately to the floor to solve a crisis. I just want to make 
that clear. The bill that is before us today is the only piece of 
legislation in this town that allows us to move immediately to solve a 
crisis. I am not talking about a crisis that is imagined by Republicans 
or imagined by Democrats.
  I have in my hand here a letter from Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of 
the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Speaker. In an open letter to 
families all across the world he says:

       So, let me be clear: there is no path to deferred action or 
     citizenship, or one being contemplated by Congress, for a 
     child who crosses our border illegally today.

  I have heard the hearts of my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
I have heard the hearts. But we are a Nation of laws, as well as 
hearts, and you know that the law of the land does not allow for that, 
as the Secretary of Homeland Security said. Yet, down here on the floor 
today, if I was watching this from my home in Guatemala or Honduras or 
El Salvador, I would be led to believe there is.
  We are better than that, and we have to be better than that because 
this is, in fact, a crisis. It is not an imagined crisis. It is a real 
crisis.
  Folks thought this House was going to go home yesterday, they thought 
this House was going to go home yesterday, just like the Senate did, 
without providing a response. That is not the House I ran to be a part 
of.
  We are still here, we are still here working, and, by golly, I 
believe we are going to have a solution on the floor. I believe we are 
going to have a solution on the floor before the sun goes down today, 
and I am so proud, I am so proud that we are here to do that. But I 
tell you this, we cannot do it if this bill does not pass. This rule 
today gives us a pathway to success. In its absence, that pathway will 
be delayed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman referred to a bill that the 
Republicans are working on. We haven't seen such a bill. Does this rule 
give us any indication of what bill they are talking about?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair will not interpret the 
pending resolution.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I will answer my 
friend's question that was just asked as he was speaking.
  What is happening on the floor is Republicans are trying to weaken 
human

[[Page 13984]]

trafficking laws. That is what is happening.
  Over the last few days, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have jumped through linguistic and logical hoops to say that the most 
humane way to deal with these children is to deport them quickly 
without due process to discourage other children from making the 
dangerous journey.
  There is no question that the journey is dangerous. Children are 
killed, robbed, raped, and maimed along the way, but the children know 
the risks. They are not ignorant to those risks.
  Why? Because back in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, children 
are being raped, killed, and robbed every day. It is a fact. Read the 
news.
  Deporting children without process to these conditions or locking 
them into their home countries and preventing them from fleeing to find 
safety is not humane. It would be, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic 
Bishops said, like sending them back into a burning building. We can do 
better than this.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this rule, exactly what bill is it that we 
are going to vote for or against as relates to the rule? Because 
depending on the substance of the bill, it is going to determine 
whether I vote for or against the rule. If they are not prepared to 
tell us exactly what the bill is going to be in it, how could we 
possibly make a judgment as to whether we support the rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, as the Chair has said 
repeatedly, the Chair will not interpret the pending resolution. That 
is a matter for debate among the Members.
  Mr. RANGEL. May I further inquire, we are not asking you to opine 
anything, Mr. Speaker. We are asking you to tell us exactly what we 
will be debating. If we don't know what we are going to be debating--I 
am not asking the Speaker to tell us what is in the bill. I am asking 
the Speaker to find out from the majority exactly what this rule is 
going to be allowed for them to bring up so that I would know whether 
to stay here or not to stay here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. To the gentleman, the Chair would say that 
that matter is for debate among the Members.
  Mr. RANGEL. Debate on what, Mr. Speaker? Just tell me what will we be 
debating on? That is my question. You tell me what the Members will be 
debating on, and I am satisfied. I don't want you to opine. I want you 
to tell me what is going to be in the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has been patient with the 
gentleman from New York. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, a man once said:

       I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put 
     down roots and who have lived here, even though sometime back 
     they may have entered illegally.

  Mr. Speaker, those words were from the great bastion of Republican 
thinking: President Ronald Reagan.

                              {time}  1115

  Oh, how his party has changed. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if Ronald Reagan 
were in office today, he would probably have a primary challenge for 
being too ``liberal'' thinking.
  Mr. Speaker, the House today is bringing up their only immigration-
related bill, and it has just one message: deport, deport, deport. 
Deport children seeking refuge from extreme violence. Deport a mother 
away from her children. Deport a young person who has pledged 
allegiance only to one flag, and that is our flag.
  Mr. Speaker, it looks like the bill the Republicans will want to 
bring is a security only, no to DREAMers supplemental. It does not 
address our broken immigration system. Have we lost the core message of 
our country? What happened to, ``Give me your tired, your poor, your 
huddled masses yearning to breathe free''? What happened to that 
America?
  I am sure Ronald Reagan knows, but his party does not.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the legislation being 
put forward by the House Republicans, which is an insincere attempt to 
address the humanitarian crisis at our border.
  This bill is misguided, unreasonable, and wrong. It does very little 
to address the actual root of this problem and cuts important funding 
from the Department of Defense, FEMA, and the State Department's 
Economic Support Fund.
  I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to return to the 
drawing board, so we can help these children and fix this issue.
  (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:)
  The proposed legislation is ill-conceived, and does not solve the 
main problem.
  I am opposed to this legislation and ask my colleagues to propose a 
solution that really helps these children.
  Thank you.
  La legislacion propuesta esta mal planteada, y no resolvera el 
problema principal.
  Estoy opuesto a esta legislacion y pido que mis colegas propongan una 
solucion que realmente ayudara a estos ninos.
  Gracias.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds the gentleman that he will 
need to provide the Clerk a translation for the Record.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the Republican leadership 
pulled this legislation from the floor, I assumed that they had come to 
their senses and realized that they couldn't treat children so poorly. 
Much to my shock, however, your old bill was not punitive enough for 
these children, so you went back and made it worse.
  Mr. Speaker, when did we lose our way? Let me be crystal clear. The 
change that has been added to the supplemental will make the lives of 
the children worse.
  How we respond to a crisis of children in need of safe haven speaks 
to the character of our Nation, to who we are. How could we go around 
the world and provide resources and bring democracy, yet treat our 
neighbors this way?
  We should not gut children's protections, just to appease the most 
radical elements of a particular political party. That is not the 
American way.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the course of the debate is about to 
end. There is representation that there is an underlying bill to this 
martial law. The Democrats have already made a commitment to stay and 
finish the job.
  My inquiry is, the underlying bill's principles are based upon 
protecting children and fully funding the President's mark on the 
emergency supplemental to deal with this crisis and emergency.
  Those are simple parliamentary inquiries as the underlying premise of 
the bill--two points: protecting the children and providing the full 
resources for helping the children. That

[[Page 13985]]

is not giving us the contents of the bill. It is the premise of the 
bill for Members to be able to intelligently come to floor to assess 
the need to vote for the martial law.
  I, again, state the parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know how we can possibly frame a parliamentary 
inquiry to find out exactly what is in the underlying bill that we are 
asked to pass or vote against this rule.
  In any event, I know one thing. We as Americans, especially those of 
us in the Congress, have a particular responsibility to pass on a 
legacy to those that follow us in terms of what this country really 
stands for.
  Besides the Star-Spangled Banner and the Stars and Stripes, we also 
have the Statue of Liberty close to my hometown. People come from all 
over the world because it is symbolic of what this great country 
believes in.
  Not that many years ago, a group of Jewish people attempted to flee 
Germany because they feared that Hitler would be looking for them in 
order to arrest, kill, and to eliminate them as a people. We refused 
that ship that came into our harbor, called the St. Louis. We denied 
them the opportunity to come to this country, and they returned to 
Germany.
  I don't know what is on our conscience, but we should take a look at 
our history and what we are leaving as a legacy.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the legal 
experts in the country have urged that we not change the antislavery 
law.
  We do recognize the need for resources to make that law work. I can't 
help but notice that the Republican majority is denying the resources 
to actually adjudicate these cases in the bill that was before us 
yesterday. I think it is ironic to say it doesn't work and then say we 
won't give you the resources to allow you to enforce the law. It is 
hypocrisy at its worst.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman from 
Oklahoma whether he has any additional speakers or if he would like to 
give us some of his time?
  Mr. COLE. I am prepared to close whenever my friend is prepared to 
close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on this terrible martial law rule. We have no idea what the hell we are 
going to be voting on.
  This is just a rule that allows them to bring up anything at any time 
between now and September 5. I want to urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question, and if we defeat the previous 
question, I will bring up H.R. 15, which is the bipartisan Senate 
passed comprehensive immigration reform bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about poor kids, most of them fleeing 
terrible violence. I am ashamed at the insensitivity and the lack of 
compassion from the other side. America is a better country. Let's not 
lose our humanity in this process.
  If the United States of America stands for anything, it stands out 
loud and foursquare for human rights. We are better than the angry mobs 
yelling at children. The anger and the nastiness and the insensitivity 
is not the face of America we want to show the rest of the world. We 
are better. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to act 
like it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have had a very passionate and--in many cases, compassionate--
debate. I want to recognize that quality in many of the speakers, my 
friends on the other side. I have no doubt about their passion. 
Frankly, I have no doubt about their compassion. I know they want to do 
the right thing.
  I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill actually is, as 
my friend from Massachusetts suggested, a mechanism to keep us in 
session and working on the problem, so that we have the ability between 
now and September 5 to actually act and act quickly. I think that is a 
very important thing.
  It is important, too, to think back about the nature of the problem 
that we are dealing with. In the last 3 years, the number of 
unaccompanied juveniles arriving at our borders has gone from about 
6,000 to--the estimates I hear this year will be somewhere like 90,000 
and may well reach 150,000 within the next year or two.
  The administration, according to news reports and testimony, was 
actually warned about this in 2012 and 2013. Frankly, they didn't 
prepare for it. I am quite certain they didn't anticipate it.
  They actually submitted a budget this year that called for cuts in 
many of the areas that we are clearly going to need to deal with this 
huge--and unanticipated, I guess, on their part--influx of 
unaccompanied juveniles.
  Worth noting for the record, we actually restored a lot of those cuts 
in the foreign operations bill that has now cleared the full 
Appropriations Committee. I am glad we did.
  The administration then, when confronted with this crisis which it 
did not anticipate, told us this was due to the 2008 sex trafficking 
law. Frankly, I am somewhat skeptical about that because this influx 
didn't happen in 2009, 2010, or 2011. It only began to be remotely 
visible in 2012. That coincides, by the way, with some of the 
President's unilateral abrogation of immigration law.
  I think that is probably more likely to be the cause, but regardless, 
the administration has pointed to the 2008 law. The President has done 
that. The Secretary of Homeland Security has done that.
  So far, they have offered no formal solution, although in testimony 
before the Senate, the Secretary of Homeland Security said he would 
like the law changed, so that people arriving at our borders are 
treated the same way as Canadian and Mexican juveniles. That was his 
request, not a repeal of the law, but that was--at least in testimony--
his suggestion.
  The President has said that, regardless, the great majority of these 
children will eventually be returned home. He sent us a request 
recently to deal with the crisis in terms of the financial resources 
that he needs.
  He did not send us a fix, he did not send us a proffered legislative 
solution, just simply a mechanism for money that would go around or go 
outside of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that we had agreed upon.
  What has been our response? I would be the first to acknowledge this 
is a difficult problem to deal with. That is why the administration, I 
presume, has not offered us a solution.
  That is why the Senate, which tried to pass one yesterday, gave up 
and went home. It is not an easy problem. Indeed, yesterday, we weren't 
able to bring legislation to the floor that would actually address the 
problem.
  The difference between this body and the other body is this body 
decided to stay here and continue to work on it and try to come up with 
a legislative response. That response, undoubtedly, will include a fix, 
a tweak, an amendment to the 2008 law.
  If my friends have a better solution, then I would hope the 
administration or the Senate or somebody offers that. So far, it has 
been as if we blame the problem on the 2008 law, but we are told you 
can't change the 2008 law.
  That position is both intellectually and politically, I think, 
indefensible. If this is the problem, tell us how to fix the problem. 
If you won't tell us, we will suggest one, and that is exactly what we 
are going to do.
  We have also decided to look at the financial issue, and there is no 
question additional resources are needed to handle this influx, secure 
the border,

[[Page 13986]]

add additional judges, and add additional courtroom facilities to 
handle an enormous backlog.
  So we say, well, we are not going to give you a 13-month blank check, 
but we will redirect resources from within the existing budget toward 
what we agree is a more urgent problem, and we will help you get 
through this fiscal year and this calendar year, and then let's sit 
down and talk about what is necessary for fiscal year 2015 and try to 
do that within the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. I think that is what 
we are going to do.
  So we are willing to work with the administration in these areas.

                              {time}  1130

  I would also suggest, at the end of the day, the worst thing we could 
do would be to go home and not do anything. My friends have suggested--
and I think appropriately so--that you can't tell the President he is 
overreaching in one area and then is pulling back in another without 
providing legislative authority and legislative guidance. I think they 
are absolutely correct in that position. I have made that point myself 
both privately and publicly, but that is what we are going to try and 
accomplish. Hopefully, we can accomplish it today. If we do that today 
or this weekend, we will have done our part of the job. The Senate 
then, by the way, could reconvene and do its part of the job. Then we 
could go to conference, in working with the administration, and come up 
with something, but it does begin with somebody at least doing his job. 
That is what this House and that is what this majority is absolutely 
determined to do.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not much more that can be said on a resolution 
that is only 10 lines long. This resolution is important so that we can 
consider possible legislation in a timely fashion related to the border 
crisis. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 700 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     15) to provide for comprehensive immigration reform 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 among 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. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 15.
                                  ____


        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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 184, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 474]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon

[[Page 13987]]


     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--184

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Campbell
     Cantor
     Clay
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Fattah
     Garamendi
     Gowdy
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Hanabusa
     Kirkpatrick
     McDermott
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Nunnelee
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Schock
     Speier

                              {time}  1154

  Messrs. VELA, SCHNEIDER, DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, and McINTYRE changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 474 (On Ordering the Previous 
Question related to H. Res. 700), had I been present, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 190, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 475]

                               AYES--219

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--190

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez

[[Page 13988]]


     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bilirakis
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Clay
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Fattah
     Garamendi
     Gowdy
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Hanabusa
     Kirkpatrick
     McDermott
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Nadler
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Schock
     Speier


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1202

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 475 (On Agreeing to 
the Resolution related to H. Res. 700), had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 475, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                          Personal explanation

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 474 & 475, had 
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________