9:20 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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

9:20 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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

9:20 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of three measures: H.R. 5230, the supplemental appropriations bill to deal with the influx of unaccompanied minors across the southern border; H.R. 5272, a bill that would prevent the administration from expanding the use of deferred action for individuals who are not legally present in the United States; and the Senate amendment to H.R. 5021, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014.

The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5230, the supplemental appropriations bill. This is consistent with the way all seven supplemental appropriations acts considered in the 110th and 111th Congresses were treated when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and provides for one motion to recommit.

In addition, the resolution also provides that after the passage of H.R. 5230, that it be in order to consider H.R. 5272, a bill that would prevent the administration from expanding the use of deferred action for individuals who are not legally present in the United States. The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5272, provides for 60 minutes of debate, equally divided by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and provides for a motion to recommit.

In addition, the rule also provides for consideration of a motion to disagree to the Senate's amendment to H.R. 5021, so we can send the bill that easily passed the House on an overwhelming bipartisan vote back to the Senate.

Finally, the rule provides for same-day and suspension authority today to [Page: H7134]

resolve any outstanding issues before the August recess.

Mr. Speaker, this rule demonstrates this House's careful consideration of the President's supplemental request. Earlier this month, the President submitted to Congress a $3.7 billion request to deal with both the urgent crisis of unaccompanied juveniles crossing the border and with wildfires.

Since then, Chairman Rogers, Chairman Granger, Speaker Boehner, and the Republican Conference have thoughtfully considered what resources the President needs to address this crisis through the end of the fiscal year.

The result, Mr. Speaker, is a significantly pared-down piece of legislation. It provides $659 million to meet the immediate border security and humanitarian needs. This supplemental sends the message that this administration has been unwilling to send, that if you come here illegally, you will be deported. And it provides the resources to effect just that.

It provides $334 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement for boosted enforcement efforts, accelerates judicial proceedings by providing $22 million to hire temporary immigration judges and provide courts with video teleconferencing equipment, and makes smart policy reforms, like changing the 2008 sex trafficking law to require that all unaccompanied minors are treated the same, among others.

These important policy reforms, which the President initially asked for, are a reasonable, thoughtful response to the tenfold increase of unaccompanied alien children since 2011.

Mr. Speaker, the President's advisers warned him this crisis was coming back in 2012 and 2013, but he ignored that advice. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the administration has mismanaged this entire issue from the beginning.

If the President's FY 2015 budget had become law, we would have seen a reduction of nearly 3,500 detention beds, a 2 percent reduction in ICE's investigative capacity, and a 12 percent reduction to CBP air and marine operations, all vital tools to deal with this problem.

In addition, the President's budget request for the Central American Regional Security Initiative, which confronts narcotics and arms trafficking, gangs, and organized crime in that region and addresses border security deficiencies and disrupts criminal infrastructure, was actually proposed to be cut in the President's FY 2015 budget. The House FY15 foreign operations bill reverses those cuts and actually increases the resources to deal with these related problems.

Mr. Speaker, at every turn, the administration has failed to address the border crisis adequately, and now the President wants a blank check to proceed. His aim is not to stop and reverse the flow of unaccompanied minors into this country. He merely aims to manage that influx more efficiently. The House cannot accept that.

This legislation, H.R. 5230, adequately funds the shortfalls caused by this administration's policy by using existing resources. And Republicans are willing to provide additional resources should they be needed in FY 2015 appropriations, within the bipartisan budget cap set by the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. But we believe that this bill provides the appropriate resources at this time.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for consideration of H.R. 5272, which would prevent the administration from expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the so-called DACA program. I, like many of my colleagues, believe that DACA has incentivized juveniles to attempt the long and dangerous journey from Central America, with the hope of staying in this country permanently. Executive orders, like DACA, only serve to keep that hope alive. I believe it is important to send a

strong signal that this program should not be expanded. H.R. 5272 does just that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule would send back the original House-passed highway bill to the Senate. While I appreciate what my friends in the other body have been able to do, I believe it is important to provide Members the maximum amount of flexibility to craft a long-term highway bill. By accepting the Senate amendment, which would only provide adequate funding of the highway trust fund through mid-December, we would be effectively creating a new crisis in the middle of a lame duck session

of Congress. Given the limited number of session days before the election, this does not seem like a prudent course to take. Instead, the House should return to the Senate its bipartisan legislation, which passed this Chamber by a vote of 367-55.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to move forward on these three important pieces of legislation before the August district work period. I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

9:20 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of three measures: H.R. 5230, the supplemental appropriations bill to deal with the influx of unaccompanied minors across the southern border; H.R. 5272, a bill that would prevent the administration from expanding the use of deferred action for individuals who are not legally present in the United States; and the Senate amendment to H.R. 5021, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014.

The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5230, the supplemental appropriations bill. This is consistent with the way all seven supplemental appropriations acts considered in the 110th and 111th Congresses were treated when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and provides for one motion to recommit.

In addition, the resolution also provides that after the passage of H.R. 5230, that it be in order to consider H.R. 5272, a bill that would prevent the administration from expanding the use of deferred action for individuals who are not legally present in the United States. The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5272, provides for 60 minutes of debate, equally divided by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and provides for a motion to recommit.

In addition, the rule also provides for consideration of a motion to disagree to the Senate's amendment to H.R. 5021, so we can send the bill that easily passed the House on an overwhelming bipartisan vote back to the Senate.

Finally, the rule provides for same-day and suspension authority today to [Page: H7134]

resolve any outstanding issues before the August recess.

Mr. Speaker, this rule demonstrates this House's careful consideration of the President's supplemental request. Earlier this month, the President submitted to Congress a $3.7 billion request to deal with both the urgent crisis of unaccompanied juveniles crossing the border and with wildfires.

Since then, Chairman Rogers, Chairman Granger, Speaker Boehner, and the Republican Conference have thoughtfully considered what resources the President needs to address this crisis through the end of the fiscal year.

The result, Mr. Speaker, is a significantly pared-down piece of legislation. It provides $659 million to meet the immediate border security and humanitarian needs. This supplemental sends the message that this administration has been unwilling to send, that if you come here illegally, you will be deported. And it provides the resources to effect just that.

It provides $334 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement for boosted enforcement efforts, accelerates judicial proceedings by providing $22 million to hire temporary immigration judges and provide courts with video teleconferencing equipment, and makes smart policy reforms, like changing the 2008 sex trafficking law to require that all unaccompanied minors are treated the same, among others.

These important policy reforms, which the President initially asked for, are a reasonable, thoughtful response to the tenfold increase of unaccompanied alien children since 2011.

Mr. Speaker, the President's advisers warned him this crisis was coming back in 2012 and 2013, but he ignored that advice. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the administration has mismanaged this entire issue from the beginning.

If the President's FY 2015 budget had become law, we would have seen a reduction of nearly 3,500 detention beds, a 2 percent reduction in ICE's investigative capacity, and a 12 percent reduction to CBP air and marine operations, all vital tools to deal with this problem.

In addition, the President's budget request for the Central American Regional Security Initiative, which confronts narcotics and arms trafficking, gangs, and organized crime in that region and addresses border security deficiencies and disrupts criminal infrastructure, was actually proposed to be cut in the President's FY 2015 budget. The House FY15 foreign operations bill reverses those cuts and actually increases the resources to deal with these related problems.

Mr. Speaker, at every turn, the administration has failed to address the border crisis adequately, and now the President wants a blank check to proceed. His aim is not to stop and reverse the flow of unaccompanied minors into this country. He merely aims to manage that influx more efficiently. The House cannot accept that.

This legislation, H.R. 5230, adequately funds the shortfalls caused by this administration's policy by using existing resources. And Republicans are willing to provide additional resources should they be needed in FY 2015 appropriations, within the bipartisan budget cap set by the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. But we believe that this bill provides the appropriate resources at this time.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for consideration of H.R. 5272, which would prevent the administration from expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the so-called DACA program. I, like many of my colleagues, believe that DACA has incentivized juveniles to attempt the long and dangerous journey from Central America, with the hope of staying in this country permanently. Executive orders, like DACA, only serve to keep that hope alive. I believe it is important to send a

strong signal that this program should not be expanded. H.R. 5272 does just that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule would send back the original House-passed highway bill to the Senate. While I appreciate what my friends in the other body have been able to do, I believe it is important to provide Members the maximum amount of flexibility to craft a long-term highway bill. By accepting the Senate amendment, which would only provide adequate funding of the highway trust fund through mid-December, we would be effectively creating a new crisis in the middle of a lame duck session

of Congress. Given the limited number of session days before the election, this does not seem like a prudent course to take. Instead, the House should return to the Senate its bipartisan legislation, which passed this Chamber by a vote of 367-55.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to move forward on these three important pieces of legislation before the August district work period. I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

9:20 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of three measures: H.R. 5230, the supplemental appropriations bill to deal with the influx of unaccompanied minors across the southern border; H.R. 5272, a bill that would prevent the administration from expanding the use of deferred action for individuals who are not legally present in the United States; and the Senate amendment to H.R. 5021, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014.

The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5230, the supplemental appropriations bill. This is consistent with the way all seven supplemental appropriations acts considered in the 110th and 111th Congresses were treated when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and provides for one motion to recommit.

In addition, the resolution also provides that after the passage of H.R. 5230, that it be in order to consider H.R. 5272, a bill that would prevent the administration from expanding the use of deferred action for individuals who are not legally present in the United States. The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5272, provides for 60 minutes of debate, equally divided by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and provides for a motion to recommit.

In addition, the rule also provides for consideration of a motion to disagree to the Senate's amendment to H.R. 5021, so we can send the bill that easily passed the House on an overwhelming bipartisan vote back to the Senate.

Finally, the rule provides for same-day and suspension authority today to [Page: H7134]

resolve any outstanding issues before the August recess.

Mr. Speaker, this rule demonstrates this House's careful consideration of the President's supplemental request. Earlier this month, the President submitted to Congress a $3.7 billion request to deal with both the urgent crisis of unaccompanied juveniles crossing the border and with wildfires.

Since then, Chairman Rogers, Chairman Granger, Speaker Boehner, and the Republican Conference have thoughtfully considered what resources the President needs to address this crisis through the end of the fiscal year.

The result, Mr. Speaker, is a significantly pared-down piece of legislation. It provides $659 million to meet the immediate border security and humanitarian needs. This supplemental sends the message that this administration has been unwilling to send, that if you come here illegally, you will be deported. And it provides the resources to effect just that.

It provides $334 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement for boosted enforcement efforts, accelerates judicial proceedings by providing $22 million to hire temporary immigration judges and provide courts with video teleconferencing equipment, and makes smart policy reforms, like changing the 2008 sex trafficking law to require that all unaccompanied minors are treated the same, among others.

These important policy reforms, which the President initially asked for, are a reasonable, thoughtful response to the tenfold increase of unaccompanied alien children since 2011.

Mr. Speaker, the President's advisers warned him this crisis was coming back in 2012 and 2013, but he ignored that advice. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the administration has mismanaged this entire issue from the beginning.

If the President's FY 2015 budget had become law, we would have seen a reduction of nearly 3,500 detention beds, a 2 percent reduction in ICE's investigative capacity, and a 12 percent reduction to CBP air and marine operations, all vital tools to deal with this problem.

In addition, the President's budget request for the Central American Regional Security Initiative, which confronts narcotics and arms trafficking, gangs, and organized crime in that region and addresses border security deficiencies and disrupts criminal infrastructure, was actually proposed to be cut in the President's FY 2015 budget. The House FY15 foreign operations bill reverses those cuts and actually increases the resources to deal with these related problems.

Mr. Speaker, at every turn, the administration has failed to address the border crisis adequately, and now the President wants a blank check to proceed. His aim is not to stop and reverse the flow of unaccompanied minors into this country. He merely aims to manage that influx more efficiently. The House cannot accept that.

This legislation, H.R. 5230, adequately funds the shortfalls caused by this administration's policy by using existing resources. And Republicans are willing to provide additional resources should they be needed in FY 2015 appropriations, within the bipartisan budget cap set by the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. But we believe that this bill provides the appropriate resources at this time.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for consideration of H.R. 5272, which would prevent the administration from expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the so-called DACA program. I, like many of my colleagues, believe that DACA has incentivized juveniles to attempt the long and dangerous journey from Central America, with the hope of staying in this country permanently. Executive orders, like DACA, only serve to keep that hope alive. I believe it is important to send a

strong signal that this program should not be expanded. H.R. 5272 does just that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule would send back the original House-passed highway bill to the Senate. While I appreciate what my friends in the other body have been able to do, I believe it is important to provide Members the maximum amount of flexibility to craft a long-term highway bill. By accepting the Senate amendment, which would only provide adequate funding of the highway trust fund through mid-December, we would be effectively creating a new crisis in the middle of a lame duck session

of Congress. Given the limited number of session days before the election, this does not seem like a prudent course to take. Instead, the House should return to the Senate its bipartisan legislation, which passed this Chamber by a vote of 367-55.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to move forward on these three important pieces of legislation before the August district work period. I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

9:27 AM EDT

Chris Van Hollen, D-MD 8th

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the Chair does not want to interpret this parliamentary inquiry at this time, at what point would it be in order to ask the Parliamentarian and the Chair to interpret the rules of the House?

9:27 AM EDT

Chris Van Hollen, D-MD 8th

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am looking over the rule that was passed late last night, and my reading of the rule indicates that that there was a change in the standing rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I would like some parliamentary clarification on that provision.

If you look at the resolution in section 4, it says, ``Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to H.R. 5021''--that is the transportation-related bill--``may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.''

Now, I am looking at the standing rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, and the standing rules of the House provide that ``when the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.''

My question is: Doesn't ``privileged'' mean available to any Member of the House?

9:29 AM EDT

Chris Van Hollen, D-MD 8th

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the Chair does not want to interpret this parliamentary inquiry at this time, at what point would it be in order to ask the Parliamentarian and the Chair to interpret the rules of the House?

9:29 AM EDT

Chris Van Hollen, D-MD 8th

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, Mr. Speaker, my understanding of a parliamentary inquiry was where the Speaker was supposed to clarify questions of the rules and the parliamentary order.

I am simply asking whether or not, in previous rulings by this House and by the Parliamentarian, ``privileged'' has been interpreted to mean something that is available to any Member of the House, not just to the majority leader or the designee of the majority leader?

[Time: 09:30]

9:29 AM EDT

Chris Van Hollen, D-MD 8th

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the Chair does not want to interpret this parliamentary inquiry at this time, at what point would it be in order to ask the Parliamentarian and the Chair to interpret the rules of the House?

9:31 AM EDT

Chris Van Hollen, D-MD 8th

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. And I am reading one of the provisions of that resolution, specifically section 4 of that rule, which is before the House which changes the rules of the House to say that a motion may only be made by the majority leader or his designee, as opposed to the privileged motion required under the underlying rule. Is that correct?

9:31 AM EDT

Chris Van Hollen, D-MD 8th

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. And I am reading one of the provisions of that resolution, specifically section 4 of that rule, which is before the House which changes the rules of the House to say that a motion may only be made by the majority leader or his designee, as opposed to the privileged motion required under the underlying rule. Is that correct?

9:31 AM EDT

Chris Van Hollen, D-MD 8th

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Look, yesterday, we were on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, and our Republican colleagues passed a measure to sue the President of the United States, waste millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to sue the President of the United States, and the claim was the President has exceeded his authority.

That is a specious claim, but what is incredible is the very next day our Republican colleagues are here suspending democracy in the House, changing the standing rules of the House to take away from any Member of the House the opportunity to offer a motion with respect to the transportation bill, which is what the standing rules of the House provide, and they want to say no, we are going to take that right away from a Member, and we are going to give it exclusively to the Republican leader or

the Republican leader's designee.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the last time we saw this happen? On the government shutdown. Our Republican colleagues used the same measure to refuse to take up the Senate bill, which would have ended the government shutdown. They didn't want to end it, so they kept it going. That cost the American taxpayer $24 billion in damage to the economy.

Let's not play games with the rule, that this rule allows every Member their rights. The Speaker is not the king, and we should make sure that every Member has an opportunity.

9:31 AM EDT

Chris Van Hollen, D-MD 8th

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Look, yesterday, we were on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, and our Republican colleagues passed a measure to sue the President of the United States, waste millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to sue the President of the United States, and the claim was the President has exceeded his authority.

That is a specious claim, but what is incredible is the very next day our Republican colleagues are here suspending democracy in the House, changing the standing rules of the House to take away from any Member of the House the opportunity to offer a motion with respect to the transportation bill, which is what the standing rules of the House provide, and they want to say no, we are going to take that right away from a Member, and we are going to give it exclusively to the Republican leader or

the Republican leader's designee.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the last time we saw this happen? On the government shutdown. Our Republican colleagues used the same measure to refuse to take up the Senate bill, which would have ended the government shutdown. They didn't want to end it, so they kept it going. That cost the American taxpayer $24 billion in damage to the economy.

Let's not play games with the rule, that this rule allows every Member their rights. The Speaker is not the king, and we should make sure that every Member has an opportunity.

9:33 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the underlying rule, and I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's efforts to get clarity as to what is in this rule.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we saw this rule for the first time late last night. We saw the bill for the first time late last night. I believe the underlying bill was dropped shortly after 8 p.m., and Rules Committee convened after 10 p.m.

We are still in the process of trying to understand what is in this rule and this bill. I know that there are legitimate questions with regard to how it changes the rules of our entire House of Representatives, as well as what this bill actually does.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the process of the rule and the underlying bill. The bill, of course, prohibits certain actions with respect to deferred actions for people who are already in our country.

This provision was added at the last minute in the midnight hour to restrict the deferred action for the childhood arrivals program, which is a form of prosecutorial discretion, which is used by all prosecutorial and administrative agencies.

When you have a situation where 10 or 11 or 12 million people have illegal presence in our country, clearly, with our limited enforcement resources, we need to have prosecutorial discretion and priorities. Whom should we be going after and in what form, given that it is not possible with the limited resources they have, to in any way address the entire issue?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that it makes perfect sense, with regards to the deferred action program, that we focus our limited enforcement resources on criminal aliens. Those are people who, in addition to having unlawful presence here, have committed some kind of crime. It might have been a DUI. It might have been an assault.

We need to focus on promptly bringing people who have committed crimes to justice and deporting them under our laws. So whom does it make sense to not focus on, given our prosecutorial discretion?

I think the deferred action program is a perfect example, and this bill, in our understanding, even recognizes that, that many of the people that grew up in our country, that know no other country, that came when they were 2 or 3, that were cheerleaders or high school football players and know no other country than the United States of America and owe their loyalty to us, of course, should not be the enforcement priority of laws that are broken until we can fix our immigration system.

It makes sense that the President work--any President, Democrat or Republican--to identify additional groups that we can use with our prosecutorial discretion and offer some kind of deferred action to, so that we can further focus our limited enforcement resources on those who would do us harm or represent a threat to our safety or our economy.

If there is a way, for instance, to include the parents of American children who are here unlawfully and are not violating any criminal laws of our country, it would make sense that their enforcement should come after those who have committed criminal violations in our country. That is a customary aspect of prosecutorial discretion ranging from any DA to the Attorney General to the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, under the language of this bill, it would further restrict the ability of the President to focus our limited enforcement resources on criminal aliens who would do us harm, reducing the security of the American people.

Now, we all know the real answer here is to replace our broken immigration system with one that works. The answer is not to have 10 million, 12 million, who knows how many million people here illegally and just focus on which group we can actually enforce the law on. We need to have a law that we can enforce universally.

There should not be people that are here illegally in our country. We need to secure our borders, we need to reunite American families, and we need to grow our economy. Later on today, if we defeat the previous question, Mr. Garcia will offer a bipartisan bill that will do just that.

Instead of even allowing amendments on these controversial bills, including amendments that are extremely commonsense, we have a closed process that, as Mr. Van Hollen pointed out, changes the very rules of the House, in the name of preventing the President from focusing on deporting criminal aliens.

Look, Republicans and Democrats alike acknowledge that there is a crisis on our southern border. Unaccompanied minors are fleeing from El Salvador,

Honduras, and Guatemala, fleeing horrific situations. I had the opportunity to visit the border the weekend before last, along with many of my colleagues, and got to speak to some of the kids, as well as the Customs and Border Patrol and HHS officials, and hear some of those stories firsthand.

We had this discussion yesterday in Rules Committee. Action means a bill passing the House, a bill passing the Senate, and the President signing it. Instead of taking action to address the crisis on our southern border, the House is considering a House-only bill that the President has said he would veto, that the Senate won't likely even bring up, and then promptly going home for a 1-month vacation. We wonder why Congress has a 12 percent approval rating.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

9:33 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the underlying rule, and I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's efforts to get clarity as to what is in this rule.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we saw this rule for the first time late last night. We saw the bill for the first time late last night. I believe the underlying bill was dropped shortly after 8 p.m., and Rules Committee convened after 10 p.m.

We are still in the process of trying to understand what is in this rule and this bill. I know that there are legitimate questions with regard to how it changes the rules of our entire House of Representatives, as well as what this bill actually does.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the process of the rule and the underlying bill. The bill, of course, prohibits certain actions with respect to deferred actions for people who are already in our country.

This provision was added at the last minute in the midnight hour to restrict the deferred action for the childhood arrivals program, which is a form of prosecutorial discretion, which is used by all prosecutorial and administrative agencies.

When you have a situation where 10 or 11 or 12 million people have illegal presence in our country, clearly, with our limited enforcement resources, we need to have prosecutorial discretion and priorities. Whom should we be going after and in what form, given that it is not possible with the limited resources they have, to in any way address the entire issue?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that it makes perfect sense, with regards to the deferred action program, that we focus our limited enforcement resources on criminal aliens. Those are people who, in addition to having unlawful presence here, have committed some kind of crime. It might have been a DUI. It might have been an assault.

We need to focus on promptly bringing people who have committed crimes to justice and deporting them under our laws. So whom does it make sense to not focus on, given our prosecutorial discretion?

I think the deferred action program is a perfect example, and this bill, in our understanding, even recognizes that, that many of the people that grew up in our country, that know no other country, that came when they were 2 or 3, that were cheerleaders or high school football players and know no other country than the United States of America and owe their loyalty to us, of course, should not be the enforcement priority of laws that are broken until we can fix our immigration system.

It makes sense that the President work--any President, Democrat or Republican--to identify additional groups that we can use with our prosecutorial discretion and offer some kind of deferred action to, so that we can further focus our limited enforcement resources on those who would do us harm or represent a threat to our safety or our economy.

If there is a way, for instance, to include the parents of American children who are here unlawfully and are not violating any criminal laws of our country, it would make sense that their enforcement should come after those who have committed criminal violations in our country. That is a customary aspect of prosecutorial discretion ranging from any DA to the Attorney General to the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, under the language of this bill, it would further restrict the ability of the President to focus our limited enforcement resources on criminal aliens who would do us harm, reducing the security of the American people.

Now, we all know the real answer here is to replace our broken immigration system with one that works. The answer is not to have 10 million, 12 million, who knows how many million people here illegally and just focus on which group we can actually enforce the law on. We need to have a law that we can enforce universally.

There should not be people that are here illegally in our country. We need to secure our borders, we need to reunite American families, and we need to grow our economy. Later on today, if we defeat the previous question, Mr. Garcia will offer a bipartisan bill that will do just that.

Instead of even allowing amendments on these controversial bills, including amendments that are extremely commonsense, we have a closed process that, as Mr. Van Hollen pointed out, changes the very rules of the House, in the name of preventing the President from focusing on deporting criminal aliens.

Look, Republicans and Democrats alike acknowledge that there is a crisis on our southern border. Unaccompanied minors are fleeing from El Salvador,

Honduras, and Guatemala, fleeing horrific situations. I had the opportunity to visit the border the weekend before last, along with many of my colleagues, and got to speak to some of the kids, as well as the Customs and Border Patrol and HHS officials, and hear some of those stories firsthand.

We had this discussion yesterday in Rules Committee. Action means a bill passing the House, a bill passing the Senate, and the President signing it. Instead of taking action to address the crisis on our southern border, the House is considering a House-only bill that the President has said he would veto, that the Senate won't likely even bring up, and then promptly going home for a 1-month vacation. We wonder why Congress has a 12 percent approval rating.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

9:33 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the underlying rule, and I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's efforts to get clarity as to what is in this rule.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we saw this rule for the first time late last night. We saw the bill for the first time late last night. I believe the underlying bill was dropped shortly after 8 p.m., and Rules Committee convened after 10 p.m.

We are still in the process of trying to understand what is in this rule and this bill. I know that there are legitimate questions with regard to how it changes the rules of our entire House of Representatives, as well as what this bill actually does.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the process of the rule and the underlying bill. The bill, of course, prohibits certain actions with respect to deferred actions for people who are already in our country.

This provision was added at the last minute in the midnight hour to restrict the deferred action for the childhood arrivals program, which is a form of prosecutorial discretion, which is used by all prosecutorial and administrative agencies.

When you have a situation where 10 or 11 or 12 million people have illegal presence in our country, clearly, with our limited enforcement resources, we need to have prosecutorial discretion and priorities. Whom should we be going after and in what form, given that it is not possible with the limited resources they have, to in any way address the entire issue?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that it makes perfect sense, with regards to the deferred action program, that we focus our limited enforcement resources on criminal aliens. Those are people who, in addition to having unlawful presence here, have committed some kind of crime. It might have been a DUI. It might have been an assault.

We need to focus on promptly bringing people who have committed crimes to justice and deporting them under our laws. So whom does it make sense to not focus on, given our prosecutorial discretion?

I think the deferred action program is a perfect example, and this bill, in our understanding, even recognizes that, that many of the people that grew up in our country, that know no other country, that came when they were 2 or 3, that were cheerleaders or high school football players and know no other country than the United States of America and owe their loyalty to us, of course, should not be the enforcement priority of laws that are broken until we can fix our immigration system.

It makes sense that the President work--any President, Democrat or Republican--to identify additional groups that we can use with our prosecutorial discretion and offer some kind of deferred action to, so that we can further focus our limited enforcement resources on those who would do us harm or represent a threat to our safety or our economy.

If there is a way, for instance, to include the parents of American children who are here unlawfully and are not violating any criminal laws of our country, it would make sense that their enforcement should come after those who have committed criminal violations in our country. That is a customary aspect of prosecutorial discretion ranging from any DA to the Attorney General to the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, under the language of this bill, it would further restrict the ability of the President to focus our limited enforcement resources on criminal aliens who would do us harm, reducing the security of the American people.

Now, we all know the real answer here is to replace our broken immigration system with one that works. The answer is not to have 10 million, 12 million, who knows how many million people here illegally and just focus on which group we can actually enforce the law on. We need to have a law that we can enforce universally.

There should not be people that are here illegally in our country. We need to secure our borders, we need to reunite American families, and we need to grow our economy. Later on today, if we defeat the previous question, Mr. Garcia will offer a bipartisan bill that will do just that.

Instead of even allowing amendments on these controversial bills, including amendments that are extremely commonsense, we have a closed process that, as Mr. Van Hollen pointed out, changes the very rules of the House, in the name of preventing the President from focusing on deporting criminal aliens.

Look, Republicans and Democrats alike acknowledge that there is a crisis on our southern border. Unaccompanied minors are fleeing from El Salvador,

Honduras, and Guatemala, fleeing horrific situations. I had the opportunity to visit the border the weekend before last, along with many of my colleagues, and got to speak to some of the kids, as well as the Customs and Border Patrol and HHS officials, and hear some of those stories firsthand.

We had this discussion yesterday in Rules Committee. Action means a bill passing the House, a bill passing the Senate, and the President signing it. Instead of taking action to address the crisis on our southern border, the House is considering a House-only bill that the President has said he would veto, that the Senate won't likely even bring up, and then promptly going home for a 1-month vacation. We wonder why Congress has a 12 percent approval rating.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

9:39 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree with my friend on a couple of points that he made. First, I would suggest the President actually hasn't taken action or suggested action. A month ago, he told us that the 2008 sex trafficking law was responsible for his inability to return people to their country of origin, unaccompanied minors.

We have been waiting for his corrective for 30 days; instead, Mr. Speaker, we get an open-ended supplemental that goes through from this fiscal year to the end of the next fiscal year with a lot of measures--some of which, by the way, we agree with--to manage the flow, but absolutely nothing to stop and reverse the flow.

So we think, in that absence of leadership from the executive branch, we have acted. We have actually done what a month ago at least he was suggesting ought to be done, giving some discretion and giving some ability to try to deal with the loophole in the law.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have looked at what he put in front of us, and we have decided, look, we can actually offset this money. We don't have to spend extra money. This is a higher priority. We will take money from lower priority areas. [Page: H7136]

We will get us through the end of this fiscal year and through the end of this calendar year, and in that interim time, we will have an opportunity to work with the administration to continue to address the problem within the limits of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that we agreed to on a bipartisan, bicameral basis not that long ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this issue of the DACA controversy that we have here, I would like to make the following points: first, nothing in this legislation changes the current state of affairs at all. In other words, what the President has done up to this point is left undisturbed.

However, we do believe the abuse of prosecutorial discretion is actually one of the things that contributed to the current crisis that we have--not deliberately, but, frankly, I think the President unwittingly or unknowingly sent a signal that if you get here and you get across our border, you are going to be able to stay. So we want to be very careful that doesn't happen again.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the President has said if Congress doesn't do certain things by such and such a date or by the August work period, then I intend during that time to use my pen and my phone to effect some changes that I want.

What is interesting to us, by the way, less than 2 years ago, he said these kinds of things were unconstitutional and couldn't be done by the executive branch. Now, he has changed his view on that.

So we are going to finally put in place something that will prevent him in our absence from once again abusing prosecutorial discretion to achieve other aims.

With that, I would like to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

9:39 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree with my friend on a couple of points that he made. First, I would suggest the President actually hasn't taken action or suggested action. A month ago, he told us that the 2008 sex trafficking law was responsible for his inability to return people to their country of origin, unaccompanied minors.

We have been waiting for his corrective for 30 days; instead, Mr. Speaker, we get an open-ended supplemental that goes through from this fiscal year to the end of the next fiscal year with a lot of measures--some of which, by the way, we agree with--to manage the flow, but absolutely nothing to stop and reverse the flow.

So we think, in that absence of leadership from the executive branch, we have acted. We have actually done what a month ago at least he was suggesting ought to be done, giving some discretion and giving some ability to try to deal with the loophole in the law.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have looked at what he put in front of us, and we have decided, look, we can actually offset this money. We don't have to spend extra money. This is a higher priority. We will take money from lower priority areas. [Page: H7136]

We will get us through the end of this fiscal year and through the end of this calendar year, and in that interim time, we will have an opportunity to work with the administration to continue to address the problem within the limits of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that we agreed to on a bipartisan, bicameral basis not that long ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this issue of the DACA controversy that we have here, I would like to make the following points: first, nothing in this legislation changes the current state of affairs at all. In other words, what the President has done up to this point is left undisturbed.

However, we do believe the abuse of prosecutorial discretion is actually one of the things that contributed to the current crisis that we have--not deliberately, but, frankly, I think the President unwittingly or unknowingly sent a signal that if you get here and you get across our border, you are going to be able to stay. So we want to be very careful that doesn't happen again.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the President has said if Congress doesn't do certain things by such and such a date or by the August work period, then I intend during that time to use my pen and my phone to effect some changes that I want.

What is interesting to us, by the way, less than 2 years ago, he said these kinds of things were unconstitutional and couldn't be done by the executive branch. Now, he has changed his view on that.

So we are going to finally put in place something that will prevent him in our absence from once again abusing prosecutorial discretion to achieve other aims.

With that, I would like to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

9:39 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree with my friend on a couple of points that he made. First, I would suggest the President actually hasn't taken action or suggested action. A month ago, he told us that the 2008 sex trafficking law was responsible for his inability to return people to their country of origin, unaccompanied minors.

We have been waiting for his corrective for 30 days; instead, Mr. Speaker, we get an open-ended supplemental that goes through from this fiscal year to the end of the next fiscal year with a lot of measures--some of which, by the way, we agree with--to manage the flow, but absolutely nothing to stop and reverse the flow.

So we think, in that absence of leadership from the executive branch, we have acted. We have actually done what a month ago at least he was suggesting ought to be done, giving some discretion and giving some ability to try to deal with the loophole in the law.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have looked at what he put in front of us, and we have decided, look, we can actually offset this money. We don't have to spend extra money. This is a higher priority. We will take money from lower priority areas. [Page: H7136]

We will get us through the end of this fiscal year and through the end of this calendar year, and in that interim time, we will have an opportunity to work with the administration to continue to address the problem within the limits of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that we agreed to on a bipartisan, bicameral basis not that long ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this issue of the DACA controversy that we have here, I would like to make the following points: first, nothing in this legislation changes the current state of affairs at all. In other words, what the President has done up to this point is left undisturbed.

However, we do believe the abuse of prosecutorial discretion is actually one of the things that contributed to the current crisis that we have--not deliberately, but, frankly, I think the President unwittingly or unknowingly sent a signal that if you get here and you get across our border, you are going to be able to stay. So we want to be very careful that doesn't happen again.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the President has said if Congress doesn't do certain things by such and such a date or by the August work period, then I intend during that time to use my pen and my phone to effect some changes that I want.

What is interesting to us, by the way, less than 2 years ago, he said these kinds of things were unconstitutional and couldn't be done by the executive branch. Now, he has changed his view on that.

So we are going to finally put in place something that will prevent him in our absence from once again abusing prosecutorial discretion to achieve other aims.

With that, I would like to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

9:42 AM EDT

Jim McGovern, D-MA 2nd

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my House Republican friends never cease to amaze me. Once again, House Republicans have turned control of their agenda to Senator Speaker Ted Cruz. The last time they did this, they shut the government down, and look at how that worked out for them. Some people never learn.

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough that House Republicans, despite Speaker Boehner's promises of a more open House, continue to block consideration of comprehensive immigration reform. No, they need to go even further.

Last night, after a lengthy meeting with Senator Speaker Cruz, House Republicans caved in a desperate and partisan way and produced an extreme bill that would prevent President Obama from building upon the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. This bill was introduced last night. It has never had a hearing, but here it is.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are victims of their own shortsightedness. In their attempts to placate the fringe elements on the far right, especially as the November elections grow closer, House Republicans continue to refuse to bring up any kind of comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Of course, the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform overwhelmingly, and we know that the bill would pass this House if it were brought up for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, this process is absurd. The bills we will consider today are cruel and cheap political stunts. They would do nothing to alleviate the crisis and merely serve as political cover, and what is worse, the Republicans are playing games with the lives of vulnerable children.

Further, the supplemental appropriations bill is a sham. It does not even come close to addressing the humanitarian crisis on our border. It provides nothing in terms of necessary resources for the Border Patrol, HHS, Homeland Security, and our immigration system to give these children and their families the attention that they need.

The policy is bad enough. The process absolutely stinks. The deal the Republican leadership cut with the hard right is this: if you want the opportunity to vote for a nasty bill to block expansion of DACA--which has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis on the border--then you have to vote for this terrible supplemental.

No wonder the approval rating of Congress is at 7 percent. With stunts like this, I am surprised it is that high. I know this is an election season, but I plead with Republicans: let's not lose our humanity in this process.

9:42 AM EDT

Jim McGovern, D-MA 2nd

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my House Republican friends never cease to amaze me. Once again, House Republicans have turned control of their agenda to Senator Speaker Ted Cruz. The last time they did this, they shut the government down, and look at how that worked out for them. Some people never learn.

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough that House Republicans, despite Speaker Boehner's promises of a more open House, continue to block consideration of comprehensive immigration reform. No, they need to go even further.

Last night, after a lengthy meeting with Senator Speaker Cruz, House Republicans caved in a desperate and partisan way and produced an extreme bill that would prevent President Obama from building upon the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. This bill was introduced last night. It has never had a hearing, but here it is.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are victims of their own shortsightedness. In their attempts to placate the fringe elements on the far right, especially as the November elections grow closer, House Republicans continue to refuse to bring up any kind of comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Of course, the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform overwhelmingly, and we know that the bill would pass this House if it were brought up for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, this process is absurd. The bills we will consider today are cruel and cheap political stunts. They would do nothing to alleviate the crisis and merely serve as political cover, and what is worse, the Republicans are playing games with the lives of vulnerable children.

Further, the supplemental appropriations bill is a sham. It does not even come close to addressing the humanitarian crisis on our border. It provides nothing in terms of necessary resources for the Border Patrol, HHS, Homeland Security, and our immigration system to give these children and their families the attention that they need.

The policy is bad enough. The process absolutely stinks. The deal the Republican leadership cut with the hard right is this: if you want the opportunity to vote for a nasty bill to block expansion of DACA--which has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis on the border--then you have to vote for this terrible supplemental.

No wonder the approval rating of Congress is at 7 percent. With stunts like this, I am surprised it is that high. I know this is an election season, but I plead with Republicans: let's not lose our humanity in this process.

9:44 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my friend is always a terrific and impassioned speaker, and I love to hear him. I genuinely do, but what he is saying is, frankly, at odds with the facts.

Look at the record. It was the President in his budget who wanted to cut border security, cut detention beds, reduce aid to Central America, and reduce law enforcement. That was the President's proposal.

[Time: 10:45]

Before this crisis, we had already corrected some of those mistakes in the FY15 Foreign Operations budget. So in terms of who has been willing to put resources not only in a law enforcement sense but in a humanitarian sense, it has been the majority side of the aisle, not the minority.

Frankly, our plan will not increase suffering; it will decrease it. What will increase suffering is continuing to send the signal that coming here illegally will be rewarded. The challenge of that is, number one, when you encourage that behavior, we are destroying the societies from which those young people are coming. The officials of those governments have met with ours, and they say that we would like our children back. That is a terrible thing that we are doing to those countries.

Number two, the people who are financing it, well-meaning people in most cases, trying to bring children into the United States, are turning their money over to criminal enterprises and cartels. They are strengthening the very people who are destroying their society and committing crimes across the entire region, not just our country.

And finally, the children that are encouraged to come are young people, mostly juveniles from three countries and, frankly, are subject to a horrific and dangerous journey. Along the way, they can be pressed into sex trafficking. They can be turned into drug smugglers. They can be physically abused. We don't know how many of them never make it here at all.

Any policy left in place that encourages that, wittingly or unwittingly, ought to be changed. Until the signal is sent unmistakably to these societies, don't spend your money, don't put your kids at risk, the flow will continue.

Now the President of the United States, at least 2 weeks ago, said:

The majority of these children are going to be returned.

That is his statement, not ours, not us doing something that he said isn't going to happen. He said the overwhelming majority of these children will be returned. Doing this quickly and humanely might keep other children from following the same route.

This is a tough, tough situation. It is a situation, quite frankly, that the President was warned would happen in 2012, was warned in 2013 by officials in his own administration, and ignored. You can see he ignored it in terms of the budget he actually proposed to present to Congress this year. Thank goodness we didn't actually do what he asked us to do.

I think if you look at this objectively, you can see the President was overtaken by a crisis. He fumbled it and mismanaged that crisis, in my opinion, and now my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to turn this into something that it is not. It is a border crisis debate and discussion. It is not an overall immigration debate. It is not a political stunt. We certainly didn't plan for this to happen. My friends clearly did not plan for it to happen. The President didn't plan for it

to happen or he would never have submitted the budget that he did. So we are trying to respond quickly and expeditiously to a crisis.

This is not, by the way, a once-and-for-all response. We are here in August. We will be back here in September. We will be back here after the election. We have an appropriations process, probably an omnibus bill waiting in the lame duck that will continue to address this, but something has to be done now.

What the President requests, again, doesn't address the problem. It is an open-ended check and, frankly, sort of [Page: H7137]

gets him off the hook until September 30, 2015, when we would have to come back here again.

The bill in front of us is a much more prudent, much more targeted, much more thoughtful, and much, frankly, more efficient use of resources in the interim while we continue to work to get a handle on the situation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

9:44 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my friend is always a terrific and impassioned speaker, and I love to hear him. I genuinely do, but what he is saying is, frankly, at odds with the facts.

Look at the record. It was the President in his budget who wanted to cut border security, cut detention beds, reduce aid to Central America, and reduce law enforcement. That was the President's proposal.

[Time: 10:45]

Before this crisis, we had already corrected some of those mistakes in the FY15 Foreign Operations budget. So in terms of who has been willing to put resources not only in a law enforcement sense but in a humanitarian sense, it has been the majority side of the aisle, not the minority.

Frankly, our plan will not increase suffering; it will decrease it. What will increase suffering is continuing to send the signal that coming here illegally will be rewarded. The challenge of that is, number one, when you encourage that behavior, we are destroying the societies from which those young people are coming. The officials of those governments have met with ours, and they say that we would like our children back. That is a terrible thing that we are doing to those countries.

Number two, the people who are financing it, well-meaning people in most cases, trying to bring children into the United States, are turning their money over to criminal enterprises and cartels. They are strengthening the very people who are destroying their society and committing crimes across the entire region, not just our country.

And finally, the children that are encouraged to come are young people, mostly juveniles from three countries and, frankly, are subject to a horrific and dangerous journey. Along the way, they can be pressed into sex trafficking. They can be turned into drug smugglers. They can be physically abused. We don't know how many of them never make it here at all.

Any policy left in place that encourages that, wittingly or unwittingly, ought to be changed. Until the signal is sent unmistakably to these societies, don't spend your money, don't put your kids at risk, the flow will continue.

Now the President of the United States, at least 2 weeks ago, said:

The majority of these children are going to be returned.

That is his statement, not ours, not us doing something that he said isn't going to happen. He said the overwhelming majority of these children will be returned. Doing this quickly and humanely might keep other children from following the same route.

This is a tough, tough situation. It is a situation, quite frankly, that the President was warned would happen in 2012, was warned in 2013 by officials in his own administration, and ignored. You can see he ignored it in terms of the budget he actually proposed to present to Congress this year. Thank goodness we didn't actually do what he asked us to do.

I think if you look at this objectively, you can see the President was overtaken by a crisis. He fumbled it and mismanaged that crisis, in my opinion, and now my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to turn this into something that it is not. It is a border crisis debate and discussion. It is not an overall immigration debate. It is not a political stunt. We certainly didn't plan for this to happen. My friends clearly did not plan for it to happen. The President didn't plan for it

to happen or he would never have submitted the budget that he did. So we are trying to respond quickly and expeditiously to a crisis.

This is not, by the way, a once-and-for-all response. We are here in August. We will be back here in September. We will be back here after the election. We have an appropriations process, probably an omnibus bill waiting in the lame duck that will continue to address this, but something has to be done now.

What the President requests, again, doesn't address the problem. It is an open-ended check and, frankly, sort of [Page: H7137]

gets him off the hook until September 30, 2015, when we would have to come back here again.

The bill in front of us is a much more prudent, much more targeted, much more thoughtful, and much, frankly, more efficient use of resources in the interim while we continue to work to get a handle on the situation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

9:44 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my friend is always a terrific and impassioned speaker, and I love to hear him. I genuinely do, but what he is saying is, frankly, at odds with the facts.

Look at the record. It was the President in his budget who wanted to cut border security, cut detention beds, reduce aid to Central America, and reduce law enforcement. That was the President's proposal.

[Time: 10:45]

Before this crisis, we had already corrected some of those mistakes in the FY15 Foreign Operations budget. So in terms of who has been willing to put resources not only in a law enforcement sense but in a humanitarian sense, it has been the majority side of the aisle, not the minority.

Frankly, our plan will not increase suffering; it will decrease it. What will increase suffering is continuing to send the signal that coming here illegally will be rewarded. The challenge of that is, number one, when you encourage that behavior, we are destroying the societies from which those young people are coming. The officials of those governments have met with ours, and they say that we would like our children back. That is a terrible thing that we are doing to those countries.

Number two, the people who are financing it, well-meaning people in most cases, trying to bring children into the United States, are turning their money over to criminal enterprises and cartels. They are strengthening the very people who are destroying their society and committing crimes across the entire region, not just our country.

And finally, the children that are encouraged to come are young people, mostly juveniles from three countries and, frankly, are subject to a horrific and dangerous journey. Along the way, they can be pressed into sex trafficking. They can be turned into drug smugglers. They can be physically abused. We don't know how many of them never make it here at all.

Any policy left in place that encourages that, wittingly or unwittingly, ought to be changed. Until the signal is sent unmistakably to these societies, don't spend your money, don't put your kids at risk, the flow will continue.

Now the President of the United States, at least 2 weeks ago, said:

The majority of these children are going to be returned.

That is his statement, not ours, not us doing something that he said isn't going to happen. He said the overwhelming majority of these children will be returned. Doing this quickly and humanely might keep other children from following the same route.

This is a tough, tough situation. It is a situation, quite frankly, that the President was warned would happen in 2012, was warned in 2013 by officials in his own administration, and ignored. You can see he ignored it in terms of the budget he actually proposed to present to Congress this year. Thank goodness we didn't actually do what he asked us to do.

I think if you look at this objectively, you can see the President was overtaken by a crisis. He fumbled it and mismanaged that crisis, in my opinion, and now my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to turn this into something that it is not. It is a border crisis debate and discussion. It is not an overall immigration debate. It is not a political stunt. We certainly didn't plan for this to happen. My friends clearly did not plan for it to happen. The President didn't plan for it

to happen or he would never have submitted the budget that he did. So we are trying to respond quickly and expeditiously to a crisis.

This is not, by the way, a once-and-for-all response. We are here in August. We will be back here in September. We will be back here after the election. We have an appropriations process, probably an omnibus bill waiting in the lame duck that will continue to address this, but something has to be done now.

What the President requests, again, doesn't address the problem. It is an open-ended check and, frankly, sort of [Page: H7137]

gets him off the hook until September 30, 2015, when we would have to come back here again.

The bill in front of us is a much more prudent, much more targeted, much more thoughtful, and much, frankly, more efficient use of resources in the interim while we continue to work to get a handle on the situation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

9:49 AM EDT

Beto O'Rourke, D-TX 16th

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, allow me to address some of the concerns raised in the underlying bill concerning unaccompanied alien children. If our concern is with a secure border, you can talk to someone such as myself who represents El Paso, Texas, the largest city in Texas on the Mexican border which, today, is also the safest city not just in Texas, but in the entire United States. You can talk to other elected leaders, to the folks who actually live on the border, and you can look at the facts.

Apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border are down nearly 70 percent over the last 15 years. In the year 2000, we had 1.6 million apprehensions. This last year, 420,000. And even with this spike of refugees from Central America, we are not expected to get to half a million this year. The border, by the numbers, is as secure as it has ever been.

If your concern is with the welfare of these children once they enter this country, then I say let's increase the amount that we are spending with Health and Human Services which, in this current bill, is a pittance against what is necessary and what should be required.

And if your concern is with the welfare of these children in Central America and along this journey, then I ask you to do what this country's proud history, what our conscience, and what the law already mandates, which is to accept their applications for asylum, to help them once they are in this country, and to work with our neighbors in Central America and this hemisphere to resolve the underlying problems.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, to reject the underlying bill, and to come back together in September and to work on something that is rational, that is humane, and that is in the best interests of all concerned.

9:49 AM EDT

Beto O'Rourke, D-TX 16th

Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, allow me to address some of the concerns raised in the underlying bill concerning unaccompanied alien children. If our concern is with a secure border, you can talk to someone such as myself who represents El Paso, Texas, the largest city in Texas on the Mexican border which, today, is also the safest city not just in Texas, but in the entire United States. You can talk to other elected leaders, to the folks who actually live on the border, and you can look at the facts.

Apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border are down nearly 70 percent over the last 15 years. In the year 2000, we had 1.6 million apprehensions. This last year, 420,000. And even with this spike of refugees from Central America, we are not expected to get to half a million this year. The border, by the numbers, is as secure as it has ever been.

If your concern is with the welfare of these children once they enter this country, then I say let's increase the amount that we are spending with Health and Human Services which, in this current bill, is a pittance against what is necessary and what should be required.

And if your concern is with the welfare of these children in Central America and along this journey, then I ask you to do what this country's proud history, what our conscience, and what the law already mandates, which is to accept their applications for asylum, to help them once they are in this country, and to work with our neighbors in Central America and this hemisphere to resolve the underlying problems.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, to reject the underlying bill, and to come back together in September and to work on something that is rational, that is humane, and that is in the best interests of all concerned.

9:51 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let's talk for a minute about the additional money to HHS. That is exactly, by the way, what this does.

The difference--and I think there is probably some confusion here--is we are doing it for a short period of time, and then we are going to probably continue to do it next year, but do it within the constraints of the Ryan-Murray budget deal. The President, frankly, hot-wires around the congressional agreement that was made to lower the budget by extending these expenditures to the end of the next fiscal year.

So just to reassure my friend, nobody is more interested, I think--actually, let me put it this way. I think we are both interested in making sure that, when anybody is in the custody of the United States, they are treated humanely and that there are sufficient resources there to do the job. So this does it in the short-term. I would expect in the appropriations process--again, within the overall spending caps that we have both agreed to--we would continue to do that by moving resources from

less important areas to more important areas.

I am going to disagree with my friend on, I think, his point that most of these folks ought to remain inside the United States. Frankly, I agree with the President of the United States: most of them should not.

There is a process, by the way, if you want to apply for refugee status. You do that by going to an American Embassy which is actually in the countries there and they make that determination. You don't do it by breaking the laws of Mexico and breaking the laws of the United States by simply arriving here.

The President has said that most of these young people will be returned. The longer they are here, the more you are going to encourage other people to come, the more people will be subjected to that journey that we all know is dangerous and deadly, and the more often criminal enterprises will be enriched as people give them money to transport juveniles to what they think will be permanent residence in the United States when the President of the United States himself says it will not be permanent,

that most of them will return. Better to act on this now.

Now, again, I will be the first to tell you that I don't expect this to be the final piece of legislation. This is an emergency measure. It is timely, it is focused, and it is funded at an appropriate level. We will be back here again in September. We will be back here working on the appropriations process, no doubt, in a lame duck. Frankly, at that time, the appropriate additional resources will undoubtedly be made available, but they will be made available within the budget caps of the Ryan-Murray

deal.

I think sometimes when we compare this bill to the budget request the President made, the supplemental request, we really are comparing apples to oranges because the timeframes are much different. Remember, the President's bill also includes wildfire funding. That may be appropriate, but we just don't think it is appropriate in this vehicle, in what ought to be a focused approach.

I reserve the balance of my time.

9:51 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let's talk for a minute about the additional money to HHS. That is exactly, by the way, what this does.

The difference--and I think there is probably some confusion here--is we are doing it for a short period of time, and then we are going to probably continue to do it next year, but do it within the constraints of the Ryan-Murray budget deal. The President, frankly, hot-wires around the congressional agreement that was made to lower the budget by extending these expenditures to the end of the next fiscal year.

So just to reassure my friend, nobody is more interested, I think--actually, let me put it this way. I think we are both interested in making sure that, when anybody is in the custody of the United States, they are treated humanely and that there are sufficient resources there to do the job. So this does it in the short-term. I would expect in the appropriations process--again, within the overall spending caps that we have both agreed to--we would continue to do that by moving resources from

less important areas to more important areas.

I am going to disagree with my friend on, I think, his point that most of these folks ought to remain inside the United States. Frankly, I agree with the President of the United States: most of them should not.

There is a process, by the way, if you want to apply for refugee status. You do that by going to an American Embassy which is actually in the countries there and they make that determination. You don't do it by breaking the laws of Mexico and breaking the laws of the United States by simply arriving here.

The President has said that most of these young people will be returned. The longer they are here, the more you are going to encourage other people to come, the more people will be subjected to that journey that we all know is dangerous and deadly, and the more often criminal enterprises will be enriched as people give them money to transport juveniles to what they think will be permanent residence in the United States when the President of the United States himself says it will not be permanent,

that most of them will return. Better to act on this now.

Now, again, I will be the first to tell you that I don't expect this to be the final piece of legislation. This is an emergency measure. It is timely, it is focused, and it is funded at an appropriate level. We will be back here again in September. We will be back here working on the appropriations process, no doubt, in a lame duck. Frankly, at that time, the appropriate additional resources will undoubtedly be made available, but they will be made available within the budget caps of the Ryan-Murray

deal.

I think sometimes when we compare this bill to the budget request the President made, the supplemental request, we really are comparing apples to oranges because the timeframes are much different. Remember, the President's bill also includes wildfire funding. That may be appropriate, but we just don't think it is appropriate in this vehicle, in what ought to be a focused approach.

I reserve the balance of my time.

9:51 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let's talk for a minute about the additional money to HHS. That is exactly, by the way, what this does.

The difference--and I think there is probably some confusion here--is we are doing it for a short period of time, and then we are going to probably continue to do it next year, but do it within the constraints of the Ryan-Murray budget deal. The President, frankly, hot-wires around the congressional agreement that was made to lower the budget by extending these expenditures to the end of the next fiscal year.

So just to reassure my friend, nobody is more interested, I think--actually, let me put it this way. I think we are both interested in making sure that, when anybody is in the custody of the United States, they are treated humanely and that there are sufficient resources there to do the job. So this does it in the short-term. I would expect in the appropriations process--again, within the overall spending caps that we have both agreed to--we would continue to do that by moving resources from

less important areas to more important areas.

I am going to disagree with my friend on, I think, his point that most of these folks ought to remain inside the United States. Frankly, I agree with the President of the United States: most of them should not.

There is a process, by the way, if you want to apply for refugee status. You do that by going to an American Embassy which is actually in the countries there and they make that determination. You don't do it by breaking the laws of Mexico and breaking the laws of the United States by simply arriving here.

The President has said that most of these young people will be returned. The longer they are here, the more you are going to encourage other people to come, the more people will be subjected to that journey that we all know is dangerous and deadly, and the more often criminal enterprises will be enriched as people give them money to transport juveniles to what they think will be permanent residence in the United States when the President of the United States himself says it will not be permanent,

that most of them will return. Better to act on this now.

Now, again, I will be the first to tell you that I don't expect this to be the final piece of legislation. This is an emergency measure. It is timely, it is focused, and it is funded at an appropriate level. We will be back here again in September. We will be back here working on the appropriations process, no doubt, in a lame duck. Frankly, at that time, the appropriate additional resources will undoubtedly be made available, but they will be made available within the budget caps of the Ryan-Murray

deal.

I think sometimes when we compare this bill to the budget request the President made, the supplemental request, we really are comparing apples to oranges because the timeframes are much different. Remember, the President's bill also includes wildfire funding. That may be appropriate, but we just don't think it is appropriate in this vehicle, in what ought to be a focused approach.

I reserve the balance of my time.

9:54 AM EDT

Louise Slaughter, D-NY 25th

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We spent a good time here yesterday debating and voting on a resolution to sue the President for doing his job, and we are up to about the same kind of tricks today. But if that show yesterday of the Republican obstinance wasn't enough, last night at 10:30, the majority changed the rules in the House to block efforts to achieve a long-term solution to our infrastructure problem. Can you believe that? I want my colleagues and everyone else to know what the majority is up to.

Mr. Speaker, we know and everybody knows that we need a long-term highway bill that would create more jobs and strengthen our infrastructure and provide more certainty for highway construction. And under the rules of the House--always--any Member of the House would have had the right to bring up real solutions to this problem, but not any more. In the middle of the night, the Republicans at the Rules Committee took that right away and gave it to one person, only one person out of 435: the Republican

leader. It seems that Republicans are so fixated with my way or the highway that they are even willing to change the rules of the House to block a vote.

This parliamentary trick has only been used once before in the history of the House--only once--and it was during the government shutdown that we recently experienced. While they were obsessing over how to deny people health care, they changed the rules to ensure that no one could open the government back up. None of us could bring that up except one person, just one: the Republican leader. And the last time they pulled this stunt with the government shutdown, it cost the economy of the United

States $24 billion. That is with a B.

Now, we don't know what will happen this time, but what we do know is that it is a dangerous ploy that will undermine economic recovery and job creation. The interest here today is not with the people of the United States; it is purely, absolutely a political stunt after the stunts yesterday. And the whole bill, what we are doing on the border issue, again, is simply a diversionary tactic that signifies not much.

9:54 AM EDT

Louise Slaughter, D-NY 25th

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We spent a good time here yesterday debating and voting on a resolution to sue the President for doing his job, and we are up to about the same kind of tricks today. But if that show yesterday of the Republican obstinance wasn't enough, last night at 10:30, the majority changed the rules in the House to block efforts to achieve a long-term solution to our infrastructure problem. Can you believe that? I want my colleagues and everyone else to know what the majority is up to.

Mr. Speaker, we know and everybody knows that we need a long-term highway bill that would create more jobs and strengthen our infrastructure and provide more certainty for highway construction. And under the rules of the House--always--any Member of the House would have had the right to bring up real solutions to this problem, but not any more. In the middle of the night, the Republicans at the Rules Committee took that right away and gave it to one person, only one person out of 435: the Republican

leader. It seems that Republicans are so fixated with my way or the highway that they are even willing to change the rules of the House to block a vote.

This parliamentary trick has only been used once before in the history of the House--only once--and it was during the government shutdown that we recently experienced. While they were obsessing over how to deny people health care, they changed the rules to ensure that no one could open the government back up. None of us could bring that up except one person, just one: the Republican leader. And the last time they pulled this stunt with the government shutdown, it cost the economy of the United

States $24 billion. That is with a B.

Now, we don't know what will happen this time, but what we do know is that it is a dangerous ploy that will undermine economic recovery and job creation. The interest here today is not with the people of the United States; it is purely, absolutely a political stunt after the stunts yesterday. And the whole bill, what we are doing on the border issue, again, is simply a diversionary tactic that signifies not much.

9:57 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me pull us back from arguing about rules and procedures to what the real essence of the conflict on the transportation bill is: 357 Members, an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, voted to send the transportation bill to the United States Senate.

That bill, by the way, ran through, if I recall correctly, May of next year, giving us enough time to actually then come to what I know both sides want, and that is a longer-term highway bill.

What the Senate did was send us back something with fewer dollars and a shorter timeframe that actually reaches simply into December, meaning a lame duck Congress would have to deal with the transportation deal. Not likely to happen, particularly [Page: H7138]

when we will also be dealing with the omnibus spending bill since the Senate, in its infinite wisdom, has been unable to pass a single appropriations bill.

So I think cluttering the calendar with the transportation fund dispute and problem in a short timeframe simply isn't wise. We think it was a political game on the part of the United States Senate. But regardless, the position of this House as expressed by a bipartisan vote of 357, is overwhelmingly clear. We want to expedite that and get it back to the other side so hopefully they can see that type of gamesmanship doesn't work and they accede to the position that, frankly, both sides of this

Chamber adopted in overwhelming numbers.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

9:57 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me pull us back from arguing about rules and procedures to what the real essence of the conflict on the transportation bill is: 357 Members, an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, voted to send the transportation bill to the United States Senate.

That bill, by the way, ran through, if I recall correctly, May of next year, giving us enough time to actually then come to what I know both sides want, and that is a longer-term highway bill.

What the Senate did was send us back something with fewer dollars and a shorter timeframe that actually reaches simply into December, meaning a lame duck Congress would have to deal with the transportation deal. Not likely to happen, particularly [Page: H7138]

when we will also be dealing with the omnibus spending bill since the Senate, in its infinite wisdom, has been unable to pass a single appropriations bill.

So I think cluttering the calendar with the transportation fund dispute and problem in a short timeframe simply isn't wise. We think it was a political game on the part of the United States Senate. But regardless, the position of this House as expressed by a bipartisan vote of 357, is overwhelmingly clear. We want to expedite that and get it back to the other side so hopefully they can see that type of gamesmanship doesn't work and they accede to the position that, frankly, both sides of this

Chamber adopted in overwhelming numbers.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

9:58 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the do-nothingism of the 19th century, the anti-immigrant fervor of that time, is alive and well here today in the House. Republicans are overwhelmed with fear. They are fearful of immigrants. They are fearful of little children at our border. But I think most of all, they are fearful of their own shadows--fearful that if they try to deal with any of the major problems that our country faces, that they might suffer political losses. So it is not only know-nothingism,

it is do-next-to-nothing that prevails today.

Even when the Republican chair of the Homeland Security Committee last May obtained unanimous committee approval for a bill that he said would secure our border, Republicans were afraid to have it debated on the floor of the House for fear that it might lead to real comprehensive immigration reform, reform that was approved by the United States Senate over a year ago for which they have offered us nothing but excuses, one excuse after another as to why we could not permit a majority of this House

to consider the best way to reform our broken immigration system.

[Time: 10:00]

Affording full participation to our DREAMers, students who came here long ago as children through no fault of their own without a visa, will not only benefit them as individuals to achieve their all, but it will create jobs and grow our economy. I met with these DREAMers. They have tremendous potential to give back to our country. Some want to deny that opportunity.

What about these children at our border? Aren't they all God's children? Aren't they our children? Don't all children deserve a chance to survive without exploitation and violence and terror? We are not asking that every one of these children be permitted to stay in the United States.

9:58 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the do-nothingism of the 19th century, the anti-immigrant fervor of that time, is alive and well here today in the House. Republicans are overwhelmed with fear. They are fearful of immigrants. They are fearful of little children at our border. But I think most of all, they are fearful of their own shadows--fearful that if they try to deal with any of the major problems that our country faces, that they might suffer political losses. So it is not only know-nothingism,

it is do-next-to-nothing that prevails today.

Even when the Republican chair of the Homeland Security Committee last May obtained unanimous committee approval for a bill that he said would secure our border, Republicans were afraid to have it debated on the floor of the House for fear that it might lead to real comprehensive immigration reform, reform that was approved by the United States Senate over a year ago for which they have offered us nothing but excuses, one excuse after another as to why we could not permit a majority of this House

to consider the best way to reform our broken immigration system.

[Time: 10:00]

Affording full participation to our DREAMers, students who came here long ago as children through no fault of their own without a visa, will not only benefit them as individuals to achieve their all, but it will create jobs and grow our economy. I met with these DREAMers. They have tremendous potential to give back to our country. Some want to deny that opportunity.

What about these children at our border? Aren't they all God's children? Aren't they our children? Don't all children deserve a chance to survive without exploitation and violence and terror? We are not asking that every one of these children be permitted to stay in the United States.

10:01 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. We are not asking for amnesty, but how about just a little decency, a little civility, a little humanity, how about just following existing law, going after the smugglers, and providing the supplemental resources needed to see that their rights are protected?

I believe that children who came here seeking refuge in this country at least deserve a fair adjudication, not to be met with the barrel of a gun and a one-way ticket back without considering whether they are justly in this country.

10:01 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a subject on which, obviously, there is considerable passion and considerable emotion. I respect that on all sides.

I will remind my friends who are insisting on immigration, they did actually control the Chamber for 4 years and didn't bring up an immigration bill ever, had two different Presidents who would have signed anything that they cared to pass, and never introduced one.

10:02 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, I thought we were talking about comprehensive immigration reform--safely after an election I might add.

But the President of the United States, who ran in 2008, saying he would have a bill on the floor within 100 days, didn't do it.

My friends had basically complete control of this Chamber and the other Chamber. They demonstrated that by passing, again, ObamaCare without a single Republican vote, passing Dodd-Frank, and passing the stimulus bill, so they had the ability to do this and chose not to do it. That is their right. They were in the majority. But please don't lecture us on people stopping individual bills.

We have 350 bills, by the way, this Chamber has passed, sitting and waiting for the Senate to consider any of them, any of them. So I recognize, again, there is a great deal of passion here, but that is not what this debate is about.

This debate is about a border crisis that we both recognize exist. This debate is to give the President additional resources to deal with that, even though he in some measure contributed to creating it. And this debate is to make sure that we send the message unmistakably: if you subject children to this journey and pay criminals thousands of dollars to bring them across, they are not likely to get to stay--a point that the President of the United States has made. He has said a majority of these

children are going to go home. If my friends have a quarrel with that, they should direct that to the President, not to us.

In this case, we do think if you don't discourage that, you are going to feed criminal behavior. You are going to put these children at risk, and you are going to destroy the society from which they came.

I don't think we can in a single bill have an overall solution to this problem of this level. I personally think it is going to take an effort somewhat similar to what we did in Colombia--in a bipartisan sense, I might add--on the drug trade, where we invested considerable resources in Colombia to help them deal with that problem. I am not going to tell you it is perfect there, but it is considerably better than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

So that is where we worked together constructively and did something good for those societies and something good for our own country. That will probably be the model that has to emerge again in Central America.

But, again, that is a problem far ahead of us and legislative in scope. This is a response to a crisis. We think it is the appropriate response.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

10:02 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, I thought we were talking about comprehensive immigration reform--safely after an election I might add.

But the President of the United States, who ran in 2008, saying he would have a bill on the floor within 100 days, didn't do it.

My friends had basically complete control of this Chamber and the other Chamber. They demonstrated that by passing, again, ObamaCare without a single Republican vote, passing Dodd-Frank, and passing the stimulus bill, so they had the ability to do this and chose not to do it. That is their right. They were in the majority. But please don't lecture us on people stopping individual bills.

We have 350 bills, by the way, this Chamber has passed, sitting and waiting for the Senate to consider any of them, any of them. So I recognize, again, there is a great deal of passion here, but that is not what this debate is about.

This debate is about a border crisis that we both recognize exist. This debate is to give the President additional resources to deal with that, even though he in some measure contributed to creating it. And this debate is to make sure that we send the message unmistakably: if you subject children to this journey and pay criminals thousands of dollars to bring them across, they are not likely to get to stay--a point that the President of the United States has made. He has said a majority of these

children are going to go home. If my friends have a quarrel with that, they should direct that to the President, not to us.

In this case, we do think if you don't discourage that, you are going to feed criminal behavior. You are going to put these children at risk, and you are going to destroy the society from which they came.

I don't think we can in a single bill have an overall solution to this problem of this level. I personally think it is going to take an effort somewhat similar to what we did in Colombia--in a bipartisan sense, I might add--on the drug trade, where we invested considerable resources in Colombia to help them deal with that problem. I am not going to tell you it is perfect there, but it is considerably better than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

So that is where we worked together constructively and did something good for those societies and something good for our own country. That will probably be the model that has to emerge again in Central America.

But, again, that is a problem far ahead of us and legislative in scope. This is a response to a crisis. We think it is the appropriate response.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

10:02 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, I thought we were talking about comprehensive immigration reform--safely after an election I might add.

But the President of the United States, who ran in 2008, saying he would have a bill on the floor within 100 days, didn't do it.

My friends had basically complete control of this Chamber and the other Chamber. They demonstrated that by passing, again, ObamaCare without a single Republican vote, passing Dodd-Frank, and passing the stimulus bill, so they had the ability to do this and chose not to do it. That is their right. They were in the majority. But please don't lecture us on people stopping individual bills.

We have 350 bills, by the way, this Chamber has passed, sitting and waiting for the Senate to consider any of them, any of them. So I recognize, again, there is a great deal of passion here, but that is not what this debate is about.

This debate is about a border crisis that we both recognize exist. This debate is to give the President additional resources to deal with that, even though he in some measure contributed to creating it. And this debate is to make sure that we send the message unmistakably: if you subject children to this journey and pay criminals thousands of dollars to bring them across, they are not likely to get to stay--a point that the President of the United States has made. He has said a majority of these

children are going to go home. If my friends have a quarrel with that, they should direct that to the President, not to us.

In this case, we do think if you don't discourage that, you are going to feed criminal behavior. You are going to put these children at risk, and you are going to destroy the society from which they came.

I don't think we can in a single bill have an overall solution to this problem of this level. I personally think it is going to take an effort somewhat similar to what we did in Colombia--in a bipartisan sense, I might add--on the drug trade, where we invested considerable resources in Colombia to help them deal with that problem. I am not going to tell you it is perfect there, but it is considerably better than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

So that is where we worked together constructively and did something good for those societies and something good for our own country. That will probably be the model that has to emerge again in Central America.

But, again, that is a problem far ahead of us and legislative in scope. This is a response to a crisis. We think it is the appropriate response.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

10:05 AM EDT

Joe Garcia, D-FL 26th

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a 17-year-old Guatemalan boy who received asylum because a gang killed his father and they were threatening him.

Cesar, a 17-year old boy from Guatemala, lost his father to gang violence at the age of 4. For 13 years, Cesar was harassed by the same gang who killed his father. When he refused to join the gang, he feared for his life and fled the country, swimming across the Rio Grande to cross the border. He was granted asylum, loves school and hopes to attend college.

Cesar--Asylum

Cesar, from Guatemala, was four years old when his father was killed by gangs in their community. The gang members were never arrested and continued to live in the town. They started harassing Cesar when he was very young and never stopped. He was very scared but there was no way he could get away from them.

By the time he turned 17, Cesar could not stand the gang harassment any more. The gangs were trying very hard to get him to join and he was very afraid he was going to be killed. He decided to make the journey to the United States. He said was very hard; sometimes he didn't think he would survive. He swam across the Rio Grande to cross the border. A pro bono attorney KIND matched him with from Kirkland & Ellis helped him gain asylum. He loves school and wants to attend college.

10:05 AM EDT

Zoe Lofgren, D-CA 19th

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of an 11-year-old Salvadoran boy who is applying for asylum because he was threatened by gang members who killed his cousin and who suffered severe domestic abuse.

Andres is an 11-year-old Salvadoran boy, abused by his caretakers and fleeing gang violence after his cousin was killed, he entered the U.S. to reunite with his mother, grandmother (USC), and extended family. He entered in July 2013 when he was 10 years old. He is applying for asylum.

10:06 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. When these requests are submitted, the Members are merely stating the title of the document that is being submitted, which clearly has to have a name. I want a clarification as to whether that is charged to our time, if they are simply submitting a document and telling you the name of that document?

10:07 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Again, Mr. Speaker, I inquire--I would like your judgment, in fact--on when these motions are made and the document is submitted, clearly the document that is being referred to has to be referred to in the remarks. These Members are submitting a document, and they are, in fact, naming that document that they are submitting. I want to ensure that that complies with the Chair's interpretation of the House rules.

10:08 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a young Honduran girl the age of my granddaughter, who fled domestic violence and kidnapping. The document is from Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and it is entitled: ``Voices of Central American Youth--Why They Are Fleeing Their Countries.''

Laura, an 8 year old girl from Honduras fled domestic violence and kidnapping. Laura was living in Honduras with her aunt while mother was in the U.S. working to provide for her family. One day a man she called ``step-father'' who was an ex-boyfriend of her mother's, kidnapped her from her aunt's care. Laura's mother in the U.S. said she could not report the kidnapping to authorities as they would do nothing. This step-father beat Laura daily with belts and pieces of wood, resulting in bruises,

bleeding, and leaving visible scars on her body. On multiple occasions, he also threatened to kill her with a gun. The step father finally threatened Laura's mother that he would kill the Laura if her mother did not send him money. Laura's mother was finally able to save and send a large amount of money to the step-father and Laura was able to escape to come live with her in the U.S. A child like Laura might apply for asylum.

10:08 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a young Honduran girl the age of my granddaughter, who fled domestic violence and kidnapping. The document is from Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and it is entitled: ``Voices of Central American Youth--Why They Are Fleeing Their Countries.''

Laura, an 8 year old girl from Honduras fled domestic violence and kidnapping. Laura was living in Honduras with her aunt while mother was in the U.S. working to provide for her family. One day a man she called ``step-father'' who was an ex-boyfriend of her mother's, kidnapped her from her aunt's care. Laura's mother in the U.S. said she could not report the kidnapping to authorities as they would do nothing. This step-father beat Laura daily with belts and pieces of wood, resulting in bruises,

bleeding, and leaving visible scars on her body. On multiple occasions, he also threatened to kill her with a gun. The step father finally threatened Laura's mother that he would kill the Laura if her mother did not send him money. Laura's mother was finally able to save and send a large amount of money to the step-father and Laura was able to escape to come live with her in the U.S. A child like Laura might apply for asylum.

10:10 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair provide advice, so that my colleagues will understand what it was in reading the title and the source of the document that described the tragedy of this little Honduran girl seeking refuge in our country, constituted debate, rather than simply identifying the title?

10:10 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair provide advice, so that my colleagues will understand what it was in reading the title and the source of the document that described the tragedy of this little Honduran girl seeking refuge in our country, constituted debate, rather than simply identifying the title?

10:10 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, without any guidance to my colleagues as to how they can present documents within the rules of the House without reading the title and the source of the document, can the Speaker describe anything about my remarks that differed from any of the other remarks that were given by my colleagues, other than the reading of the title and the source from Lutheran Services of this young girl who sought refuge in our country?

10:11 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, without any guidance to my colleagues as to how they can present documents within the rules of the House without reading the title and the source of the document, can the Speaker describe anything about my remarks that differed from any of the other remarks that were given by my colleagues, other than the reading of the title and the source from Lutheran Services of this young girl who sought refuge in our country?

10:11 AM EDT

Lloyd Doggett, D-TX 35th

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, without any guidance to my colleagues as to how they can present documents within the rules of the House without reading the title and the source of the document, can the Speaker describe anything about my remarks that differed from any of the other remarks that were given by my colleagues, other than the reading of the title and the source from Lutheran Services of this young girl who sought refuge in our country?

10:11 AM EDT

Jim McGovern, D-MA 2nd

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a 15-year-old Salvadoran boy who has requested asylum because local gang members threatened to kill him after he refused to sell drugs for them.

PANGEA LEGAL SERVICES CLIENT STORY

Jose is 15-years-old. He grew up in El Salvador with his grandparents. His parents immigrated to the United States when Jose was still a toddler, and he had not seen them since. Jose considered his grandparents as his parents and wished nothing but to continue living with them and his little brother. In April 2013, at age 14, Jose was forced to flee his country after gangs threatened to kill him if he didn't sell drugs for them. The family suspects that Jose was targeted by the gang because Jose's

uncle is the mayor of the small Salvadoran town, and has attempted to establish rehabilitation and anti-gang programs for several years. Jose is in removal proceedings and his asylum application is currently pending with USCIS.

10:11 AM EDT

Jim McGovern, D-MA 2nd

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a 15-year-old Salvadoran boy who has requested asylum because local gang members threatened to kill him after he refused to sell drugs for them.

PANGEA LEGAL SERVICES CLIENT STORY

Jose is 15-years-old. He grew up in El Salvador with his grandparents. His parents immigrated to the United States when Jose was still a toddler, and he had not seen them since. Jose considered his grandparents as his parents and wished nothing but to continue living with them and his little brother. In April 2013, at age 14, Jose was forced to flee his country after gangs threatened to kill him if he didn't sell drugs for them. The family suspects that Jose was targeted by the gang because Jose's

uncle is the mayor of the small Salvadoran town, and has attempted to establish rehabilitation and anti-gang programs for several years. Jose is in removal proceedings and his asylum application is currently pending with USCIS.

10:12 AM EDT

Ben Ray Luján, D-NM 3rd

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a young Honduran girl who resisted being robbed for $5, was clubbed over the head, dragged out by two men who cut a hole in her throat and left her in a ravine.

[From the New York Times, July 11, 2014]

The Children of the Drug Wars

(By Sonia Nazario)

Cristian Omar Reyes, an 11-year-old sixth grader in the neighborhood of Nueva Suyapa, on the outskirts of Tegucigalpa, tells me he has to get out of Honduras soon--``no matter what.''

In March, his father was robbed and murdered by gangs while working as a security guard protecting a pastry truck. His mother used the life insurance payout to hire a smuggler to take her to Florida. She promised to send for him quickly, but she has not.

Three people he knows were murdered this year. Four others were gunned down on a nearby corner in the span of two weeks at the beginning of this year. A girl his age resisted being robbed of $5. She was clubbed over the head and dragged off by two men who cut a hole in her throat, stuffed her panties in it, and left her body in a ravine across the street from Cristian's house.

``I'm going this year,'' he tells me.

I last went to Nueva Suyapa in 2003, to write about another boy, Luis Enrique Motiño Pineda, who had grown up there and left to find his mother in the United States. Children from Central America have been making that journey, often without their parents, for two decades. But lately something has changed, and the predictable flow has turned into an exodus. Three years ago, about 6,800 children were detained by United States immigration authorities and placed in federal custody; this year,

as many as 90,000 children are expected to be picked up. Around a quarter come from Honduras--more than from anywhere else.

Children still leave Honduras to reunite with a parent, or for better educational and economic opportunities. But, as I learned when I returned to Nueva Suyapa last month, a vast majority of child migrants are fleeing not poverty, but violence. As a result, what the United States is seeing on its borders now is not an immigration crisis. It is a refugee crisis.

Gangs arrived in force in Honduras in the 1990s, as 18th Street and Mara Salvatrucha members were deported in large numbers from Los Angeles to Central America, joining homegrown groups like Los Puchos. But the dominance in the past few years of foreign drug cartels in Honduras, especially ones from Mexico, has increased the reach and viciousness of the violence. As the [Page: H7141]

United States and Colombia spent billions of dollars to disrupt the movement of drugs

up the Caribbean corridor, traffickers rerouted inland through Honduras, and 79 percent of cocaine-smuggling flights bound for the United States now pass through there.

Narco groups and gangs are vying for control over this turf, neighborhood by neighborhood, to gain more foot soldiers for drug sales and distribution, expand their customer base, and make money through extortion in a country left with an especially weak, corrupt government following a 2009 coup.

Enrique's 33-year-old sister, Belky, who still lives in Nueva Suyapa, says children began leaving en masse for the United States three years ago. That was around the time that the narcos started putting serious pressure on kids to work for them. At Cristian's school, older students working with the cartels push drugs on the younger ones--some as young as 6. If they agree, children are recruited to serve as lookouts, make deliveries in backpacks, rob people and extort businesses. They are given

food, shoes and money in return. Later, they might work as traffickers or hit men.

Teachers at Cristian's school described a 12-year-old who demanded that the school release three students one day to help him distribute crack cocaine; he brandished a pistol and threatened to kill a teacher when she tried to question him.

At Nueva Suyapa's only public high school, narcos ``recruit inside the school,'' says Yadira Sauceda, a counselor there. Until he was killed a few weeks ago, a 23-year-old ``student'' controlled the school. Each day, he was checked by security at the door, then had someone sneak his gun to him over the school wall. Five students, mostly 12- and 13-year-olds, tearfully told Ms. Sauceda that the man had ordered them to use and distribute drugs or he would kill their parents. By March, one month

into the new school year, 67 of 450 students had left the school.

Teachers must pay a ``war tax'' to teach in certain neighborhoods, and students must pay to attend.

Carlos Baquedano Sanchez, a slender 14-year-old with hair sticking straight up, explained how hard it was to stay away from the cartels. He lives in a shack made of corrugated tin in a neighborhood in Nueva Suyapa called El Infiernito--Little Hell--and usually doesn't have anything to eat one out of every three days. He started working in a dump when he was 7, picking out iron or copper to recycle, for $1 or $2 a day. But bigger boys often beat him to steal his haul, and he quit a year ago

when an older man nearly killed him for a coveted car-engine piston. Now he sells scrap wood.

But all of this was nothing, he says, compared to the relentless pressure to join narco gangs and the constant danger they have brought to his life. When he was 9, he barely escaped from two narcos who were trying to rape him, while terrified neighbors looked on. When he was 10, he was pressured to try marijuana and crack. ``You'll feel better. Like you are in the clouds,'' a teenager working with a gang told him. But he resisted.

He has known eight people who were murdered and seen three killed right in front of him. He saw a man shot three years ago and still remembers the plums the man was holding rolling down the street, coated in blood. Recently he witnessed two teenage hit men shooting a pair of brothers for refusing to hand over the keys and title to their motorcycle. Carlos hit the dirt and prayed. The killers calmly walked down the street. Carlos shrugs. ``Now seeing someone dead is nothing.''

He longs to be an engineer or mechanic, but he quit school after sixth grade, too poor and too afraid to attend. ``A lot of kids know what can happen in school. So they leave.''

He wants to go to the United States, even though he knows how dangerous the journey can be; a man in his neighborhood lost both legs after falling off the top of a Mexican freight train, and a family friend drowned in the Rio Grande. ``I want to avoid drugs and death. The government can't pull up its pants and help people,'' he says angrily. ``My country has lost its way.''

Girls face particular dangers--one reason around 40 percent of children who arrived in the United States this year were girls, compared with 27 percent in the past. Recently three girls were raped and killed in Nueva Suyapa, one only 8 years old. Two 15-year-olds were abducted and raped. The kidnappers told them that if they didn't get in the car they would kill their entire families. Some parents no longer let their girls go to school for fear of their being kidnapped, says Luis López,

an educator with Asociación Compartir, a nonprofit in Nueva Suyapa.

Milagro Noemi Martínez, a petite 19-year-old with clear green eyes, has been told repeatedly by narcos that she would be theirs--or end up dead. Last summer, she made her first attempt to reach the United States. ``Here there is only evil,'' she says. ``It's better to leave than have them kill me here.'' She headed north with her 21-year-old sister, a friend who had also been threatened, and $170 among them. But she was stopped and deported from Mexico. Now back in Nueva Suyapa, she stays

locked inside her mother's house. ``I hope God protects me. I am afraid to step outside.'' Last year, she says, six minors, as young as 15, were killed in her neighborhood. Some were hacked apart. She plans to try the journey again soon. Asking for help from the police or the government is not an option in what some consider a failed state. The drugs that pass through Honduras each year are worth more than the country's entire gross domestic product.

Narcos have bought off police officers, politicians and judges. In recent years, four out of five homicides were never investigated. No one is immune to the carnage. Several Honduran mayors have been killed. The sons of both the former head of the police department and the head of the national university were murdered, the latter, an investigation showed, by the police.

``You never call the cops. The cops themselves will retaliate and kill you,'' says Henry Carías Aguilar, a pastor in Nueva Suyapa. A majority of small businesses in Nueva Suyapa have shuttered because of extortion demands, while churches have doubled in number in the past decade, as people pray for salvation from what they see as the plague predicted in the Bible. Taxis and homes have signs on them asking God for mercy.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently interviewed 404 children who had arrived in the United States from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico; 58 percent said their primary reason for leaving was violence. (A similar survey in 2006, of Central American children coming into Mexico, found that only 13 percent were fleeing violence.) They aren't just going to the United States: Less conflicted countries in Central America had a 712 percent increase in asylum claims between

2008 and 2013.

``If a house is burning, people will jump out the window,'' says Michelle Brané, director of the migrant rights and justice program at the Women's Refugee Commission.

To permanently stem this flow of children, we must address the complex root causes of violence in Honduras, as well as the demand for illegal drugs in the United States that is fueling that violence.

In the meantime, however, we must recognize this as a refugee crisis, as the United Nations just recommended. These children are facing threats similar to the forceful conscription of child soldiers by warlords in Sudan or during the civil war in Bosnia. Being forced to sell drugs by narcos is no different from being forced into military service.

Many Americans, myself included, believe in deporting unlawful immigrants, but see a different imperative with refugees.

The United States should immediately create emergency refugee centers inside our borders, tent cities--operated by the United Nations and other relief groups like the International Rescue Committee--where immigrant children could be held for 60 to 90 days instead of being released. The government would post immigration judges at these centers and adjudicate children's cases there.

To ensure this isn't a sham process, asylum officers and judges must be trained in child-sensitive interviewing techniques to help elicit information from fearful, traumatized youngsters. All children must also be represented by a volunteer or government-funded lawyer. Kids in Need of Defense, a nonprofit that recruits pro bono lawyers to represent immigrant children and whose board I serve on, estimates that 40 percent to 60 percent of these children potentially qualify to stay under current

immigration laws--and do, if they have a lawyer by their side. The vast majority do not. The only way to ensure we are not hurtling children back to circumstances that could cost them their lives is by providing them with real due process.

Judges, who currently deny seven in 10 applications for asylum by people who are in deportation proceedings, must better understand the conditions these children are facing. They should be more open to considering relief for those fleeing gang recruitment or threats by criminal organizations when they come from countries like Honduras that are clearly unwilling or unable to protect them.

If many children don't meet strict asylum criteria but face significant dangers if they return, the United States should consider allowing them to stay using humanitarian parole procedures we have employed in the past, for Cambodians and Haitians. It may be possible to transfer children and resettle them in other safe countries willing to share the burden. We should also make it easier for children to apply as refugees when they are still in Central America, as we have done for people in Iraq,

Cuba, countries in the former Soviet Union, Vietnam and Haiti. Those who showed a well-founded fear of persecution wouldn't have to make the perilous journey north alone.

Of course, many migrant children come for economic reasons, and not because they fear for their lives. In those cases, they should quickly be deported if they have at least one parent in their country of origin. By deporting them directly from the refugee centers, the United States would discourage future non-refugees by showing that immigrants cannot be caught and released, and then avoid deportation by ignoring court orders to attend immigration hearings.

Instead of advocating such a humane, practical approach, the Obama administration wants to intercept and return children en route. On Tuesday the president asked for $3.7 billion in emergency funding. Some money would be spent on new detention facilities and more immigration judges, but the main goal seems to be to strengthen border control and speed up deportations. He also asked Congress to grant powers that could eliminate legal protections for children from Central America in order to expedite

removals, a change that Republicans in Congress have also advocated. [Page: H7142]

This would allow life-or-death decisions to be made within hours by Homeland Security officials, even though studies have shown that border patrol agents fail to adequately screen Mexican children to see if they are being sexually exploited by traffickers or fear persecution, as the agents are supposed to do. Why would they start asking Central American children key questions needed to prove refugee status?

The United States expects other countries to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees on humanitarian grounds. Countries neighboring Syria have absorbed nearly 3 million people. Jordan has accepted in two days what the United States has received in an entire month during the height of this immigration flow--more than 9,000 children in May. The United States should also increase to pre-9/11 levels the number of refugees we accept to 90,000 from the current 70,000 per year and, unlike in recent

years, actually admit that many.

By sending these children away, ``you are handing them a death sentence,'' says José Arnulfo Ochoa Ochoa, an expert in Honduras with World Vision International, a Christian humanitarian aid group. This abrogates international conventions we have signed and undermines our credibility as a humane country. It would be a disgrace if this wealthy nation turned its back on the 52,000 children who have arrived since October, many of them legitimate refugees.

This is not how a great nation treats children.

10:12 AM EDT

Ben Ray Luján, D-NM 3rd

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a young Honduran girl who resisted being robbed for $5, was clubbed over the head, dragged out by two men who cut a hole in her throat and left her in a ravine.

[From the New York Times, July 11, 2014]

The Children of the Drug Wars

(By Sonia Nazario)

Cristian Omar Reyes, an 11-year-old sixth grader in the neighborhood of Nueva Suyapa, on the outskirts of Tegucigalpa, tells me he has to get out of Honduras soon--``no matter what.''

In March, his father was robbed and murdered by gangs while working as a security guard protecting a pastry truck. His mother used the life insurance payout to hire a smuggler to take her to Florida. She promised to send for him quickly, but she has not.

Three people he knows were murdered this year. Four others were gunned down on a nearby corner in the span of two weeks at the beginning of this year. A girl his age resisted being robbed of $5. She was clubbed over the head and dragged off by two men who cut a hole in her throat, stuffed her panties in it, and left her body in a ravine across the street from Cristian's house.

``I'm going this year,'' he tells me.

I last went to Nueva Suyapa in 2003, to write about another boy, Luis Enrique Motiño Pineda, who had grown up there and left to find his mother in the United States. Children from Central America have been making that journey, often without their parents, for two decades. But lately something has changed, and the predictable flow has turned into an exodus. Three years ago, about 6,800 children were detained by United States immigration authorities and placed in federal custody; this year,

as many as 90,000 children are expected to be picked up. Around a quarter come from Honduras--more than from anywhere else.

Children still leave Honduras to reunite with a parent, or for better educational and economic opportunities. But, as I learned when I returned to Nueva Suyapa last month, a vast majority of child migrants are fleeing not poverty, but violence. As a result, what the United States is seeing on its borders now is not an immigration crisis. It is a refugee crisis.

Gangs arrived in force in Honduras in the 1990s, as 18th Street and Mara Salvatrucha members were deported in large numbers from Los Angeles to Central America, joining homegrown groups like Los Puchos. But the dominance in the past few years of foreign drug cartels in Honduras, especially ones from Mexico, has increased the reach and viciousness of the violence. As the [Page: H7141]

United States and Colombia spent billions of dollars to disrupt the movement of drugs

up the Caribbean corridor, traffickers rerouted inland through Honduras, and 79 percent of cocaine-smuggling flights bound for the United States now pass through there.

Narco groups and gangs are vying for control over this turf, neighborhood by neighborhood, to gain more foot soldiers for drug sales and distribution, expand their customer base, and make money through extortion in a country left with an especially weak, corrupt government following a 2009 coup.

Enrique's 33-year-old sister, Belky, who still lives in Nueva Suyapa, says children began leaving en masse for the United States three years ago. That was around the time that the narcos started putting serious pressure on kids to work for them. At Cristian's school, older students working with the cartels push drugs on the younger ones--some as young as 6. If they agree, children are recruited to serve as lookouts, make deliveries in backpacks, rob people and extort businesses. They are given

food, shoes and money in return. Later, they might work as traffickers or hit men.

Teachers at Cristian's school described a 12-year-old who demanded that the school release three students one day to help him distribute crack cocaine; he brandished a pistol and threatened to kill a teacher when she tried to question him.

At Nueva Suyapa's only public high school, narcos ``recruit inside the school,'' says Yadira Sauceda, a counselor there. Until he was killed a few weeks ago, a 23-year-old ``student'' controlled the school. Each day, he was checked by security at the door, then had someone sneak his gun to him over the school wall. Five students, mostly 12- and 13-year-olds, tearfully told Ms. Sauceda that the man had ordered them to use and distribute drugs or he would kill their parents. By March, one month

into the new school year, 67 of 450 students had left the school.

Teachers must pay a ``war tax'' to teach in certain neighborhoods, and students must pay to attend.

Carlos Baquedano Sanchez, a slender 14-year-old with hair sticking straight up, explained how hard it was to stay away from the cartels. He lives in a shack made of corrugated tin in a neighborhood in Nueva Suyapa called El Infiernito--Little Hell--and usually doesn't have anything to eat one out of every three days. He started working in a dump when he was 7, picking out iron or copper to recycle, for $1 or $2 a day. But bigger boys often beat him to steal his haul, and he quit a year ago

when an older man nearly killed him for a coveted car-engine piston. Now he sells scrap wood.

But all of this was nothing, he says, compared to the relentless pressure to join narco gangs and the constant danger they have brought to his life. When he was 9, he barely escaped from two narcos who were trying to rape him, while terrified neighbors looked on. When he was 10, he was pressured to try marijuana and crack. ``You'll feel better. Like you are in the clouds,'' a teenager working with a gang told him. But he resisted.

He has known eight people who were murdered and seen three killed right in front of him. He saw a man shot three years ago and still remembers the plums the man was holding rolling down the street, coated in blood. Recently he witnessed two teenage hit men shooting a pair of brothers for refusing to hand over the keys and title to their motorcycle. Carlos hit the dirt and prayed. The killers calmly walked down the street. Carlos shrugs. ``Now seeing someone dead is nothing.''

He longs to be an engineer or mechanic, but he quit school after sixth grade, too poor and too afraid to attend. ``A lot of kids know what can happen in school. So they leave.''

He wants to go to the United States, even though he knows how dangerous the journey can be; a man in his neighborhood lost both legs after falling off the top of a Mexican freight train, and a family friend drowned in the Rio Grande. ``I want to avoid drugs and death. The government can't pull up its pants and help people,'' he says angrily. ``My country has lost its way.''

Girls face particular dangers--one reason around 40 percent of children who arrived in the United States this year were girls, compared with 27 percent in the past. Recently three girls were raped and killed in Nueva Suyapa, one only 8 years old. Two 15-year-olds were abducted and raped. The kidnappers told them that if they didn't get in the car they would kill their entire families. Some parents no longer let their girls go to school for fear of their being kidnapped, says Luis López,

an educator with Asociación Compartir, a nonprofit in Nueva Suyapa.

Milagro Noemi Martínez, a petite 19-year-old with clear green eyes, has been told repeatedly by narcos that she would be theirs--or end up dead. Last summer, she made her first attempt to reach the United States. ``Here there is only evil,'' she says. ``It's better to leave than have them kill me here.'' She headed north with her 21-year-old sister, a friend who had also been threatened, and $170 among them. But she was stopped and deported from Mexico. Now back in Nueva Suyapa, she stays

locked inside her mother's house. ``I hope God protects me. I am afraid to step outside.'' Last year, she says, six minors, as young as 15, were killed in her neighborhood. Some were hacked apart. She plans to try the journey again soon. Asking for help from the police or the government is not an option in what some consider a failed state. The drugs that pass through Honduras each year are worth more than the country's entire gross domestic product.

Narcos have bought off police officers, politicians and judges. In recent years, four out of five homicides were never investigated. No one is immune to the carnage. Several Honduran mayors have been killed. The sons of both the former head of the police department and the head of the national university were murdered, the latter, an investigation showed, by the police.

``You never call the cops. The cops themselves will retaliate and kill you,'' says Henry Carías Aguilar, a pastor in Nueva Suyapa. A majority of small businesses in Nueva Suyapa have shuttered because of extortion demands, while churches have doubled in number in the past decade, as people pray for salvation from what they see as the plague predicted in the Bible. Taxis and homes have signs on them asking God for mercy.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently interviewed 404 children who had arrived in the United States from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico; 58 percent said their primary reason for leaving was violence. (A similar survey in 2006, of Central American children coming into Mexico, found that only 13 percent were fleeing violence.) They aren't just going to the United States: Less conflicted countries in Central America had a 712 percent increase in asylum claims between

2008 and 2013.

``If a house is burning, people will jump out the window,'' says Michelle Brané, director of the migrant rights and justice program at the Women's Refugee Commission.

To permanently stem this flow of children, we must address the complex root causes of violence in Honduras, as well as the demand for illegal drugs in the United States that is fueling that violence.

In the meantime, however, we must recognize this as a refugee crisis, as the United Nations just recommended. These children are facing threats similar to the forceful conscription of child soldiers by warlords in Sudan or during the civil war in Bosnia. Being forced to sell drugs by narcos is no different from being forced into military service.

Many Americans, myself included, believe in deporting unlawful immigrants, but see a different imperative with refugees.

The United States should immediately create emergency refugee centers inside our borders, tent cities--operated by the United Nations and other relief groups like the International Rescue Committee--where immigrant children could be held for 60 to 90 days instead of being released. The government would post immigration judges at these centers and adjudicate children's cases there.

To ensure this isn't a sham process, asylum officers and judges must be trained in child-sensitive interviewing techniques to help elicit information from fearful, traumatized youngsters. All children must also be represented by a volunteer or government-funded lawyer. Kids in Need of Defense, a nonprofit that recruits pro bono lawyers to represent immigrant children and whose board I serve on, estimates that 40 percent to 60 percent of these children potentially qualify to stay under current

immigration laws--and do, if they have a lawyer by their side. The vast majority do not. The only way to ensure we are not hurtling children back to circumstances that could cost them their lives is by providing them with real due process.

Judges, who currently deny seven in 10 applications for asylum by people who are in deportation proceedings, must better understand the conditions these children are facing. They should be more open to considering relief for those fleeing gang recruitment or threats by criminal organizations when they come from countries like Honduras that are clearly unwilling or unable to protect them.

If many children don't meet strict asylum criteria but face significant dangers if they return, the United States should consider allowing them to stay using humanitarian parole procedures we have employed in the past, for Cambodians and Haitians. It may be possible to transfer children and resettle them in other safe countries willing to share the burden. We should also make it easier for children to apply as refugees when they are still in Central America, as we have done for people in Iraq,

Cuba, countries in the former Soviet Union, Vietnam and Haiti. Those who showed a well-founded fear of persecution wouldn't have to make the perilous journey north alone.

Of course, many migrant children come for economic reasons, and not because they fear for their lives. In those cases, they should quickly be deported if they have at least one parent in their country of origin. By deporting them directly from the refugee centers, the United States would discourage future non-refugees by showing that immigrants cannot be caught and released, and then avoid deportation by ignoring court orders to attend immigration hearings.

Instead of advocating such a humane, practical approach, the Obama administration wants to intercept and return children en route. On Tuesday the president asked for $3.7 billion in emergency funding. Some money would be spent on new detention facilities and more immigration judges, but the main goal seems to be to strengthen border control and speed up deportations. He also asked Congress to grant powers that could eliminate legal protections for children from Central America in order to expedite

removals, a change that Republicans in Congress have also advocated. [Page: H7142]

This would allow life-or-death decisions to be made within hours by Homeland Security officials, even though studies have shown that border patrol agents fail to adequately screen Mexican children to see if they are being sexually exploited by traffickers or fear persecution, as the agents are supposed to do. Why would they start asking Central American children key questions needed to prove refugee status?

The United States expects other countries to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees on humanitarian grounds. Countries neighboring Syria have absorbed nearly 3 million people. Jordan has accepted in two days what the United States has received in an entire month during the height of this immigration flow--more than 9,000 children in May. The United States should also increase to pre-9/11 levels the number of refugees we accept to 90,000 from the current 70,000 per year and, unlike in recent

years, actually admit that many.

By sending these children away, ``you are handing them a death sentence,'' says José Arnulfo Ochoa Ochoa, an expert in Honduras with World Vision International, a Christian humanitarian aid group. This abrogates international conventions we have signed and undermines our credibility as a humane country. It would be a disgrace if this wealthy nation turned its back on the 52,000 children who have arrived since October, many of them legitimate refugees.

This is not how a great nation treats children.

10:12 AM EDT

Ben Ray Luján, D-NM 3rd

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, again, if there is discretion that can be shared, that was directly from the article that I asked to be entered into the Record. On many occasions I have been on this floor and been part of many debates in the 5 years I have been honored to serve with the Congress and have used the exact same approach and have never been charged. Is there any discretion that the Speaker can give us direction on?

10:12 AM EDT

Ben Ray Luján, D-NM 3rd

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, again, if there is discretion that can be shared, that was directly from the article that I asked to be entered into the Record. On many occasions I have been on this floor and been part of many debates in the 5 years I have been honored to serve with the Congress and have used the exact same approach and have never been charged. Is there any discretion that the Speaker can give us direction on?

10:13 AM EDT

Ben Ray Luján, D-NM 3rd

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, for clarification, that is exactly what I did, which is I read a statement from the article.

I am confused, Mr. Speaker. I am just maybe a junior Member from a small farm in New Mexico, but it seems that if I am reading from the article directly, that I don't appear to be violating any rules to be charged time.

10:13 AM EDT

Ben Ray Luján, D-NM 3rd

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, for clarification, that is exactly what I did, which is I read a statement from the article.

I am confused, Mr. Speaker. I am just maybe a junior Member from a small farm in New Mexico, but it seems that if I am reading from the article directly, that I don't appear to be violating any rules to be charged time.

10:14 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for submitting that powerful testimony.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

10:15 AM EDT

Tony Cárdenas, D-CA 29th

Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record the story of an 18-year-old Mexican boy who was trafficked into the United States and held by the U.S. Marshals Service so he could testify as a material witness to some deaths that he witnessed.

Juan Antonio is an 18-year-old Mexican UAC. He fled severe cartel and criminal gang violence in his home town. His uncle, cousin, and several family members were killed before he fled from Mexico. He was trafficked to the US and initially in the US Marshals custody to testify as a material witness before being turned over to ICE and released to ORR because he was a minor.

10:15 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for submitting that powerful testimony.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

10:15 AM EDT

Louise Slaughter, D-NY 25th

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a 12-year-old girl who was trafficked for sex and labor and escaped slavery with her baby and received a T visa in the United States.

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service: Voices of Central American Youth--Why They Are Fleeing Their Countries

BACKGROUND ON THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN CENTRAL AMERICA

Since the Fall of 2011, prior to the President's announcement of DACA, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) started apprehending significantly more unaccompanied minors from Central America. ORR promptly started to open more shelters and detention sites for these children.

Updated data from the UNHCR, has shown a 712% increase in asylum requests in Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Belize by nationals from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

ORR has reported a significant increase in both younger children and girls coming.

Maria, a 12 year old girl from Central America, was trafficked for labor and sex, she fled with her baby to escape slavery. Maria was 12 years old, when she was kidnapped at gunpoint and taken to a home where she was held captive. She was beaten and raped on an almost daily basis and eventually forced into prostitution. Because of this she became pregnant and gave birth to a girl while captive. Maria fled with her child, riding on top of trains so that they might escape the sexual bondage. Maria

ended up qualifying for a T-visa and is currently doing well She has now graduated high school.

10:16 AM EDT

Sam Farr, D-CA 20th

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in the well to appeal to my Republican colleagues about this debate, which isn't about the underlying bill, it is about the rule. You ought to all be worried. We all ought to be worried. This rule is a sham to the institution of Congress.

I am an appropriator, and I am proud to do that. We respect the jurisdiction of all other committees. That is why we have standing committees. We don't do their business.

This rule ignores all the standing committees in Congress. This rule says you can write a bill in the darkness of night. Nobody has read it. No Republicans read it, no Democrats read it. You can pick it up in the hallway here. I read it this morning.

The rule waives all points of opposition, which we say in this rule, ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.''

All points--that means all the ideas of all the committees that are supposed to be writing these bills. Nobody is going to be thanked if they vote for this. First of all, nobody is going to thank you for voting for the rule because it does so many things that misjudge the purpose of Congress, misappropriate the purposes of Congress, which is to have transparency and allow people to get into the debate.

Nobody who understands the problem in the embassies of the host country was able to testify. Nobody in the administration who deals with the border was able to testify. No Member of Congress who has some knowledge about this was able to testify. This bill says: So what? We wrote the bill, and you just have to accept it, and if you any objections, we waive all those points of orders.

So the rule does a disservice to Congress, and it ought to be rejected.

Secondly, on the bill, when you get to it, if it isn't rejected--first of all, if we reject the rule, nothing is broken. We can fix it. We can make it better because no own is going to thank you for voting for this.

Just to show you how outrageous it is, it says to the host countries that: we are going to give you money, but you have 15 days to convene your legislatures and enact legislation, secure your borders, and make sure everything is secure.

You couldn't do that in Washington in 15 days, much less essentially Third World countries. There are all kinds of provisions in here that don't make any sense and don't help fix anything that is broken, and for all the testimony you have just heard, there are a lot of other things that need to be addressed that aren't in this bill.

So my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the best thing we can do to respect this institution is to reject this rule and vote ``no.''

10:16 AM EDT

Sam Farr, D-CA 20th

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in the well to appeal to my Republican colleagues about this debate, which isn't about the underlying bill, it is about the rule. You ought to all be worried. We all ought to be worried. This rule is a sham to the institution of Congress.

I am an appropriator, and I am proud to do that. We respect the jurisdiction of all other committees. That is why we have standing committees. We don't do their business.

This rule ignores all the standing committees in Congress. This rule says you can write a bill in the darkness of night. Nobody has read it. No Republicans read it, no Democrats read it. You can pick it up in the hallway here. I read it this morning.

The rule waives all points of opposition, which we say in this rule, ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.''

All points--that means all the ideas of all the committees that are supposed to be writing these bills. Nobody is going to be thanked if they vote for this. First of all, nobody is going to thank you for voting for the rule because it does so many things that misjudge the purpose of Congress, misappropriate the purposes of Congress, which is to have transparency and allow people to get into the debate.

Nobody who understands the problem in the embassies of the host country was able to testify. Nobody in the administration who deals with the border was able to testify. No Member of Congress who has some knowledge about this was able to testify. This bill says: So what? We wrote the bill, and you just have to accept it, and if you any objections, we waive all those points of orders.

So the rule does a disservice to Congress, and it ought to be rejected.

Secondly, on the bill, when you get to it, if it isn't rejected--first of all, if we reject the rule, nothing is broken. We can fix it. We can make it better because no own is going to thank you for voting for this.

Just to show you how outrageous it is, it says to the host countries that: we are going to give you money, but you have 15 days to convene your legislatures and enact legislation, secure your borders, and make sure everything is secure.

You couldn't do that in Washington in 15 days, much less essentially Third World countries. There are all kinds of provisions in here that don't make any sense and don't help fix anything that is broken, and for all the testimony you have just heard, there are a lot of other things that need to be addressed that aren't in this bill.

So my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the best thing we can do to respect this institution is to reject this rule and vote ``no.''

10:16 AM EDT

Sam Farr, D-CA 20th

Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in the well to appeal to my Republican colleagues about this debate, which isn't about the underlying bill, it is about the rule. You ought to all be worried. We all ought to be worried. This rule is a sham to the institution of Congress.

I am an appropriator, and I am proud to do that. We respect the jurisdiction of all other committees. That is why we have standing committees. We don't do their business.

This rule ignores all the standing committees in Congress. This rule says you can write a bill in the darkness of night. Nobody has read it. No Republicans read it, no Democrats read it. You can pick it up in the hallway here. I read it this morning.

The rule waives all points of opposition, which we say in this rule, ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.''

All points--that means all the ideas of all the committees that are supposed to be writing these bills. Nobody is going to be thanked if they vote for this. First of all, nobody is going to thank you for voting for the rule because it does so many things that misjudge the purpose of Congress, misappropriate the purposes of Congress, which is to have transparency and allow people to get into the debate.

Nobody who understands the problem in the embassies of the host country was able to testify. Nobody in the administration who deals with the border was able to testify. No Member of Congress who has some knowledge about this was able to testify. This bill says: So what? We wrote the bill, and you just have to accept it, and if you any objections, we waive all those points of orders.

So the rule does a disservice to Congress, and it ought to be rejected.

Secondly, on the bill, when you get to it, if it isn't rejected--first of all, if we reject the rule, nothing is broken. We can fix it. We can make it better because no own is going to thank you for voting for this.

Just to show you how outrageous it is, it says to the host countries that: we are going to give you money, but you have 15 days to convene your legislatures and enact legislation, secure your borders, and make sure everything is secure.

You couldn't do that in Washington in 15 days, much less essentially Third World countries. There are all kinds of provisions in here that don't make any sense and don't help fix anything that is broken, and for all the testimony you have just heard, there are a lot of other things that need to be addressed that aren't in this bill.

So my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the best thing we can do to respect this institution is to reject this rule and vote ``no.''

10:19 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have a great deal of respect for my friend from the Appropriations Committee. He is an excellent legislator and tremendous Member.

I am, though, going to point out the record of the Democratic majority the last time they were here and in control of what happened on the floor.

In the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule--not one bill. That is the definition of a closed process.

Under Republican control, the House has returned to consideration of appropriations bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. We had no open rules on appropriations when my friends were in the majority.

This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments during the appropriations process, and 189 of them offered were by our friends on the other side.

When you actually compare the record overall, frankly, I think the comparison is much to the advantage of Republicans. So we are trying to deal with complex issues in a relatively short period of time.

I know the Congress will be back in session in September. We will be working on the appropriations process in the lameduck again, so there are going to be ample legislative opportunities, but we are in a crisis situation, which we are in this case. [Page: H7144]

We are trying to respond thoughtfully and expeditiously. We are trying to put resources toward the problem. We are trying to get at the core of the problem, which the administration itself a month ago identified as a 2008 law, but has now offered absolutely no suggestions how to fix.

So we have not tried to repeal it. We have tried to tweak it and address the problem. If my friends have a better solution, we would love to hear it, but we haven't heard it. Instead, we have been told the 2008 law caused the problem, but you can't change the law. That seems to me both politically and intellectually indefensible.

We are going to continue to try to solve the problem that has been identified by the administration. At some point, we hope they will join us in trying to actually correct the problem that they say exists.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

10:19 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have a great deal of respect for my friend from the Appropriations Committee. He is an excellent legislator and tremendous Member.

I am, though, going to point out the record of the Democratic majority the last time they were here and in control of what happened on the floor.

In the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule--not one bill. That is the definition of a closed process.

Under Republican control, the House has returned to consideration of appropriations bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. We had no open rules on appropriations when my friends were in the majority.

This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments during the appropriations process, and 189 of them offered were by our friends on the other side.

When you actually compare the record overall, frankly, I think the comparison is much to the advantage of Republicans. So we are trying to deal with complex issues in a relatively short period of time.

I know the Congress will be back in session in September. We will be working on the appropriations process in the lameduck again, so there are going to be ample legislative opportunities, but we are in a crisis situation, which we are in this case. [Page: H7144]

We are trying to respond thoughtfully and expeditiously. We are trying to put resources toward the problem. We are trying to get at the core of the problem, which the administration itself a month ago identified as a 2008 law, but has now offered absolutely no suggestions how to fix.

So we have not tried to repeal it. We have tried to tweak it and address the problem. If my friends have a better solution, we would love to hear it, but we haven't heard it. Instead, we have been told the 2008 law caused the problem, but you can't change the law. That seems to me both politically and intellectually indefensible.

We are going to continue to try to solve the problem that has been identified by the administration. At some point, we hope they will join us in trying to actually correct the problem that they say exists.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

10:19 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have a great deal of respect for my friend from the Appropriations Committee. He is an excellent legislator and tremendous Member.

I am, though, going to point out the record of the Democratic majority the last time they were here and in control of what happened on the floor.

In the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule--not one bill. That is the definition of a closed process.

Under Republican control, the House has returned to consideration of appropriations bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. We had no open rules on appropriations when my friends were in the majority.

This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments during the appropriations process, and 189 of them offered were by our friends on the other side.

When you actually compare the record overall, frankly, I think the comparison is much to the advantage of Republicans. So we are trying to deal with complex issues in a relatively short period of time.

I know the Congress will be back in session in September. We will be working on the appropriations process in the lameduck again, so there are going to be ample legislative opportunities, but we are in a crisis situation, which we are in this case. [Page: H7144]

We are trying to respond thoughtfully and expeditiously. We are trying to put resources toward the problem. We are trying to get at the core of the problem, which the administration itself a month ago identified as a 2008 law, but has now offered absolutely no suggestions how to fix.

So we have not tried to repeal it. We have tried to tweak it and address the problem. If my friends have a better solution, we would love to hear it, but we haven't heard it. Instead, we have been told the 2008 law caused the problem, but you can't change the law. That seems to me both politically and intellectually indefensible.

We are going to continue to try to solve the problem that has been identified by the administration. At some point, we hope they will join us in trying to actually correct the problem that they say exists.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

10:21 AM EDT

Nydia M. Velázquez, D-NY 7th

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of two Honduran brothers who were tortured and murdered by gang members in San Pedro Sula, the murder capital of the world.

Mr. Speaker, how we treat our children speaks to the character of our Nation.

[From The New York Times, July 9, 2014]

Fleeing Gangs, Children Head to U.S. Border

(By Frances Robles)

SAN PEDRO SULA, HONDURAS--Anthony O. Castellanos disappeared from his gang-ridden neighborhood on the eastern edge of Honduras's most dangerous city, so his younger brother, Kenneth, hopped on his green bicycle to search for him, starting his hunt at a notorious gang hangout known as the ``crazy house.''

They were found within days of each other, both dead. Anthony, 13, and a friend had been shot in the head; Kenneth, 7, had been tortured and beaten with sticks and rocks. They were among seven children murdered in the La Pradera neighborhood of San Pedro Sula in April alone, part of a surge in gang violence that is claiming younger and younger victims.

The killings are a major factor driving the recent wave of migration of Central American children to the United States, which has sent an unprecedented number of unaccompanied minors across the Texas border. Many children and parents say the rush of new migrants stems from a belief that United States immigration policy offers preferential treatment to minors, but in addition, studies of Border Patrol statistics show a strong correlation between cities like San Pedro Sula with high homicide rates

and swarms of youngsters taking off for the United States.

``The first thing we can think of is to send our children to the United States,'' said a mother of two in La Pradera, who declined to give her name because she feared gang reprisals. ``That's the idea, to leave.''

Honduran children are increasingly on the front lines of gang violence. In June, 32 children were murdered in Honduras, bringing the number of youths under 18 killed since January of last year to 409, according to data compiled by Covenant House, a youth shelter in Tegucigalpa, the capital.

With two major youth gangs and more organized crime syndicates operating with impunity in Central America, analysts say immigration authorities will have a difficult time keeping children at home unless the root causes of violence are addressed.

In 2012, the number of murder victims ages 10 to 14 had doubled to 81 from 40 in 2008, according to the Violence Observatory at the National Autonomous University of Honduras. Last year, 1,013 people under 23 were murdered in a nation of eight million.

Although homicides dropped sharply in 2012 after a gang truce in neighboring El Salvador, so far this year murders of children 17 and under are up 77 percent from the same time period a year ago, the police said.

Nowhere is the flow of departures more acute than in San Pedro Sula, a city in northwestern Honduras that has the world's highest homicide rate, according to United Nations figures.

Between January and May of this year, more than 2,200 children from the city arrived in the United States, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics, far more than from any other city in Central America.

More than half of the top 50 Central American cities from which children are leaving for the United States are in Honduras. Virtually none of the children have come from Nicaragua, a bordering country that has staggering poverty, but not a pervasive gang culture or a record-breaking murder rate. ``Everyone has left,'' Alan Castellanos, 27, the uncle of Anthony and Kenneth, said in an interview in late May. ``How is it that an entire country is being brought to its knees?''

He said the gangs operated with total impunity. ``They killed all those kids and nobody did anything about it,'' Mr. Castellanos said. ``When prosecutors wanted to discuss the case, they asked us to meet at their office, because they were afraid to come here. If they were afraid, imagine us.''

The factors pushing children to migrate vary, according to an analysis of their home cities by the Department of Homeland Security.

The Guatemalan children who arrive in the United States are more often from rural areas, suggesting their motives are largely economic. The minors from El Salvador and Honduras tend to come from extremely violent regions ``where they probably perceive the risk of traveling alone to the U.S. preferable to remaining at home,'' the analysis said.

``Basically, the places these people are coming from are the places with the highest homicide rates,'' said Manuel Orozco, a senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research group. ``The parents see gang membership around the corner. Once your child is forced to join, the chances of being killed or going to prison is pretty high. Why wait until that happens?''

A confluence of factors, including discounted rates charged by smugglers for families, helped ignite the boom, he said. Children are killed for refusing to join gangs, over vendettas against their parents, or because they are caught up in gang disputes. Many activists here suggest they are also murdered by police officers willing to clean up the streets by any means possible.

In the case of the Castellanos family, the police said the older boy was a lookout for the gang and had decided to quit. The order to kill him, the police said, came from prison.

Several arrests have been made. Hector A. Medina, 47, who the police said lived at an abandoned house controlled by the 18th Street gang, where Kenneth was killed, was charged in the boys' deaths. ``It's a serious social problem: any children born in this neighborhood are going to get involved in a gang,'' said Elvin Flores, a police inspector in charge of La Pradera. ``Our idea is to lower crime every day. We need a state policy to involve kids from when they are little to go to school.''

But gangs, which rob, sell drugs locally, kidnap people and extort money from businesses, often recruit new members at schools.

In some cities, blocks are empty because gangs demanding extortion payments have forced out homeowners. Many people have had to move within the country in a displacement pattern that experts liken to the one seen in Colombia's civil war.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said that from 2008 to 2013, the number of asylum claims filed in Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Belize increased sevenfold.

Most were from people of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, the three nations with large numbers of migrants now arriving at the United States border.

Refugee advocacy organizations have urged the State Department to treat the children arriving at the United States border as refugees, and proposed a processing system where asylum claims could be reviewed in Central America and those accepted could move safely to the United States or countries willing to accept them, as was done in countries such as Haiti and Iraq. They have not yet received a response, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said.

President Obama urged Congress on Wednesday night to pass a $3.7 billion budget supplement that would, among other things, beef up border security, hasten deportations and help Central American nations address security problems. ``The best thing we can do is make sure the children can live in their own countries, safely,'' he said.

During a recent late-night visit to the San Pedro Sula morgue, more than 60 bodies, all victims of violence, were seen piled in a heap, each wrapped in a brown plastic bag. While picking bullets out of a 15-year-old boy shot 15 times, technicians discussed how they regularly received corpses of children under 10, and sometimes as young as 2.

Last week, in nearby Santa Barbara, an 11-year-old had his throat slit by other children, because he did not pay a 50-cent extortion fee.

``At first we saw a lot of kids who were being killed because when the gang came for their parents, they happened to be in the car or at the location with them,'' said Dr. Darwin Armas Cruz, a medical examiner who works the overnight shift. ``Now we see kids killing kids. They kill with guns, knives and even grenades.''

Dr. Armas said his family was thinking of migrating, too.

CORRECTION: JULY 11, 2014

Because of an editing error, an article on Thursday about the murderous gang violence in Honduras that is a factor in the recent wave of migration of Central American children to the United States misstated the amount of money that President Obama has requested from Congress to address the problem. It is $3.7 billion, not more than $4 billion.

10:21 AM EDT

Nydia M. Velázquez, D-NY 7th

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of two Honduran brothers who were tortured and murdered by gang members in San Pedro Sula, the murder capital of the world.

Mr. Speaker, how we treat our children speaks to the character of our Nation.

[From The New York Times, July 9, 2014]

Fleeing Gangs, Children Head to U.S. Border

(By Frances Robles)

SAN PEDRO SULA, HONDURAS--Anthony O. Castellanos disappeared from his gang-ridden neighborhood on the eastern edge of Honduras's most dangerous city, so his younger brother, Kenneth, hopped on his green bicycle to search for him, starting his hunt at a notorious gang hangout known as the ``crazy house.''

They were found within days of each other, both dead. Anthony, 13, and a friend had been shot in the head; Kenneth, 7, had been tortured and beaten with sticks and rocks. They were among seven children murdered in the La Pradera neighborhood of San Pedro Sula in April alone, part of a surge in gang violence that is claiming younger and younger victims.

The killings are a major factor driving the recent wave of migration of Central American children to the United States, which has sent an unprecedented number of unaccompanied minors across the Texas border. Many children and parents say the rush of new migrants stems from a belief that United States immigration policy offers preferential treatment to minors, but in addition, studies of Border Patrol statistics show a strong correlation between cities like San Pedro Sula with high homicide rates

and swarms of youngsters taking off for the United States.

``The first thing we can think of is to send our children to the United States,'' said a mother of two in La Pradera, who declined to give her name because she feared gang reprisals. ``That's the idea, to leave.''

Honduran children are increasingly on the front lines of gang violence. In June, 32 children were murdered in Honduras, bringing the number of youths under 18 killed since January of last year to 409, according to data compiled by Covenant House, a youth shelter in Tegucigalpa, the capital.

With two major youth gangs and more organized crime syndicates operating with impunity in Central America, analysts say immigration authorities will have a difficult time keeping children at home unless the root causes of violence are addressed.

In 2012, the number of murder victims ages 10 to 14 had doubled to 81 from 40 in 2008, according to the Violence Observatory at the National Autonomous University of Honduras. Last year, 1,013 people under 23 were murdered in a nation of eight million.

Although homicides dropped sharply in 2012 after a gang truce in neighboring El Salvador, so far this year murders of children 17 and under are up 77 percent from the same time period a year ago, the police said.

Nowhere is the flow of departures more acute than in San Pedro Sula, a city in northwestern Honduras that has the world's highest homicide rate, according to United Nations figures.

Between January and May of this year, more than 2,200 children from the city arrived in the United States, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics, far more than from any other city in Central America.

More than half of the top 50 Central American cities from which children are leaving for the United States are in Honduras. Virtually none of the children have come from Nicaragua, a bordering country that has staggering poverty, but not a pervasive gang culture or a record-breaking murder rate. ``Everyone has left,'' Alan Castellanos, 27, the uncle of Anthony and Kenneth, said in an interview in late May. ``How is it that an entire country is being brought to its knees?''

He said the gangs operated with total impunity. ``They killed all those kids and nobody did anything about it,'' Mr. Castellanos said. ``When prosecutors wanted to discuss the case, they asked us to meet at their office, because they were afraid to come here. If they were afraid, imagine us.''

The factors pushing children to migrate vary, according to an analysis of their home cities by the Department of Homeland Security.

The Guatemalan children who arrive in the United States are more often from rural areas, suggesting their motives are largely economic. The minors from El Salvador and Honduras tend to come from extremely violent regions ``where they probably perceive the risk of traveling alone to the U.S. preferable to remaining at home,'' the analysis said.

``Basically, the places these people are coming from are the places with the highest homicide rates,'' said Manuel Orozco, a senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research group. ``The parents see gang membership around the corner. Once your child is forced to join, the chances of being killed or going to prison is pretty high. Why wait until that happens?''

A confluence of factors, including discounted rates charged by smugglers for families, helped ignite the boom, he said. Children are killed for refusing to join gangs, over vendettas against their parents, or because they are caught up in gang disputes. Many activists here suggest they are also murdered by police officers willing to clean up the streets by any means possible.

In the case of the Castellanos family, the police said the older boy was a lookout for the gang and had decided to quit. The order to kill him, the police said, came from prison.

Several arrests have been made. Hector A. Medina, 47, who the police said lived at an abandoned house controlled by the 18th Street gang, where Kenneth was killed, was charged in the boys' deaths. ``It's a serious social problem: any children born in this neighborhood are going to get involved in a gang,'' said Elvin Flores, a police inspector in charge of La Pradera. ``Our idea is to lower crime every day. We need a state policy to involve kids from when they are little to go to school.''

But gangs, which rob, sell drugs locally, kidnap people and extort money from businesses, often recruit new members at schools.

In some cities, blocks are empty because gangs demanding extortion payments have forced out homeowners. Many people have had to move within the country in a displacement pattern that experts liken to the one seen in Colombia's civil war.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said that from 2008 to 2013, the number of asylum claims filed in Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Belize increased sevenfold.

Most were from people of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, the three nations with large numbers of migrants now arriving at the United States border.

Refugee advocacy organizations have urged the State Department to treat the children arriving at the United States border as refugees, and proposed a processing system where asylum claims could be reviewed in Central America and those accepted could move safely to the United States or countries willing to accept them, as was done in countries such as Haiti and Iraq. They have not yet received a response, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said.

President Obama urged Congress on Wednesday night to pass a $3.7 billion budget supplement that would, among other things, beef up border security, hasten deportations and help Central American nations address security problems. ``The best thing we can do is make sure the children can live in their own countries, safely,'' he said.

During a recent late-night visit to the San Pedro Sula morgue, more than 60 bodies, all victims of violence, were seen piled in a heap, each wrapped in a brown plastic bag. While picking bullets out of a 15-year-old boy shot 15 times, technicians discussed how they regularly received corpses of children under 10, and sometimes as young as 2.

Last week, in nearby Santa Barbara, an 11-year-old had his throat slit by other children, because he did not pay a 50-cent extortion fee.

``At first we saw a lot of kids who were being killed because when the gang came for their parents, they happened to be in the car or at the location with them,'' said Dr. Darwin Armas Cruz, a medical examiner who works the overnight shift. ``Now we see kids killing kids. They kill with guns, knives and even grenades.''

Dr. Armas said his family was thinking of migrating, too.

CORRECTION: JULY 11, 2014

Because of an editing error, an article on Thursday about the murderous gang violence in Honduras that is a factor in the recent wave of migration of Central American children to the United States misstated the amount of money that President Obama has requested from Congress to address the problem. It is $3.7 billion, not more than $4 billion.

10:21 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the chair of the Hispanic Caucus and the ranking member [Page: H7145]

on the Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.

10:22 AM EDT

Ruben Hinojosa, D-TX 15th

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5230 and the underlying rule.

I represent McAllen, Texas, which has been the epicenter for this humanitarian crisis. For years, my Republican colleagues have been ignoring the problems caused by their inaction on immigration reform. They have cut funding for immigration judges, so that people wait years to have their cases heard.

They have cut funding to help the countries of Central America deal with the internal problems causing their children to flee. The Republican solution has always been more walls and fences and more soldiers to militarize the border.

I live on that border of Texas and Mexico, and I know that their enforcement-only approach is not working because it doesn't address the root cause of immigration. It has been economically devastating to border communities who vainly try to persuade companies to move their plants and factories to our region to create jobs and bring us out of poverty that is the highest in the Nation.

Our veterans suffer because the VA can't get doctors to move to the border. All these companies and doctors hear is that the border is a war zone flooded with dangerous immigrants. That is not the border I know. My border home is a vibrant, educated, fast-growing, culturally diverse, welcoming region. I am proud of how we have embraced these children and families.

We are now voting once again to militarize our border, deny children legal representation and due process, and providing little help to Central America. We are not fixing the problem, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and this bill.

10:22 AM EDT

Ruben Hinojosa, D-TX 15th

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5230 and the underlying rule.

I represent McAllen, Texas, which has been the epicenter for this humanitarian crisis. For years, my Republican colleagues have been ignoring the problems caused by their inaction on immigration reform. They have cut funding for immigration judges, so that people wait years to have their cases heard.

They have cut funding to help the countries of Central America deal with the internal problems causing their children to flee. The Republican solution has always been more walls and fences and more soldiers to militarize the border.

I live on that border of Texas and Mexico, and I know that their enforcement-only approach is not working because it doesn't address the root cause of immigration. It has been economically devastating to border communities who vainly try to persuade companies to move their plants and factories to our region to create jobs and bring us out of poverty that is the highest in the Nation.

Our veterans suffer because the VA can't get doctors to move to the border. All these companies and doctors hear is that the border is a war zone flooded with dangerous immigrants. That is not the border I know. My border home is a vibrant, educated, fast-growing, culturally diverse, welcoming region. I am proud of how we have embraced these children and families.

We are now voting once again to militarize our border, deny children legal representation and due process, and providing little help to Central America. We are not fixing the problem, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and this bill.

10:24 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just a few correctives, if I may. We are actually putting in additional resources. We haven't cut resources. It is the President's budget that cut resources. It cut detention beds, enforcement, and aid to the countries in Central America that are dealing with this problem. That is the President's budget.

Those things were all corrected in the Foreign Operations budget that has not yet reached the floor, but has been passed by the full Appropriations Committee.

I am going to disagree with my friends on the other side that this has anything to do with comprehensive immigration reform. Quite frankly, it does not. It is a border crisis. It has nothing to do with this legislation.

The root cause of the problem here are criminals who go back and tell people: if you pay money and subject yourself to a dangerous journey and we get you to the United States, you will be able to stay. That is who is at fault here. That is where the focus ought to be.

When my friends point to specific cases, I always point out, number one, we have an avenue called the United States Embassy. In the country, you can go and plead refugee status there. You don't have to travel 1,000 or 2,000 miles across very dangerous country. You simply afford yourself of the available opportunities.

Finally, in the President's judgment, most of these children will be returned. That is the President's judgment. Frankly, I think he made that judgment, trying to discourage what is happening now. That is precisely what we are trying to do in this piece of legislation.

So I think there is a lot of passion, and it is appropriate because there are some heartwrenching cases, but there is also a lot of political theater here. The reality is, again, most of these children, according to the President, will be returned.

The quicker that can happen, the less likely it is that other children will follow them and be subjected to a very dangerous journey. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are going to try to do that in this measure today, but we invite our friends to work with us as we go forward, as I suspect that we will.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

10:24 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just a few correctives, if I may. We are actually putting in additional resources. We haven't cut resources. It is the President's budget that cut resources. It cut detention beds, enforcement, and aid to the countries in Central America that are dealing with this problem. That is the President's budget.

Those things were all corrected in the Foreign Operations budget that has not yet reached the floor, but has been passed by the full Appropriations Committee.

I am going to disagree with my friends on the other side that this has anything to do with comprehensive immigration reform. Quite frankly, it does not. It is a border crisis. It has nothing to do with this legislation.

The root cause of the problem here are criminals who go back and tell people: if you pay money and subject yourself to a dangerous journey and we get you to the United States, you will be able to stay. That is who is at fault here. That is where the focus ought to be.

When my friends point to specific cases, I always point out, number one, we have an avenue called the United States Embassy. In the country, you can go and plead refugee status there. You don't have to travel 1,000 or 2,000 miles across very dangerous country. You simply afford yourself of the available opportunities.

Finally, in the President's judgment, most of these children will be returned. That is the President's judgment. Frankly, I think he made that judgment, trying to discourage what is happening now. That is precisely what we are trying to do in this piece of legislation.

So I think there is a lot of passion, and it is appropriate because there are some heartwrenching cases, but there is also a lot of political theater here. The reality is, again, most of these children, according to the President, will be returned.

The quicker that can happen, the less likely it is that other children will follow them and be subjected to a very dangerous journey. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are going to try to do that in this measure today, but we invite our friends to work with us as we go forward, as I suspect that we will.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

10:24 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just a few correctives, if I may. We are actually putting in additional resources. We haven't cut resources. It is the President's budget that cut resources. It cut detention beds, enforcement, and aid to the countries in Central America that are dealing with this problem. That is the President's budget.

Those things were all corrected in the Foreign Operations budget that has not yet reached the floor, but has been passed by the full Appropriations Committee.

I am going to disagree with my friends on the other side that this has anything to do with comprehensive immigration reform. Quite frankly, it does not. It is a border crisis. It has nothing to do with this legislation.

The root cause of the problem here are criminals who go back and tell people: if you pay money and subject yourself to a dangerous journey and we get you to the United States, you will be able to stay. That is who is at fault here. That is where the focus ought to be.

When my friends point to specific cases, I always point out, number one, we have an avenue called the United States Embassy. In the country, you can go and plead refugee status there. You don't have to travel 1,000 or 2,000 miles across very dangerous country. You simply afford yourself of the available opportunities.

Finally, in the President's judgment, most of these children will be returned. That is the President's judgment. Frankly, I think he made that judgment, trying to discourage what is happening now. That is precisely what we are trying to do in this piece of legislation.

So I think there is a lot of passion, and it is appropriate because there are some heartwrenching cases, but there is also a lot of political theater here. The reality is, again, most of these children, according to the President, will be returned.

The quicker that can happen, the less likely it is that other children will follow them and be subjected to a very dangerous journey. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are going to try to do that in this measure today, but we invite our friends to work with us as we go forward, as I suspect that we will.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

10:26 AM EDT

Ben Ray Luján, D-NM 3rd

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, last week, we were part of a conversation and debate around strengthening antihuman trafficking laws. We all came to this floor, and Democrats and Republicans found a way to talk to one another and talk to the American public about what we should do to protect these children that are in harm's way, not just fleeing street violence, but being brutally murdered and raped, Mr. Speaker.

This week, what my Republican colleagues are doing is coming out of a conference and weakening antihuman trafficking laws.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, all I can say is God help this Congress if it is now our policy to weaken human trafficking laws. It is a sad, sad day, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly hope that my colleagues take a chance to look at this and look into their hearts and pray on that and come to the floor and do the right thing.

10:26 AM EDT

Ben Ray Luján, D-NM 3rd

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, last week, we were part of a conversation and debate around strengthening antihuman trafficking laws. We all came to this floor, and Democrats and Republicans found a way to talk to one another and talk to the American public about what we should do to protect these children that are in harm's way, not just fleeing street violence, but being brutally murdered and raped, Mr. Speaker.

This week, what my Republican colleagues are doing is coming out of a conference and weakening antihuman trafficking laws.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, all I can say is God help this Congress if it is now our policy to weaken human trafficking laws. It is a sad, sad day, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly hope that my colleagues take a chance to look at this and look into their hearts and pray on that and come to the floor and do the right thing.

10:27 AM EDT

Bennie Thompson, D-MS 2nd

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 696. This rule would provide for consideration of a supplemental appropriations bill that clearly demonstrates its Republican authors either have no idea what is needed to address the current situation at the border, or they are more concerned with scoring political points than making public policy.

The resources provided under the bill are both inadequate to provide the necessary humanitarian relief and misdirected toward so-called border security efforts that are unlikely to have any real effect on the number of unlawful border crossings.

For example, deploying the National Guard to the border when children and families are already running to the Border Patrol agents is a waste of taxpayer money; instead, we should be providing the Border Patrol with the funding necessary to move additional experienced agents to the Rio Grande Valley, which is what their leadership has indicated they need.

This misguided bill has also included provisions to undermine due process for unaccompanied children, many of whom are refugees fleeing terrible violence in their home countries.

Mr. Speaker, we are better than this as a Congress and as a Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying supplemental.

10:27 AM EDT

Bennie Thompson, D-MS 2nd

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 696. This rule would provide for consideration of a supplemental appropriations bill that clearly demonstrates its Republican authors either have no idea what is needed to address the current situation at the border, or they are more concerned with scoring political points than making public policy.

The resources provided under the bill are both inadequate to provide the necessary humanitarian relief and misdirected toward so-called border security efforts that are unlikely to have any real effect on the number of unlawful border crossings.

For example, deploying the National Guard to the border when children and families are already running to the Border Patrol agents is a waste of taxpayer money; instead, we should be providing the Border Patrol with the funding necessary to move additional experienced agents to the Rio Grande Valley, which is what their leadership has indicated they need.

This misguided bill has also included provisions to undermine due process for unaccompanied children, many of whom are refugees fleeing terrible violence in their home countries.

Mr. Speaker, we are better than this as a Congress and as a Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying supplemental.

10:29 AM EDT

John Culberson, R-TX 7th

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, the heartbreaking stories my colleagues are telling about these young people coming across the border and being exploited and hurt and injured just confirm the wisdom of the approach the Republicans have taken to this problem based on common sense and long experience. It is called law enforcement. This is not complicated.

In order to protect these kids, protect the people of the United States, protect the communities along the border, we believe strongly in enforcing the existing law and in ensuring that the people of the United States are protected against the lawlessness: the drug dealers, the cartels, the smugglers, the gun runners who are coming across the border and exploiting these kids.

This is not a complicated problem. It has worked for years in Texas. We understand the border problem. It is simply a matter of law enforcement. No nation can survive that doesn't secure its borders and enforce its laws.

By enforcing the law and by bringing peace and quiet to the border, you will also ensure that free trade--that legal trade back and forth between Mexico, our biggest trading partner--can proceed as it should. Laredo is the largest inland port in the United States, and in order for businesses to do their jobs, they have got to have peace and quiet, and that means law enforcement.

That is the Republican approach to this problem. Enforce the law. [Page: H7146]

10:31 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The House Republican proposal includes a provision that would roll back our bipartisan antihuman trafficking protections that have been in place for 20 years and that were most recently reaffirmed unanimously by Congress in 2008. This is a debate to maintain our due process laws under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which this bill strips, that help promote the safety of unaccompanied minors.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees, 58 percent of children fleeing to the U.S. from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico may have valid claims to asylum or other legal protections. Our existing laws ensure that these children receive due process. Many of them are victims of human trafficking, of sexual violence, or of other persecution, and they need to have the meaningful opportunity under a law to present their protection claims before an immigration judge.

The underlying bill would, according to the UNHCR, drastically weaken the due process protections by subjecting Central American children to an inadequate screening process.

We have had our additional speaker arrive to offer our PQ, Mr. Speaker; and if the House had taken up the Senate immigration reform bill, the current influx of migrant children from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala may never have even become the humanitarian crisis that is facing us today. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give the House a second chance.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, so the House can finally vote on a broad, long-term solution to overhaul our country's immigration system and to address the border crisis. At the same time, it addresses the systemic causes rather than simply trying to apply Band-Aid, after Band-Aid, after Band-Aid. The House will soon find there are not enough Band-Aids

made. We need to address the health of the patient.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia).

10:31 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The House Republican proposal includes a provision that would roll back our bipartisan antihuman trafficking protections that have been in place for 20 years and that were most recently reaffirmed unanimously by Congress in 2008. This is a debate to maintain our due process laws under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which this bill strips, that help promote the safety of unaccompanied minors.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees, 58 percent of children fleeing to the U.S. from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico may have valid claims to asylum or other legal protections. Our existing laws ensure that these children receive due process. Many of them are victims of human trafficking, of sexual violence, or of other persecution, and they need to have the meaningful opportunity under a law to present their protection claims before an immigration judge.

The underlying bill would, according to the UNHCR, drastically weaken the due process protections by subjecting Central American children to an inadequate screening process.

We have had our additional speaker arrive to offer our PQ, Mr. Speaker; and if the House had taken up the Senate immigration reform bill, the current influx of migrant children from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala may never have even become the humanitarian crisis that is facing us today. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give the House a second chance.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, so the House can finally vote on a broad, long-term solution to overhaul our country's immigration system and to address the border crisis. At the same time, it addresses the systemic causes rather than simply trying to apply Band-Aid, after Band-Aid, after Band-Aid. The House will soon find there are not enough Band-Aids

made. We need to address the health of the patient.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia).

10:31 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The House Republican proposal includes a provision that would roll back our bipartisan antihuman trafficking protections that have been in place for 20 years and that were most recently reaffirmed unanimously by Congress in 2008. This is a debate to maintain our due process laws under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which this bill strips, that help promote the safety of unaccompanied minors.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees, 58 percent of children fleeing to the U.S. from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico may have valid claims to asylum or other legal protections. Our existing laws ensure that these children receive due process. Many of them are victims of human trafficking, of sexual violence, or of other persecution, and they need to have the meaningful opportunity under a law to present their protection claims before an immigration judge.

The underlying bill would, according to the UNHCR, drastically weaken the due process protections by subjecting Central American children to an inadequate screening process.

We have had our additional speaker arrive to offer our PQ, Mr. Speaker; and if the House had taken up the Senate immigration reform bill, the current influx of migrant children from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala may never have even become the humanitarian crisis that is facing us today. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give the House a second chance.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, so the House can finally vote on a broad, long-term solution to overhaul our country's immigration system and to address the border crisis. At the same time, it addresses the systemic causes rather than simply trying to apply Band-Aid, after Band-Aid, after Band-Aid. The House will soon find there are not enough Band-Aids

made. We need to address the health of the patient.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia).

10:33 AM EDT

Joe Garcia, D-FL 26th

Mr. GARCIA. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say this bill were a joke. This is far worse than a joke. Not only does the underlying bill fail to provide adequate funding to deal with the situation at hand, it flat out ignores the root cause of the problem.

By tacking on a vote on the so-called ``No New DREAMERS Act,'' House leadership is not just refusing to take action on immigration reform, it is prohibiting the President from doing things to fix a broken system. This is akin to watching a train crash or knowing that it is going to crash and stoking the furnace more, making the damage greater. They have no interest in fixing this crisis. They have no interest in fixing the problem. They are playing politics with people's lives, and they are playing

politics with our Nation's economy.

This isn't a game. These are human beings. This is doing damage to our country. If we are truly committed to tackling this crisis on the southwest border and to ensuring a fair and efficient process for dealing with these kids, we need to begin with comprehensive immigration reform.

If the previous question is defeated, we will offer H.R. 15, the House bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill. Only by fixing our broken immigration system can we begin to better allocate the resources where they are needed most.

My bill provides a path forward for people already here so that their cases are no longer clogging our immigration courts and so that immigration officials can spend their time going after those who wish to do our Nation harm. It will provide green cards for thousands of Hondurans and El Salvadorans who have languished for over a decade under temporary status, and it adds the necessary due process protection for children on the border.

A speaker on the side opposite brought up the issue of what caused this. What was the straw that broke the camel's back? I will tell you what the straw is. Some of these children have waited 5 years; some of them have waited 8 years; and some of them have waited over a decade on the promises of this Congress--and there is blame to go to both sides--to have comprehensive immigration reform. Then the Speaker who had promised earlier in the year to work with the President finally announced there

would be no comprehensive immigration reform. That was the straw that broke the camel's back because 55 percent of these children are coming to be with their families.

10:33 AM EDT

Joe Garcia, D-FL 26th

Mr. GARCIA. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say this bill were a joke. This is far worse than a joke. Not only does the underlying bill fail to provide adequate funding to deal with the situation at hand, it flat out ignores the root cause of the problem.

By tacking on a vote on the so-called ``No New DREAMERS Act,'' House leadership is not just refusing to take action on immigration reform, it is prohibiting the President from doing things to fix a broken system. This is akin to watching a train crash or knowing that it is going to crash and stoking the furnace more, making the damage greater. They have no interest in fixing this crisis. They have no interest in fixing the problem. They are playing politics with people's lives, and they are playing

politics with our Nation's economy.

This isn't a game. These are human beings. This is doing damage to our country. If we are truly committed to tackling this crisis on the southwest border and to ensuring a fair and efficient process for dealing with these kids, we need to begin with comprehensive immigration reform.

If the previous question is defeated, we will offer H.R. 15, the House bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill. Only by fixing our broken immigration system can we begin to better allocate the resources where they are needed most.

My bill provides a path forward for people already here so that their cases are no longer clogging our immigration courts and so that immigration officials can spend their time going after those who wish to do our Nation harm. It will provide green cards for thousands of Hondurans and El Salvadorans who have languished for over a decade under temporary status, and it adds the necessary due process protection for children on the border.

A speaker on the side opposite brought up the issue of what caused this. What was the straw that broke the camel's back? I will tell you what the straw is. Some of these children have waited 5 years; some of them have waited 8 years; and some of them have waited over a decade on the promises of this Congress--and there is blame to go to both sides--to have comprehensive immigration reform. Then the Speaker who had promised earlier in the year to work with the President finally announced there

would be no comprehensive immigration reform. That was the straw that broke the camel's back because 55 percent of these children are coming to be with their families.

10:36 AM EDT

Joe Garcia, D-FL 26th

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, our country needs comprehensive immigration reform, and the American people support comprehensive immigration reform. There are enough votes in this House to pass comprehensive

immigration reform.

I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can finally consider comprehensive immigration reform.

10:36 AM EDT

Joe Garcia, D-FL 26th

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, our country needs comprehensive immigration reform, and the American people support comprehensive immigration reform. There are enough votes in this House to pass comprehensive

immigration reform.

I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can finally consider comprehensive immigration reform.

10:37 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In our last week--on our last day--before this House adjourns for a 5-week recess, we have an opportunity with Mr. Garcia's previous question in that, if we can defeat the previous question, we can actually address these issues with a bipartisan bill, H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, nearly identical to the Senate bill. I am confident that, if this body passes that bill, Senate Majority Leader Reid will promptly act on it and send it to the President's desk so that

we not only can address this border crisis but can prevent future border crises from arising by securing our border and restoring the rule of law to our Nation. The American people expect this body to act in a way that is consistent with our values. We have that opportunity today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question to bring up H.R. 15, the House's bipartisan immigration reform bill.

10:37 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In our last week--on our last day--before this House adjourns for a 5-week recess, we have an opportunity with Mr. Garcia's previous question in that, if we can defeat the previous question, we can actually address these issues with a bipartisan bill, H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, nearly identical to the Senate bill. I am confident that, if this body passes that bill, Senate Majority Leader Reid will promptly act on it and send it to the President's desk so that

we not only can address this border crisis but can prevent future border crises from arising by securing our border and restoring the rule of law to our Nation. The American people expect this body to act in a way that is consistent with our values. We have that opportunity today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question to bring up H.R. 15, the House's bipartisan immigration reform bill.

10:38 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so this body--this House and this Congress--can tackle immigration reform and restore the rule of law to our country. I further encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.

I yield back the balance of my time.

10:38 AM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so this body--this House and this Congress--can tackle immigration reform and restore the rule of law to our country. I further encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.

I yield back the balance of my time.

10:38 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I am going to differ with my friends, obviously, on a number of important issues.

First, I think they, probably, without thinking it through, accused us of wanting to roll back a human sex trafficking bill that passed this body unanimously. Absolutely untrue. Nobody has any intention of doing anything like that. It is the administration that said that legislation--a loophole in it--is what caused this crisis. I would dispute that, quite frankly.

I think what has caused it is, first and foremost, the President's sending an unmistakable signal, a signal that may have been misinterpreted that, if you manage to get to the United States, you are going to be able to stay. He did that by unilaterally changing and thwarting whole sections of our own immigration law, by doing things that he, himself, had said a year [Page: H7147]

before were unconstitutional. That signal, I think, has been picked up by criminals and

turned into a message that has been directed at naive and vulnerable people, saying, if you give us thousands of dollars, we will take you on this journey, get you to the United States, and then you are going to be able to stay.

When the President first addressed this problem--again, he was warned in 2012 and 2013 by his own advisers that this might well happen--he did not prepare for it. He submitted a budget that actually cut border enforcement and that cut security aid to the Central American countries so they could secure their own territory. When he finally dealt with this, he said this 2008 law is part of the reason.

What this bill does is tweak it. It simply says we are going to treat children coming from the affected areas, from noncontiguous countries, in the same way we treat Mexican children. It has always been a question as to whether or not we should have that distinction. There is no particular reason why somebody from Central America should automatically be treated differently than somebody from Mexico.

In addition, I will point out to my friends there is an easier way. Just go to the American Embassy in the country, and if you have got status that would qualify as refugee status, you can make your case there. You don't have to pay thousands of dollars. You don't have to subject yourself to a dangerous journey in the company of criminals.

The President, frankly, has said that this is an immigration issue. I don't think it is. I think it is a border crisis, and I think it needs to be dealt with that way. I think the record is, again, pretty clear on this, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. We have acted on a problem the President has identified.

When my friends express concern that the majority of these children will be returned, number one, remember they are going to be returned to the custody of their governments. They are going to be returned to the people who are actually responsible for trying to take care of them within their societies. Second, that is exactly what the President said is going to happen. Those were his words. The overwhelming majority of these young people will be returned. The quicker and the more humanely and

the more expeditiously we accomplish that, the fewer of them will undertake this journey, and the fewer of these families will be conned out of their money. You are not doing the next people a favor by not dealing with the problem in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this legislation continues this House's commitment to govern and deal with crises before they become even worse--the shortfall in the highway trust fund, for instance, in the supplemental request. They are all things the American people expect us to deal with before the August district work period. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

[Begin Insert]

10:38 AM EDT

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I am going to differ with my friends, obviously, on a number of important issues.

First, I think they, probably, without thinking it through, accused us of wanting to roll back a human sex trafficking bill that passed this body unanimously. Absolutely untrue. Nobody has any intention of doing anything like that. It is the administration that said that legislation--a loophole in it--is what caused this crisis. I would dispute that, quite frankly.

I think what has caused it is, first and foremost, the President's sending an unmistakable signal, a signal that may have been misinterpreted that, if you manage to get to the United States, you are going to be able to stay. He did that by unilaterally changing and thwarting whole sections of our own immigration law, by doing things that he, himself, had said a year [Page: H7147]

before were unconstitutional. That signal, I think, has been picked up by criminals and

turned into a message that has been directed at naive and vulnerable people, saying, if you give us thousands of dollars, we will take you on this journey, get you to the United States, and then you are going to be able to stay.

When the President first addressed this problem--again, he was warned in 2012 and 2013 by his own advisers that this might well happen--he did not prepare for it. He submitted a budget that actually cut border enforcement and that cut security aid to the Central American countries so they could secure their own territory. When he finally dealt with this, he said this 2008 law is part of the reason.

What this bill does is tweak it. It simply says we are going to treat children coming from the affected areas, from noncontiguous countries, in the same way we treat Mexican children. It has always been a question as to whether or not we should have that distinction. There is no particular reason why somebody from Central America should automatically be treated differently than somebody from Mexico.

In addition, I will point out to my friends there is an easier way. Just go to the American Embassy in the country, and if you have got status that would qualify as refugee status, you can make your case there. You don't have to pay thousands of dollars. You don't have to subject yourself to a dangerous journey in the company of criminals.

The President, frankly, has said that this is an immigration issue. I don't think it is. I think it is a border crisis, and I think it needs to be dealt with that way. I think the record is, again, pretty clear on this, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. We have acted on a problem the President has identified.

When my friends express concern that the majority of these children will be returned, number one, remember they are going to be returned to the custody of their governments. They are going to be returned to the people who are actually responsible for trying to take care of them within their societies. Second, that is exactly what the President said is going to happen. Those were his words. The overwhelming majority of these young people will be returned. The quicker and the more humanely and

the more expeditiously we accomplish that, the fewer of them will undertake this journey, and the fewer of these families will be conned out of their money. You are not doing the next people a favor by not dealing with the problem in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this legislation continues this House's commitment to govern and deal with crises before they become even worse--the shortfall in the highway trust fund, for instance, in the supplemental request. They are all things the American people expect us to deal with before the August district work period. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

[Begin Insert]