Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and both of the underlying bills. Let's talk a little bit about how these bills got before us, what the process of this body is, as well as the content of these two bills. I ask my colleague from Texas: Did either of these bills go through committee here in this 114th Congress, this new Congress? I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) who, by the way, had an idea to try to improve one of these bills, and his idea is not even allowed to be discussed or debated or voted on here on the floor of the House.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Lee for her constant leadership on this issue. When I was born in 1975, the embargo with Cuba was already more than a decade old. I never knew a time when Americans could go to Cuba or legally import goods and products from Cuba. Growing up, I remember the end of the cold war, when the Soviet Union fell. The last real excuse for the treatment of Cuba was that they were allied with the Soviet Union during the cold war. Well, the Soviet Union fell, Soviet subsidies and support for Cuba ended, and I really began to wonder why we continued this failed cold war policy of an embargo--travel embargo and trade embargo against Cuba. Presumably, it was designed to bring Fidel Castro's regime down. Now, again, this policy predates my birth by 10 years. It actually means that he is the longest-serving head of state in the entire world. Obviously, it didn't work. It didn't work. Are we going to keep doing the same thing? Maybe a different path would have worked, and that is what the President has now proposed. For more than 50 years, we have isolated our southern neighbor, restricting trade, travel, commerce, as well as the flow of ideas, discussion, cultural exchange, the very things that can lead to a change and more support for human rights within Cuba. It really defies logic to expect that the status quo that has led to Fidel Castro being the longest regime and head of state in the world will somehow lead to the end of the very regime that it has actually helped to preserve. Unfortunately, the sanctions have hurt everyday Cubans without mobilizing political change or expanding their freedoms. Our policy of isolation was counterproductive, and it only prolonged the suffering and lack of freedom of the Cuban people. Our present landscape is particularly promising for restoring the U.S.-Cuba relationship. Now, let me be clear. Just as there are many countries that we have normal relations with that we continue to make sure we are outspoken about any human rights violations, of course, if there are political dissidents or others that are improperly jailed in Cuba, you will hear Members of this body, including myself, speaking out, just as we do for the oppression of Tibetans in China, while we continue to support ongoing normalized relationships with China, just as we do in countries where we want stronger labor laws or stronger anti-child labor laws, yet continue to have a basic trade and travel relationship. Cuba can do better. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, America can do better with regard to human rights, and we discussed that in different contexts about expanding civil liberties for all Americans; but, yes, Cuba should do better. Guess what? The way to help show and lead Cuba to the promised lands of human rights and democracy is by engaging the Cuban people and by engaging the regime and showing them the many benefits that dealing with their neighbor to the north can bring. Now, let us make sure we are not mistaken here; the President's actions don't end the embargo. That requires congressional action, as outlined in the Helms-Burton Act of 1996. What President Obama did is he exercised his legal right to establish diplomatic relations and expand travel, facilitate remittances, and promote commerce. Congress does need to act. The President's step alone is a great step in the right direction, but to fully normalize our relationship with Cuba, Congress will need to act, and I continue to sponsor legislation that will help that occur. Of course, we should continue to call for transparency with regard to Cuba's human rights record, to speak out for political dissidents, just as we do in dozens and hundreds of countries that we have normal trade and diplomatic relations with. I was proud to sign a letter authored by our great leader, Barbara Lee, on this issue, encouraging President Obama to use the 2015 summit as a platform for stimulating this type of productive, regional dialogue. Now, decades of adversity between the United States and Cuba cannot be wiped away with a stroke of the pen. It will take time. But together we can build bonds of trust between the Cuban people and ourselves, and we can overcome the decades of mistrust and propaganda on both sides to lead to the betterment of the relationship between the Cuban people and the American people and the greater prosperity to both peoples through trade and commerce. I strongly support continuing to move forward to engage with Cuba and will continue to support the President's actions and similar legislative action here. Welcome to our new Cuban friends--bienvenidos a nuestros amigos nuevos Cubanos.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the motion that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will make might be our last opportunity in this Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. We have a bipartisan bill right here in the House of Representatives. It is called H.R. 15. It is almost identical to the Senate bill that passed with more than two-thirds Republicans and Democrats supporting immigration reform. What does that mean? This is a bill that secures our border. This is a bill that creates over 200,000 jobs for American citizens. This is a bill that restores the rule of law. This is a bill that has support from the faith community, from the business community, from the labor community, from the law enforcement community. This is a bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for de facto Americans who have lived here, in some cases, for decades, for all of their adult lives. By defeating the previous question, we will have the opportunity to pass that bill. Mr. Speaker, there is sufficient support here in this body among Democrats and Republicans to pass this bill now for immigration reform, H.R. 15, and actually solve this issue. Because, you know what? There is one thing that I think Democrats and Republicans can agree on: what the President has done with his executive actions doesn't solve the entire immigration issue. Yes, people are discussing whether they think it helps or hurts, whether they think it is illegal or legal--even though it is clearly contemplated in statute with regard to the authority given to the Secretary with regard to prioritization--but it doesn't solve it. The President alone can't establish border security. We need an appropriation and a plan from the United States Congress--that we have in the bill that will pass if we can defeat the previous question, per the Mr. McGovern's motion. Mr. Speaker, immigration is a challenging issue for our country and is challenging for a lot of reasons. We are a nation of laws. We are also a nation of immigrants. We need to reconcile those two. We need to ensure that we have an immigration system that reflects our values as Americans, and that is good for our economy and for job creation and restores the rule of law. We can accomplish that right here, right now; send the bill back to the Senate, where I believe they will ratify it, and on to the President to address this issue once and for all, rather than have a sideshow of a discussion about just fixing a little bit around the edges.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. What we have here is Congress trying to interfere with a highly technical review process that has already resulted in the rerouting of the proposed pipeline to ensure that the integrity of the Ogallala aquifer is preserved and that there are potentially other important issues to Americans that live in the affected areas where the pipeline would be built. Instead of hearing what those issues are or talking to the administration about what pending issues remain or are standing in the way of approval, Congress is seeking to shortcut that process, exempt the XL pipeline from the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act to immediately order it to be built regardless of the legitimate issues that should be waived. When my colleague says, oh, somehow it is only 2 percent of the American people that oppose it, that is not the discussion we are having here today. It is not about who supports it or who opposes it. There needs to be the studies that are done to make sure that the routing of it maintains the health and safety of the American people, doesn't jeopardize the economy in the affected areas. Those are the issues that have already resulted in several changes of the plan and could result in additional changes to the plan of where and how the pipeline could be built. For Congress to somehow say we are just tired of dealing with the technical issues and we just want it done puts American lives at risk, puts America's health at risk. We all wish that this process could have been completed 6 months ago, 3 months ago. We hope it is completed a month from now, 6 months from now. But giving the President the same choice he has today by passing this bill doesn't move the process forward. We should be taking advantage of our last few precious weeks before the end of the year to address some of the important pieces of legislation that the Senate has sent over, but somehow what we are debating, repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 53rd time or the Keystone pipeline again and again, somehow this body hasn't had time to even consider or debate or allow a vote on important pieces of legislation like the bipartisan immigration reform package that received more than two-thirds support in the United States Senate. There is a companion bill that is bipartisan that has been introduced in the House. There is a discharge petition at the desk for Members to sign to demand a simple up-or-down vote to fix our broken immigration system, secure our borders, reduce our budget deficit by over $200 billion. There is a discussion of jobs with the Keystone project. Well, let me tell you, this bill on immigration reform that if this body allows a vote on would create over 250,000 jobs for American citizens. Or how about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? The Senate has acted on a bill that would prevent an employer from firing somebody just because they are gay or lesbian. It shouldn't be any of your boss' business who you date or who you love after work. The Senate passed that. More than three-quarters of the American people support it. We filed a discharge petition on that bill. We would love to be acting on that bill here today instead of yet again shortcutting the process with regard to an oil project. This Congress has been a frustrating Congress. Unfortunately, here in our final weeks, I hope we are not setting the tone for an equally ineffective and inefficient 114th Congress. The American people deserve better. It is time to move forward with the renewable energy agenda, with balancing our budget, with fixing our broken immigration system, with making college more affordable, rather than talking in circles about projects that are already under review and won't be any more or less under review if the bill passes because it requires the signature of the same President who is currently charged with making this decision under current law in statutes passed by the United States Congress. Let's not waste our limited time on bills that won't go anywhere and won't do anything. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, to the floor of the House.

Mr. POLIS. Well, unfortunately, yet again, we have been stymied in our efforts to address a critical issue facing the American people with a bill that would create over 250,000 jobs for American citizens, would secure our border, restore the rule of law, and unite American families. That is what the work of Congress should be; that is what the American people want Congress to do. If the 113th Congress can't do it, I sure hope that the President moves forward with the powers that have been granted to him by Congress and that the 114th Congress proves to be better than this Congress is in its waning days. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the other side here is arguing like somehow passing this bill would lead to this pipeline being built. That simply isn't the case. The current review process, the decision lies with the President and the Secretary of State. If this bill, in identical form, were to pass both Chambers, the President of the United States will have a choice--approve it or not approve it--the same choice he has now. So in no way would this Republican bill that we are considering here today make a decision for the President. The President is elected by the people in the country. Congress itself gave the President the authority to review this bill. It only becomes law if he chooses to sign it. I should point out that this bill exempts TransCanada from multiple environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act or the Endangered Species Act. If the President were to approve the Keystone project, it probably wouldn't even be by signing this bill. He would probably approve it without waiving those laws or perhaps different areas, or perhaps there are other issues that this body doesn't know about because Mr. Whitfield hasn't consulted the President on what the pending issues are in 6 months. So again, as a Member of this body who is not on the committee of jurisdiction, I can't say that I have been briefed by the administration on what the pending issues are. Apparently, Mr. Whitfield hasn't either. So let's find out what they are and are there additional areas that have to be rerouted, are there precautions that have to be made because of the high temperature of the tar sands as they race across our country. Approving this Keystone XL pipeline, which this bill, again, would not do--it would simply go to the President who could choose whether he wants to move forward or not, just as he can now--but it would simply benefit foreign oil interests. The real issue is where are the benefits for the American people--the health and safety of the American people, the integrity of agriculture-based economies in the areas that would be affected. Does Congress really want to give TransCanada special benefits and exemptions or should they be held to the same standard as other important energy projects? We need to help America grow renewable energy to wean ourselves off of our reliance on fossil fuels. If Congress wants to weigh in on how large energy projects should be approved, by all means, let's do it. But, quite frankly, you don't do it by presenting a bill to the President which gives him the exact same options that he has today. It doesn't move the ball down the road one way or the other. I share the desire that my colleagues have that hopefully the process is nearing its completion. Whether that is a week or a month or 6 months, I don't know. Apparently, the committee doesn't know either, because they haven't asked the Executive. But I do trust that they are taking the factors that Congress wrote into law into consideration and, hopefully, will come to the conclusion one way or the other regardless of whether this bill is passed or not. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. So again, I was excited that perhaps the Rules Committee was going to consider emergency legislation on public health or Ebola or the war with ISIS or our budget. How about a deficit of half a trillion dollars, I call that an emergency. Instead, here we are dealing with a bill, something that Congress already passed that even if they passed again would make the decisionmaker exactly the same decisionmaker we have today, namely, the President of the United States. Rather than considering the Keystone pipeline bill--and if we weren't going to deal with one of the real emergencies--why not at least bring up bills that create new green energy jobs in our innovation and energy sector like the bipartisan Public Lands Renewable Energy Act that I offered along with Representatives Gosar, Thompson, and Heck? The Public Lands Renewable Energy Act would expand renewable energy development and create jobs while protecting our Nation's public health and environmental resources. It would provide the framework for a competitive leasing system for wind and energy, solar energy, on public lands. The innovative leasing process would help move our Nation forward with clean energy development while providing funding for conservation, States, and localities. How about that? Let's use some of our great public lands that have good solar or wind characteristics for solar and wind. I think that would be a great bipartisan bill to bring up here today. Another example of a bill that we could consider today that would create jobs and move to a renewable energy future is the Renewable Electricity Standard Act, H.R. 3654, which I co-introduced in order to boost renewable energy markets across the country. The bill would make sure that utilities generate 25 percent of their electricity from renewable energies like wind, solar, and biomass by 2025. It is a goal, and my great State of Colorado already has a 30 percent renewable energy standard. That legislation would build on the success of over 30 State-based renewable energy standards, including the standard in the great State of Colorado by creating a true national market for renewable energy. It would create jobs and save consumers money on utility bills, help keep gas cheap at the pump, and provide billions in local tax revenues for small towns while cutting carbon pollution. That, to me, sounds like a better idea than spending our time debating a bill that, even if passed, will leave the project that it is talking about in the same situation it is before the bill is discussed. Instead, Republicans are moving forward on a bill that clings on to Big Oil interests and does nothing to make energy more affordable for American consumers, does nothing to move forward to a clean energy future, and does nothing at all because, even if it passes, it has to go to the President to sign, who is currently the person reviewing the applications as we speak. The emergency Rules Committee meeting and closed rule today does not allow me to bring forward the Public Lands Renewable Energy Act as an amendment. It doesn't allow me to bring forward the Renewable Electricity Standard Act as an amendment. In fact, the closed rule today ensures that no Member, Republican or Democratic, of this great body can offer an amendment to improve this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to set the tone for the next Congress by rejecting this rule and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 45 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. Last night, we got a notice that the Rules Committee was going to have an emergency hearing to expedite very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I was very excited. I thought we were going to deal with an emergency. Perhaps it was Ebola, perhaps it was dealing with the use of force overseas, or emergencies here at home like the thousands of families that are separated because of our broken immigration law or the emergency of balancing our budget before we leave the next generation with a burden of debt. I was really hopeful that the majority was ready to take on a pressing issue facing the country. Sadly, I was too optimistic. I found out that the bill that was such an emergency, that was expeditiously brought before the Rules Committee and now to the floor is actually a bill that we have already voted on this Congress to bypass the administration's review policy and streamline the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Turned out last night's Rules Committee meeting was far from an emergency. The majority should not have waived clause 11 of rule XXI that normally requires 3 days to review legislation before we vote on it. To be clear, we have not had 3 days to read this bill. Now, one could argue, since we have pretty much passed the darn thing before and it hasn't changed much, maybe we didn't need the full 3 days, but why are we doing another bill? I truly hope we are not setting the tone for the 114th where great Representatives, Democratic and Republican, come from all parts of the country to tackle the issues facing our great Nation, balancing the budget, fixing our broken immigration system, and getting our economy moving; and we vote on the same bill, in the case of repealing the Affordable Care Act, 53 times in the 113th Congress. One time, I understand. The House wants to do it, that is what the people were elected to do, if they believe that, and that is what a majority says, then do it. But what are the other 52 times besides a waste of taxpayer money? The Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act being revived today is nothing new. Again, it bypasses the pending review process and would immediately authorize the TransCanada Keystone pipeline company to build an 875-mile pipeline from Canada through the United States to the Gulf of Mexico for the exportation of oil. This bill would expedite a tar sands project without requiring a Federal environmental or administrative review process basically saying that those are automatically concluded and/or sufficient. I asked Chairman Whitfield in our Rules Committee what their discussion with the administration was on this. When did they last have testimony, formal or informal, from the administration? Where is the administration in this approval process? Mr. Whitfield informed me that there had been no updates from the administration that they have requested for 6 months, so for all we know, the President might be ready to approve or not approve this project tomorrow, next week, next month--I don't know--but it seems like the two branches of government aren't talking to one another. Normally, if Congress is interested in where a particular approval process is, we would hold hearings, and we would ask the relevant questions--what are the current sticking points, are there issues that are still pending--rather than bypass any legitimate issues that might still be there around the routing. As many of you know, the routing has already been changed so as not to impact the Ogallala aquifer, and there could very well be other important issues that affect residents of the States through which the Keystone pipeline would pass. Clearly, this project is a great favor to our friendly neighbors to the north, the great nation of Canada. The question that we need to figure out as a country is: Does it benefit America? Does it benefit Americans? There are pros and cons. Obviously, if it goes in your neighborhood, it is not a particular benefit to you--or through your farm--and that was some of the issues that we heard from in the impact statements that are currently being reviewed by the administration. There is a review process underway. We all wish that review process went faster. We all wish that NEPA would go faster. We all wish that a wide variety of review policies would go faster, but we don't know how that is going to be concluded, and I think it is important that, while they get through it as soon as possible, they are able to do so and take all factors into account. If Congress wants to change the approval process for these kinds of projects, I think that is a legitimate discussion to have. If Congress determines it needs to reconfigure a review process for a project like this, maybe we would go into the statute and we alter the different agencies or we assign different responsibility or criteria. That would be a relevant discussion to have, not bypassing something that Congress set up in statute. The President is doing what Congress told him to do in reviewing this process--not this Congress, but the underlying statute when it was passed. Now, of course, there are a lot of issues around Keystone XL, and rather than interrupting the State Department's ongoing review process, Congress should allow all the relevant issues to be properly addressed around this issue. I want to emphasize that the Republicans brought this tar sands bill forward just one day after China and the U.S. came to a landmark agreement to address climate change. Tar sands are a high-polluting fuel that, on a life-cycle basis, tar sands crude produces about 20 percent more carbon pollution than conventional crudes. In addition, we have a study from Cornell University with regard to the effect of the XL pipeline on gasoline for American citizens, and top energy economists in this Cornell study said that if the XL pipeline is built, consumers in our country may end up paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gas as a result of tar sands being diverted. That is millions of dollars a year out of the pockets of Americans and perhaps into the pockets of wherever all this oil is going. But, again, of what benefit to America is this project? There is also the simple matter of how a bill becomes a law, okay, so we have a House bill, a Senate bill, and let's take a wild presumption, maybe both Chambers will pass this bill. What happens next? It goes to the President. The President can sign a bill or veto a bill. Essentially, the President can sign a bill approving the Keystone pipeline, which is something that he can do now without this bill. He can approve the pipeline, and if Congress goes through all this deliberative effort at taxpayer expense, talk, and votes and all this stuff, the President still has a decision. Now, again, obviously, if there are two-thirds in both Chambers, Congress can seize power on a particular issue and exert its own will, but that hasn't been the case on these Keystone pipeline votes, and I don't expect it to be the case on this one. So it is just an exercise in senseless hot air being thrown around the Chamber where we can pass bills and the same situation prevails if it passes or not; namely, the President can decide whether they want this to go forward or not. If Congress wants to alter that approval process, let's look at the statutory rules around how projects are reviewed for future projects and see if we can reach a bipartisan consensus about that. I wish that this had been an emergency piece of legislation. I wish that we were tackling a potential public health crisis. I wish that we were tackling terrorism. I wish we were tackling balancing the budget, and I wish we were tackling securing our borders. But we are not. We are tackling something that isn't going anywhere and, even if passed, will give the President the same choice that he has today, much to do about nothing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation that I was proud to author, the Arapaho National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of 2014, H.R. 4846. This legislation involves a parcel of 10 lots that we call the ``wedge'' in Grand County, Colorado, in the Second Congressional District. The wedge is located just north of the town of Grand Lake and west of the famous Rocky Mountain National Park. Come visit. It is called the ``wedge'' because it is actually a wedge of land which divides the Arapaho National Forest from the Rocky Mountain National Park. Although this parcel is integral to the successful management of these public lands, the wedge is currently outside of the national forest boundary. I drafted this bill after receiving a lot of feedback and strong local support to incorporate the wedge into the Arapaho National Forest to make sure that this undeveloped land is enjoyed by the millions of visitors who travel west from the top of Rocky Mountain National Park on the Trail Ridge Road scenic byway. The U.S. Forest Service already owns seven of the 10 parcels, which are already being managed as part of the Arapaho National Forest. There is a nonprofit, the Rocky Mountain Nature Association, that owns one lot, and two lots are owned by private landowners. We have worked with the landowners and the other adjacent landowner, in order to craft this legislation, as well as local government. As a result, all interested parties have sent in letters of support. The bill is simple. It incorporates the wedge into the Arapaho National Forest boundary; it adds the lots owned by the Forest Service to the adjacent Bowen Gulch Protection Area; and it authorizes the Federal Government to purchase land in the designated area from willing sellers. The bill is important because the development of the wedge parcel has an important impact on the scenic beauty of the Rocky Mountain National Park. It is also a key driver of our economy in northern Colorado, and it could negatively harm the adjoining Colorado River headwaters if we don't appropriately deal with the wedge parcel. As such, the surrounding communities and landowners all support this idea that preserves the scenic qualities that the wedge has for the area. The bill is a community-driven effort. I received letters of support from the Grand County Board of County Commissioners, the Town of Grand Lake, the Headwaters Trails Alliance, Conservation Colorado, all three affected landowners, and, of course, many aspects of the tourism industry strongly support this bill as well. I am very grateful that the House Natural Resources Committee quickly considered this legislation and unanimously passed this legislation on September 18. I urge my colleagues on the floor to similarly support this legislation here today.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I encourage us to stay here and address immigration reform so that we can solve this issue for our country, reduce our deficit, and secure our borders. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule, number 76 and 77 of this Congress, allowing no allowed amendments from either side, including the very reasonable all-of-the-above energy amendments that I offered with my colleagues Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Blumenauer that either would have eliminated oil and gas subsidies or provided a similar and corresponding subsidy for the production tax credit and wind energy, so at least it can compete on a level playing field with the oil and gas industry. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thought it was worth a try here to reduce the deficit by over $200 billion, create several hundred thousand jobs for Americans, secure our border and restore the rule of law but, apparently, going on vacation on Friday is more important. These are likely the last votes that this Chamber will take before the election. Unfortunately, rather than move forward on protecting our borders, rather than move forward on reducing our deficit, rather than move forward on so many of the important national priorities we have, we are simply taking up bills that have already passed, reconsidering them under new and more sinister forms, and sending them nowhere at no time. These bills are not going to be law. They didn't become law last time. It is even harder for them to become law when they are packaged together in new and different ways. There is a word for this kind of legislative activity, and it isn't ``governing.'' It is called ``pandering.'' Rather than spinning our wheels, we should have taken up the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. I was hoping that I could have gotten the permission under unanimous consent to bring that up. I am confident we have strong support from Democrats and Republicans in this body to pass that bill and to send it on into law. Unfortunately, more than a year after the Senate has passed immigration reform, the House still refuses to even allow a vote on our bipartisan immigration reform bill that secures our borders and restores the rule of law, reduces our deficit, and creates jobs for Americans; instead, the only votes the House has taken this year on the entire topic of immigration have been to subject DREAMers--who grew up here and know no other country--to deportation and send immigrant children fleeing violence back to their countries, where they face possible persecution or death. Rather than continuing to waste the American people's time and taxpayer money debating recycled measures over and over again, I wanted to give this body, through my unanimous consent request, one more opportunity to tackle an issue that will get larger and harder to deal with the longer we wait, and that is immigration. If there are 10 million people here illegally today, Mr. Speaker, if this body continues to object to every motion we make to bring up a law that would secure our borders and restore the rule of law, there is likely to be 15 million people here illegally in 10 years. You can count on it. This Nation deserves to have secure borders, we deserve to restore the rule of law, and we deserve to reflect our values as a Nation in our immigration system. I know we have the votes for this bill. I urge my colleagues to change their plans for tomorrow and, instead, allow us to come back and pass immigration reform so that we can finally solve this issue, reduce our budget deficit, create jobs for Americans, secure our border, and end this Congress on a positive note, a positive note of moving forward on solving an issue that the American people are screaming out for a solution to rather than rehashing and repackaging special interest bills into new and more sinister forms. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider six separate pieces of legislation that are true priorities for jump- starting the middle class: the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, the Healthy Families Act, the Strong Start for America's Children Act, and the Bring Jobs Home Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, the comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.