Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to the life and ministry of the Reverend Dr. James Cherry, Sr. Reverend Cherry is the long-serving, revered and accomplished pastor of the highly regarded Aenon Missionary Baptist Church in Rochester, New York. Throughout his thirty-four year tenure as pastor of Aenon Missionary Baptist Church, Reverend Cherry has earned the love and respect of Aenon congregants and countless others throughout the United States and abroad. His teaching and preaching have enabled innumerable people to lift themselves from the depths of despair, given them hope for a brighter future and the determination to reach their full potential in life. His outstanding ministry can be credited in great part for the unprecedented growth of the Aenon Missionary Baptist Church. His compassionate spirit and boundless love for humanity have guided Aenon to reach far beyond its four walls and into the darker places of our society. With his guidance, the church established ministries such as Dorcas's Closet, Monks Bread, and the Urban Farm Stand to address the basic needs of people in the southwest area of Rochester, New York. Through his work with the New York State Empire Baptist Mission of America, Reverend Cherry has ministered to the needs of countless people throughout our nation and in foreign countries. Often referred to as the ``pastor's pastor'' by his colleagues, Reverend Cherry is notable for sharing wise and profound counsel with other ministers and pastors. Not being one to promote himself or a personal agenda, he has always freely shared his wisdom; thereby aiding younger pastors to excel in ministry and more seasoned pastors to benefit from his wealth of experience and ministerial expertise. Reverend Cherry faithfully served our nation through his service in the United States Marine Corps (1954-1957). He has faithfully served as an American Baptist pastor for 54 years and as pastor of Aenon Missionary Baptist Church for 34 years. He has received numerous accolades and many awards, including awards from the National Baptist Convention, the Great Lakes Baptist Association, the Empire State Congress of Christian Education, the Urban League, the NAACP, the YMCA and the National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS. Through his ministry and works, Reverend Cherry has proven himself to be a servant of God and a friend to all of humanity. In tribute to his lifetime of service to the Rochester, New York community and far beyond, I stand to honor him today. As Reverend Cherry enters into retirement at the end of 2014, let the record show that his legacy is one of love, compassion, empathy and great works. Today I am proud to honor the life and legacy of one of the finest residents of New York's 25th Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, the Rochester community, the State of New York and our nation are far better places because Reverend Dr. James Cherry, Sr. has walked among us.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the excellent Representative of Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when James Madison declared the Congress' ``power over the purse'' in the Federalist Papers as the most ``complete and effectual weapon,'' he warned of ``dishonorable stagnation.'' I fear we have achieved that. Rather than doing the hard work of coming up with long-term fiscal solutions for our Nation, we have resorted, once again, to short-term measures. In the 4 years since Republicans took control of the House, not a single regular appropriations bill has been signed into law; instead, we have had manufactured crises, brinksmanship, fiscal cliffs, near defaults on the national debt, massive omnibus bills, and government shutdowns. This continuing resolution may avert a national crisis in the short term by funding the government until December 11 of this year, but it is further demonstration the House majority has failed to do their most basic job. They have been so obsessed with suing the President, investigating the nonexistent scandal in Benghazi, and holding more than 50 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act that they have not done the routine work of Congress, funding the government. It is clear that under the current House majority our ``power of the purse'' has turned into ``dishonorable stagnation.'' Not only has the House majority found new ways to procrastinate on finding long-term solutions, they insist on passing the most closed rules in a single Congress ever; in fact, just last week, they celebrated the 75th closed rule, which makes this their diamond jubilee. They continue to pass closed rules which stifle debate and impedes the work of this Chamber. Through this tactic, half of the country's Representatives have been silenced by the House majority. Even though Democrats received over a million more votes than Republicans did in the 2012 election, we are shut out. Our Nation's districts have been so gerrymandered, our representative democracy has been skewed beyond recognition. I also oppose the inclusion of section 2 in the continuing resolution. That provision, which further excuses the Select Committee on Benghazi from adopting written rules to govern its work, does not belong in a rule for a must-pass funding bill; rather, the Benghazi Select Committee, just like every other committee of the House, should be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on its basic rules and procedures that will govern its work. The House majority previously tried to free the Benghazi Select Committee from this responsibility when it passed H. Res. 567 and established the committee last May. Four months later, they have realized on the eve of the select committee's first hearing that H. Res. 567 was not adequate; and so they inserted at the last minute a provision that, rather ironically, now excuses the select committee from the express requirement contained in clause 4 of rule XI for committees to adopt written rules to assure that meetings open to the public may be covered by audiovisual which means ``in conformity with acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, and decorum.'' When H. Res. 567 was brought to the floor for a vote in May, 186 Democrats voted against it. Let me reiterate that what this bill was doing is excusing the Benghazi Select Committee from having written rules like every other committee of the House is required to do. Not a single Republican joined us in voting against what we normally do. Many of us objected to the creation of the Benghazi Select Committee in the first place as an unnecessary and partisan pursuit. Seven different congressional committees issued nine separate reports that answer the key questions about what went wrong in Benghazi. Many of us believe that, to the extent any legitimate questions remain, the standing committees of jurisdiction along with Select Committees on Intelligence are fully capable of addressing those and overseeing the implementation of the needed reforms. It is unfortunate that not everyone seems to have the same confidence in the work of their colleagues. We also objected because H. Res. 567 skews the process by failing to equalize majority and minority representation and resources and by seeking to excuse the select committee from following the basic requirements that apply to other committees of the House. Basically, that says that we on the minority side have been shut out again. No guarantees and no discussion at all of fairness or openness either in resources, ability to see documents, or to call for witnesses. I offered an amendment to address many of these concerns, but the effort failed. After much debate about whether even to participate in the select committee's work, Democrat members of the House ultimately agreed to do so in the hope that Republicans would fulfill their promises of a bipartisan, fair, and transparent process. Just as we were guaranteed an open process at the beginning of the term, we have been had yet once again. Inserting a last-minute provision in the rule on this must-pass funding bill will allow a select committee to avoid negotiating over or adopting the basic rules and procedures, and it does not honor the promise of openness. It will not win the public's trust. You cannot continually shut out half the Congress. The Benghazi Select Committee, like every other committee in the House, should be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on the ground rules that will govern its investigation. What the CR does is fund the government, and the rule for it should not be a means for the House majority to change language governing the highly political Benghazi Select Committee. Programs and services all over the country cannot continue to run, as we are going to be asking them to do, on a month-to-month basis. They need certainty and reliability, which they clearly aren't getting. Instead of investing in emerging technologies or medical research, of which we used to be at the forefront, the majority lurches from stopgap to stopgap, and now that strategy has caught up with us. Running the United States Government in 3-month tranches is a true recipe for disaster. The CR does extend funding for operations of all Federal agencies, programs, and services until December 11 of this year and provides funding at the current annual rate of just over $1 trillion. However, it does include changes to existing law that are needed to prevent catastrophic, irreversible, or detrimental changes to government programs, specifically to address current national or global crises. Regarding Ukraine, the CR continues the current flexibility with the State Department and USAID to respond to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Congress and the United States must continue to support the Ukrainian people in their fight for a free and democratic country. It is with some delight that we welcome Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to our Chamber later this week. The CR also increases funding to address the disability claims backlog at the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as to investigate claims about medical care. We all agree that when our troops come home they deserve the best medical care, and this increase in funding will help to ensure that we provide just that. Finally, regarding our involvement in confronting the rising threat to the Islamic State, or ISIL, while I am disappointed in the process that led to the continuing resolution, I do agree the House must debate at least one portion of the President's plan. We as Representatives need to debate if or how we arm rebel forces in Syria as well as other tactics in the broader effort. However, I have deep concerns about the ever-louder drumbeat toward war. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed the lives of 6,640 of our men and women in uniform and critically wounded 50,450--50,450 come home to an already stressed VA system that cannot adequately care for them. The true cost of a war is not just in dollars, but in lives taken and destroyed, and I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the path before us. Mr. Speaker, with this continuing resolution, we have an opportunity to avoid a short-term crisis, but if we continue to postpone the fundamental work of Congress, the Nation's economy will be at risk. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I know we have had this debate before and this discussion before, blaming everything on the Senate, but the fact is we have not done our job here in the House. There were several appropriations bills that had committee approval, but none of us ever had the chance to vote for them. They were never brought to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds because I can't resist it, although I am so fond of Mr. Cole, but we can't really blame it on the Senate that we have not done our work over here. The House was able to find the time to vote 55 times to kill the health care bill, which is providing health insurance for 8 million Americans who didn't have it before. For goodness shakes, we could do that once a week, but we couldn't do the appropriations bills. Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that makes two changes: first, it would strike a special waiver for the Benghazi Select Committee that lets them avoid the transparent and deliberative process of debating and voting on their own written rules for media access, which every other committee has to do; second, we would bring up the bill introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 7 years, bringing certainty and stability to an agency that helps to create jobs in the United States. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to discuss our proposal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority's insistence on brinkmanship and short-term solutions threatens the Nation's economy, and regular appropriations bills have been replaced with fiscal cliffs, temporary stopgap measures, massive omnibus bills, and government shutdowns. It is far past time that this Chamber's majority party does the good work of government and works to provide stability to the American people. 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.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed honor to commemorate the twenty-third anniversary of the independence of Ukraine and recognize the Ukrainian community of Rochester, NY for their valuable contributions to the development of the Rochester region and their unshakable support for a stable, democratic, prosperous and sovereign Ukraine in the face of tremendous adversity. Since the Ukrainian parliament officially proclaimed Ukraine as an independent state on August 24, 1991, the people of Ukraine have worked tirelessly to establish a stable democracy and a prosperous economy open to western trade and investment. Though there have been many setbacks along the way, the will and determination of the Ukrainian people has never wavered and they have repeatedly shown their unwillingness to accept injustice or autocratic rule, most recently during the EuroMaidan movement. Since the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, Ukraine has encountered tremendous opposition and aggression from the Russian Federation and President Vladimir Putin. President Putin has used the full resources at his disposal to sow instability and unrest as Ukraine worked to elect a new President and integrate with Europe and the west. These tactics began with the Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and continue to this day, as Russia arms and supports separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine so craven they shot down a commercial airliner carrying civilian passengers and blocked the international community's access to the crash site. In response to Russia's actions, the United States Congress quickly passed legislation authorizing $1 billion in loan guarantees to the Ukraine government, $60 million in assistance for training and non- lethal equipment and material to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, National Guard, and State Border Guard Service, and over $70 million to help Ukraine hold free and fair presidential elections, root out corruption, enhance their energy security, and stabilize their economy. I also worked with my colleagues on the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus to introduce legislation to provide Ukraine with more robust military assistance as they battle well-funded separatist rebels supported by Russia in Eastern Ukraine. As the leading world power, the U.S. should give Ukraine the tools and resources it needs to stand up to this threat and maintain its independence, sovereignty, and democracy. The city of Rochester, NY in my district has been blessed with a vibrant and active Ukrainian population that began settling the region as early as the 1880s. These hardworking and civic-minded citizens have left their mark in business, banking, medicine, public affairs, and other industries vital to the success of our community. They have also been active and engaged in Ukraine's struggle for political, economic and social stability. They have brought attention to injustice and lobbied public officials to take action. I am incredibly proud of this community and to have been made an honorary Ukrainian by my constituents. I have been pleased to work on their behalf during my years in Congress. While Ukraine still has many miles left on its journey for peace, prosperity, and democracy, I am encouraged by the progress the Ukrainian people have made and their courage to continue fighting. I'm also reminded of their quest this year as we mark the bicentennial of the birth of the great Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko, whose strong advocacy for Ukraine as an independent state left a lasting impression on the people of Ukraine for generations. As Mr. Shevchenko wrote in the 1858 poem Fate, ``So let's march on, dear fate of mine! My humble, truthful, faithful friend! Keep marching on: there glory lies; March forward--that's my testament.'' I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ukraine on its 23rd Independence Day, and honoring and thanking the Ukrainian community of Rochester, NY, for their tireless work to promote a stable, democratic, prosperous and sovereign Ukraine at a time of tremendous adversity. I am honored to represent such a passionate and dedicated community.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Horsford and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for their kind words that you have already said about my constituent, Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende. As was said before, he was born in Rochester on January 13 of 1989. His life was taken far too soon at the age of 23, while he served his country and helped to protect the lives of his brothers in arms. Those who knew him described him as a fun-loving jokester, who above all else was dedicated to service to his country. After graduating from McQuaid Jesuit High School in 2007, he joined the ROTC at Niagara University. He was so passionate about defending his country that when he learned he would likely be commissioned as a Reserve lieutenant, he instead enlisted in the U.S. Army to pursue his goal of becoming an Active Duty infantryman. After enlistment, Theodore was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, based out of Vincenza, Italy. He then married his wife, Alexandra, on April 12, 2012, just a few months before leaving on his first tour of duty. On July 27, Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende and his unit were ambushed. He courageously ushered his wounded comrades to shelter and endangered his own life. His selfless and sacrificial actions saved the lives of five of his fellow soldiers. He gave his young life in service to his country, and because of his bravery, he was posthumously promoted from private first class to specialist. Today, I rise to honor the memory of Specialist Glende. With this legislation, the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, New York, will be permanently designated the Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office. While nothing we can do will ever assuage the grief of Theodore's wife, of his family and friends, this designation is a small token of our gratitude for his valiant service and will help to keep his memory alive for future generations.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. You would think after 4 years that the majority would know how to run the House, but this week makes us wonder. All we have accomplished this week is to sue the President and deregulate pesticides into the environment. And in a real embarrassment, canceling a vote because Tea Party Members refused to support a border bill that was tailormade for them. Actually, I understand it was in their interest to pass it yesterday. Now, my colleague, of whom I am inordinately fond, said that the time to act is now. But the time really to act was yesterday when the Senate was in town, because there is no way now what we are doing today could ever become legislation because the Senate would have to pass something, and then it would go to the President who said already he would veto it. So we stay an extra day here to make a point. Instead of going home to our constituents, we are under siege in a choke hold by some Members of the House. This much is true: it costs the taxpayers $24 million a week to run the House of Representatives, and I am afraid the American people aren't getting their money's worth. President Truman, it is worth noting, campaigned for President using a quote ``do-nothing Congress,'' which had passed nearly 1,000 bills. And under Mr. Speaker, this Congress has passed just around 120. Mr. Truman was mad because they had not done a health care bill. Fortunately, we got that done 4 years ago. But this recalcitrant Congress is why President Obama had to act on his own. Nothing is working here, but he was responsible for keeping the country moving. I think we need to describe for the Record and for the public exactly what has been done today. This morning, the majority adopted a martial law rule until September 5, which is most unusual. Martial law usually lasts 1, 2, maybe 3 days at the outside. But we have 5 weeks, which means the Speaker can call us back at any time. We would hope that he would not do that without telling us what we are going to do. But today, we do not even know what is in this bill. We don't understand this legislation because the 40 pages of it we have not had time to look at. So here we are. We do think it is pretty toxic. But not only was the bill drafted by Republicans only, in a basement room, there are absolutely no Democrat fingerprints or ideas or amendments or thoughts or suggestions or hopes or anything else in this bill. There have been no hearings, no markups, no amendments, nothing of which we are entitled to as Members of the House and sent here by 750,000 Americans. This bill, we know, does give $35 million to reimburse the National Guard for activities related to ``border security and the current influx of illegal immigrants.'' Now it turns out that only Texas has spent any money on that, and one wonders if that piqued Senator Cruz's interest in this bill and what we are doing over here because it looks like that is where the money will be going. The bill tragically cuts all funding for the DREAM Act, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. We were told there were something like 700,000 children who were involved in that, who came forward on a promise by this government that they would have an opportunity to go to school and they would not be deported. Now the country has their names, their addresses, and they would be easy to deport because this bill puts an end to the DREAM Act. I related today in the Rules Committee a story about four undocumented young men in high school in the United States that decided to enter into a contest to build an underwater robot, the trouble that they had simply getting the equipment to do it and the teachers who helped them do it. And they really felt that they had been outmatched and outgunned when they were going to compete as high school students against engineering students at MIT, a premier engineering school in the United States. What happened, those four young men won. They beat MIT. Now, they were part of the DREAM Act. We hope they will not be deported because, more than anything I can think of, the United States needs that kind of thinkers and innovators in what they had to do. So the Cato Institute agrees. They wrote on July 29, 3 days ago, that DACA, the DREAM Act, was not a primary cause of the surge, and I insert this report from CATO, entitled, ``DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children,'' into the Record. I will also submit some statistical findings from Professor Tim Wong, from the University of California, San Diego, into the Record, entitled, ``DACA Did Not Cause the Influx of Unaccompanied Minors'' into the Record. [From the CATO Institute, July 29, 2014] DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children (By Alex Nowrasteh) In June, 2012 the Obama Administration announced that it had authored a memo deferring the deportation of unauthorized immigrant childhood arrivals in the United States, a program known as deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA). The memo directed then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to practice prosecutorial discretion toward a small number of unauthorized immigrants who fulfilled a specific set of characteristics. In essence, some unauthorized immigrants who had come to the United States as children were able to legally stay and work--at least temporarily. Did DACA Cause the UAC Surge? Some politicians contend that DACA is primarily responsible for the surge in unaccompanied child (UAC) migrants across the border in recent years. A recent House Appropriations Committee one-pager stated that, ``The dire situation on our Southern border has been exacerbated by the President's current immigration policies.'' Proponents of this theory argue that DACA sent a message to Central Americans that if they came as children then the U.S. government would legalize them, thus giving a large incentive for them to come in the first place. Few facts of the unaccompanied children (UAC) surge are consistent with the theory that DACA caused the surge. First, the surge in UAC began long before the June 15, 2012 announcement of DACA. It is true that DACA had been discussed in late May 2012 but the surge was underway by that time. From October 2011 through March 2012, there was a 93 percent increase in UAC apprehensions over the same period in Fiscal Year 2011. Texas Governor Rick Perry warned President Obama about the rapid increase in UAC at the border in early May 2012--more than a full month before DACA was announced. In early June 2012, Mexico was detaining twice as many Central American children as in 2011. The surge in unaccompanied children (UAC) began before DACA was announced. Second, the children coming now are not legally able to apply for DACA. A recipient of DACA has to have resided in the United States continuously from June 15, 2007 to June 15, 2012, a requirement that excludes the unaccompanied children coming now. Third, if DACA was such an incentive for UAC to come from Central America, why are so few Nicaraguan children coming? They would benefit in the same way as unaccompanied children from El Salvdaor, Honduras, and Guatemala. The lack of Nicaraguans points to other causes of the surge. The timing, legal exclusion of the UAC from DACA, and lack of Nicaraguans indicate that DACA was not a primary cause of the surge. Of the 404 UAC interviewed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees since 2011, only 9 mentioned that U.S. laws influenced their decision to come to the United States. Other American laws could have influenced the unaccompanied children to come but DACA is not the main culprit. Details on DACA The DACA beneficiaries, at the time of the memo, would have to fulfill all of these requirements to have their deportations deferred: under the age of 31; arrived to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday; entered the United States without inspection or overstayed a visa prior to June 15, 2012; continuously resided in the United States from June 15, 2007 to the time of the memo; physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, as well as at the time of requesting deferred action from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); been in school at the time of application, or have already graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. Beneficiaries of DACA were also allowed to apply for employment authorization according to the Code of Federal Regulations. There is a debate amongst legal scholars over whether the administration's grant of deferred action was legal. Those who argue that DACA was illegal contend that the President overstepped his constitutional authority to defer the deportation of some unauthorized immigrants. Those who argue that DACA was legal point to the general power of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to defer enforcement action. They argue that the Supreme Court has ruled that decisions to initiate or terminate enforcement proceedings fall within the authority of the Executive--an enforcement power used since the early 1970s. Here is more of their argument. This disagreement has not been settled. By the end of September, 2013, 580,000 requests for DACA were accepted by the U.S. government and 514,800, or 89 percent, were approved. Seventy-six percent of the requests came from Mexicans. Twenty-nine percent of the requests were filed from California, 16 percent from Texas, and 6 percent from Illinois. Read the Full Article: DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children

Ms. SLAUGHTER. What is really happening here is the most extreme, anti-immigrant voices in the Republican Party using the crisis as a political cover to repeal a commonsense policy like the DREAM Act, and the Speaker has caved once again to those voices. Representative Steve King described the underlying legislation as something that he could have ordered off the menu. Furthermore, the rules are of course closed, setting the record anew for the most closed rules in any Congress. This bill does stop short of catapulting those children into Mexico and then leaving them to walk to their home countries, but it certainly doesn't do very much since the discussion in the House of Representatives for several years now has been what to do about immigration. It really is a sorry path that we have reached the condition we are in right now, a one-House bill, a Senate that is gone, and a President who won't sign it. If we learned anything this week, we learned from Speaker Boehner's comments on his blog that the President should do more, not less, contrary to the reason why they sued him, and we do hope that the President will do that and bring a more humane solution to this, as almost all religions in the United States have asked us to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and an expert on immigration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), my friend, and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, that is true. We have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, in the more than a year since the Senate passed bipartisan immigration reform, the House leadership has refused to allow a vote on this essential legislation, even though we know it has the votes to pass. Indeed, over the last 13 months, the majority has not taken one step--not one--to fix our broken immigration system. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 15, our immigration reform bill, already passed by the Senate. 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.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bills. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill to properly address the humanitarian crisis at the border.