Mr. Speaker. this Member. along with a majority of his colleagues voted to defeat the rule on the muchneeded immigration reform bill. That rule failed to make in order the amendment from the gentleman from California which would have removed the "instant citizen" proposal crafted by the gentlemen from California and the gentleman from New York . This Member considers himself a moderate on most issues and is willing to listen to all sides of an argument. This gentleman listenedas carefully as he possibly couldand remained astounded that the gentlemen from New York and California insisted on offering a proposal such as this one. The distinguished chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee probably knows this Members strong feelings in favor or immigration reform. a commitmentand set of views that was reflected in votes during the last congressional session. However. this Member suspects and warns his friend and distinguished. effective. and hardworking colleague. the gentleman from Kentucky . that because of the rule this Member. along with many other Members of this body. was forced to vote against an immigration reform bill. This is not a position or situation that this gentleman from Nebraska relishes. Indeed. this Member correctly feared that this "gag rule." particularly failing to make in order an amendment by the gentleman from California would apparently doom immigration reform for yet 1 more year. Arguments were abounding that the bill under this rule should pass in order for a bill to go to conference. Therethe argument goes on to saythe socalled Berman/Panetta/Schumer provisions will be removed.
Keywords matched
Immigration immigration