Speech #990264326

I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I find it somewhat amusing that the gentleman from California. with a straight face. would talk about a rule that was predestined to go down as if somehow the rule that the gentleman from California led the opposition to last week. the vote that killed for at least the moment the immigration bill. was ordained from above and was not a calculated decision by the gentleman from California utilizing the partisan issues within his own caucus to bring down that particular rule because he did not like the way that rule was crafted. Let us review a little bit of history. The rule came out of the Rules Committee. It was scheduled for debate last week with Monday and Tuesday of this week reserved for taking up that bill so it could move to the conference committee in plenty of time to return that piece of legislation to the floor for adoption and sending to the President. The Senator from Wyoming. and there is no one who is more committed to passing immigration reform than the Senator from Wyoming. urged the members of his party in this House to adopt that rule. move that bill and let it go to a conference committee where the two alternative proposals. the Wilson .amendment that the gentleman from California likes so much. and the Schumer proposal that was approved by the Judiciary Committee. the Education and Labor Committee. the House Agriculture Committee. the Energy and Commerce Committee in this House. all of those committees had approved. The Attorney General. urging action on the immigration bill before the session concluded. indicating his own opposition and the administrations opposition to the Schumer proposal. when asked what should the House do if the Schumer proposal is part of the bill? Send it on to the conference committee. let us work out. let us not lose immigration reform over differences on this particular issue. This is all the background on which a mistaken decision by the leadership of the other party in this House was made to destroy the rule. Now if you want immigration reform in this session. there are two ways to do it. The way the gentleman from Mississippi is proposing is certainly not the way to do it. That is part of a debate on who is to blame. The way to pass an immigration reform bill in this House is either to reconsider the decision that the minority made last week with respect to the rule that came out of the Rules Committee or to negotiate in good faith a provision that brings the different elements and factors in this very complicated process together on a proposal that in a very short period of time can be approved. The way not to do it is to utilize in an almost unprecedented fashion a maneuver which still in no way can be called a fair rule. There are no amendments allowed to the Wilson proposal under the rule the gentleman from Mississippi is proposing.