[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2311-H2319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4138, EXECUTIVE NEEDS TO FAITHFULLY 
 OBSERVE AND RESPECT CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS OF THE LAW ACT OF 2014, 
AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3973, FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE 
                            LAW ACT OF 2014

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 511 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 511

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4138) to protect the separation of powers in 
     the Constitution of the United States by ensuring that the 
     President takes care that the laws be faithfully executed, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 113-43. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3973) to amend 
     section 530D of title 28, United States Code. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. An 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 113-42 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by 
     Representative Ellison of Minnesota or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable 
     for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stewart). The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, H. Res. 
511, which provides for a structured rule as relates to H.R. 4138, 
ENFORCE the Law Act, and H.R. 3973, the Faithful Execution of the Law 
Act. The rule gives the House an opportunity to debate a variety of 
amendments, all offered by Members from the other side of the aisle.
  Both of the underlying bills, the ENFORCE the Law Act and the 
Faithful Execution of the Law Act, aim to halt an increasingly Imperial 
Presidency.
  The Faithful Execution of the Law Act is straightforward legislation 
that expands reporting requirements, forcing increased disclosure and 
transparency when the executive branch employs a policy of 
nonenforcement of Federal laws.
  Current law dictates that a report must be submitted to Congress when 
the nonenforcement policy is adopted on the grounds that a Federal law 
is unconstitutional. This bill would simply expand that report to 
include any instance in which a policy of not enforcing Federal law is 
established, regardless of the reason. For the self-proclaimed ``most 
transparent administration in history,'' this really shouldn't be a 
problem.
  The other piece of underlying legislation, the ENFORCE the Law Act, 
puts procedures in place to allow authorizations of lawsuits against 
the President for failure to faithfully execute the laws. It would also 
expedite judicial review, which is badly needed given the length of 
time it takes for these types of cases to be heard; mostly, they are 
never heard.
  The fact of the matter is that we desperately need a way to ensure 
the executive branch is upholding its responsibility to enforce the law 
faithfully. Every day it seems the President is using more and more 
unilateral actions to achieve his agenda. I understand that Congress 
and the administration are going to have differences over time. Our 
Constitution basically guarantees there are going to be differences 
between the administration and the House and the Senate, but I would 
like to think that a President wouldn't just abandon our constitutional 
principles of governing because it is difficult to get what he wants.
  I am sure some will argue that a legislative fix to the President's 
unilateral actions aren't needed. They will say the President has 
prosecutorial discretion and so that entitles him to make these changes 
in enforcement or delay certain provisions of the law.

                              {time}  1230

  But we are really not talking about individual cases, Mr. Speaker. We 
are not here today because we are concerned with the administration 
using discretion on a case-by-case basis. What we are concerned with is 
the President employing blanket policies of nonenforcement. In some 
instances, the President isn't just ignoring enforcement of the laws; 
he is effectively rewriting them.
  Now, I understand the President isn't the first to expand executive 
power under his watch. He is not the first President to do that. In 
fact, Congress has failed to protect article I powers for decades. This 
House and the Senate have been in dereliction because they haven't 
actually protected article I powers.

[[Page H2312]]

  The pace of expansion of power, though, should alarm every Member of 
this body. Take the President's recess appointments, for example. They 
have already been deemed unconstitutional by the D.C. circuit court in 
a unanimous--unanimous--decision.
  The court rejected the administration's argument that the President 
has the discretion to determine when the Senate is in recess.
  The court explained:

       Allowing the President to define the scope of his own 
     appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution's 
     separation of powers.

  Mr. Speaker, the President's actions aren't in danger of disrupting 
the legislative process; they already are disrupting it.
  What assurances do we have that the President won't just change the 
law once we have passed it? What guarantees do we have that the 
President won't suspend parts of the law that we believe are important?
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we don't have that assurance. The truth 
is, Mr. Speaker, we can't trust the President to enforce any would-be 
law equally and faithfully, and that is a shame.
  If anyone thinks the President's unilateral actions aren't a big deal 
because they happen to agree with him on the policy, well then, Mr. 
Speaker, they have badly missed the point.
  All Presidents--all Presidents--have probably pushed the limit of 
their power, and it is our responsibility, this House, to check that 
power. We are a nation of laws. We ought to fight to keep it that way. 
We can no longer sit by and watch Congress' constitutional role in our 
government eroded.
  This rule is to allow us to consider legislative addressing this 
growing problem. This rule ensures that ideas from Members on either 
side of the aisle are included in consideration of the underlying 
legislation.
  I support this rule, and I hope all my colleagues will also.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Nugent), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, somehow, against all odds, the Republican 
leadership of this House keeps coming up with new and creative ways to 
waste everybody's time. This is getting to be embarrassing, quite 
frankly.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, I joked that I picked the short 
straw, so I am handling the rule today. The reason why I said that is 
because what we are doing today really is a joke.
  This is not serious legislating. Even if there was some substance to 
the concerns the gentleman raised, the bills that have been written are 
written in such a way that they are purely political.
  This is not about serious legislating, this is about political 
statements, this is about political press releases, and I think the 
American people, quite frankly, have had enough.
  The Congressional Research Service says that it costs $24 million a 
week to run this place. I am going to tell you that what we are doing 
right now is wasting taxpayers' dollars.
  With all that needs to be done--with all that needs to be done, this 
is another politically motivated week of let's go after the President. 
That is the way it has been since this President has been elected, and 
I think people are getting tired of it.
  Week after week, month after month, and year after year now, this 
Republican majority continues to bring bills to the floor that have no 
chance of passing the Senate and have no chance of being signed into 
law that are just, again, political press releases.
  What is worse, the bills that are being brought forward do nothing--
absolutely nothing--to help rebuild our economy or put people back to 
work. My friend, the gentleman from Florida, talks about our 
responsibility as Members of Congress.
  Well, our responsibility as Members of Congress is to help people, is 
to legislate, is to deliberate, is to debate serious issues 
passionately. That is what we are here to do, not this. This belongs in 
the Republican National Committee. This is a press conference that my 
friend should have outside of this great building, quite frankly.
  Mr. Speaker, this economy is slowly recovering, but Republicans 
insist on doing nothing to actually strengthen that recovery. They 
refuse to consider any meaningful jobs legislation. We should have a 
highway bill to put millions of people back to work.
  Putting millions of people back to work with the increased revenue 
and taxes, you could actually pay down the deficit and the debt, but 
they don't bring anything like that to the floor. They block every 
attempt to increase wages for workers.
  We need to raise the minimum wage in this country. It is unacceptably 
low. People who work full-time ought not to live in poverty; yet we 
can't even get a minimum wage bill scheduled on the floor of the 
people's House. They won't even talk about it. We can't get them to 
even allow us to have an amendment on the minimum wage.
  They continue to ignore the plight of the long-term unemployed in 
this country. Over 1.7 million Americans are unemployed. These are 
people who are looking for jobs and still can't find them. The answer 
to them from this Republican Congress is you are on your own.
  I wonder sometimes whether any of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have ever met somebody who is unemployed or have talked to 
anybody who have lost their long-term unemployment benefits.
  Their answer is go ask daddy for a loan or go sell some stocks, that 
will take care of it. They have no idea what people in this country are 
going through; they have no idea how hard it is to struggle in poverty.
  Somehow, they find the time to take 51 votes to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act, 51 votes. Now, I get it, you don't like it, so you vote to 
repeal it once; you can vote to repeal it twice, maybe five times, 
okay. But 51 times that we have wasted the taxpayers' money debating a 
repeal of the Affordable Care Act, it is ludicrous. It is unreal. 
People don't understand this behavior outside of the beltway.
  Mr. Speaker, they also, quite frankly, find time to waste millions of 
tax dollars defending an antigay marriage law that is plainly 
discriminatory. That is okay for them to use taxpayer dollars to do 
that to stop any kind of reversal of this discriminatory law.

  Today's entry in the sweepstakes of useless legislation is the so-
called Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama. Never mind the fact that 
President Obama is using the same kinds of executive authority that 
President Bush and others before him used.
  Let me repeat that. President Obama is using the same kind of 
executive authority that President Bush and other presidents before him 
have used.
  Never mind the fact that the people supporting this legislation were 
more than happy to let George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ignore and 
contravene Congress at every single opportunity.
  In fact, they defended what I think is some really questionable 
behavior of the Bush/Cheney team, and never mind the fact that the last 
people on Earth who should be complaining about imperialism continue to 
vote for closed rules, continue to ignore regular order, and continue 
to shut Democrats out from the legislative process.
  By the way, one of the bills that we are debating today was 
introduced the day before it was marked had no hearings--so much for 
the promise that Speaker Boehner made that we are going to go back to 
regular order--no hearings, introduced the day before, then going right 
to America.
  Let's be honest, even if President Obama did everything in the world 
that the Republicans say they are asking him to do, they would still 
find a reason to complain. My friends on the other side of the aisle, 
you guys just don't like the President; I get it.
  But do you know what? Get over it because, at this point in time, our 
job is to work with the Senate and with the President to move this 
country forward; instead, my Republican friends have spent every single 
second since this President was elected trying to obstruct every single 
initiative that he has put forward. Even when he puts forward 
initiatives that they originally proposed, they complain.
  The bills that the Republicans bring before us today are likely 
unconstitutional, violate the separation of powers, would result in 
scores and scores of

[[Page H2313]]

frivolous lawsuits, and would be costly and impractical to apply.
  They don't deserve to be on this floor, and they certainly do not 
deserve to pass. When you read the way they were drafted, as I said 
before, they are written in a very political partisan way.
  Mr. Speaker, I consider myself an institutionalist. I love the House 
of Representatives. I am proud to serve here. It is a privilege to 
serve here. Our Founders created the Congress as a coequal branch of 
government, and this institution should never be overlooked or 
sidestepped.
  There is a strong argument to be made that, over the past 30 years, 
Congress has allowed itself to become so bogged down in gridlock that 
it has allowed executive power to grow far too large. That is a worthy 
debate for us to have.
  Now, that being said, the executive branch has the authority to make 
certain regulations and take certain executive actions, and this 
President--any President--has a responsibility to lead when Congress 
can't get its act together and do its job.
  We are elected to legislate, but time after time, instead of tackling 
issues like immigration reform, climate change, jobs, the minimum wage, 
bringing our troops home safely from Afghanistan, feeding our hungry--
we have 50 million people in the richest country in the history of the 
world that are hungry; we all should be ashamed of that--but instead of 
dealing with that or issues like ending poverty or rebuilding our 
infrastructure or helping the long-term unemployed, this Republican 
majority chooses instead to bring up partisan messaging bills that will 
justifiably die.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve so much better than this. We 
are wasting time; we are wasting taxpayer dollars doing this kind of 
stuff. They deserve a Congress that tries to improve the lives of every 
American, instead of placating an extreme right wing.
  They deserve a Congress that actually does its job. I will say to my 
friends: this is not doing our job. The bills before us today go 
exactly in the opposite direction of what we should be doing.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and defeat the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I need to go back to when I first took the oath of office as a police 
officer outside of Chicago and then as a deputy sheriff in Florida and 
then a sheriff in Florida and then here in this body and also when I 
joined the military.
  It was to support and defend the Constitution, not to ignore the 
Constitution, not to utilize it when we think it is okay or when it is 
necessary, not to just skip over article I and say: Do you know what? 
Forget about it because our Congresses have done that.
  My good friend from Massachusetts pointed that out. They have done it 
for 30 years, but that doesn't make it right. At some point in time, we 
have got to set the record straight.
  Somebody has got to step up and say: Do you know what? The 
Constitution matters, what we do here matters, and that all of us--the 
three branches of government--need to work, and they are coequal, not 
one above the other.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule, as well as the underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, the instances of executive branch overreach are 
numerous.
  Whether it is the multiple episodes of the President of the United 
States unilaterally delaying and waiving aspects of his signature law, 
the Affordable Care Act, or the failure to enforce this Nation's 
immigration laws by unilaterally implementing aspects of the DREAM Act, 
this President has shown an appalling lack of concern for the laws 
which his oath demands that he enforce.
  Someone who holds the office of the Presidency cannot pick and choose 
which laws he wants to enforce and which laws he wants to ignore.
  I was astonished when, during the State of the Union speech, many in 
this Chamber stood and applauded when the President said that if 
Congress didn't act on issues which he felt were important, he would 
just go around Congress and act on his own.
  This followed his now infamous ``I've got a pen and I've got a 
phone'' statement earlier.

                              {time}  1245

  Is that really how the legislative branch should feel about its 
constitutional position in the Republic?
  The ``pen and phone'' approach to his executive duties is disastrous 
to the Founding Fathers' vision of liberty protected by limited 
government which is spread across multiple, equal branches.
  Where is the President's respect for the rule of law? He expects 
Vladimir Putin to respect international law with respect to Ukraine 
while the President, himself, at the same time, continues to disregard 
the laws passed by the United States Congress.
  The legislative branch was designed as an equal branch of government. 
In fact, the establishment of the executive branch was easy for the 
Founding Fathers, who didn't wish to see imperialism in a Presidency, 
and they intentionally chose to limit that branch's powers. It was the 
legislative branch where they spent most of their time--deliberating, 
designing, and enumerating the powers which we hold--and it is past 
time for this body to say ``no'' to Presidential overreach.
  No, Mr. President. You cannot write laws via executive orders. No. 
You must enforce the laws passed by Congress or actually lead in an 
effort to change the laws with which you may disagree.
  In 1787, when asked what form of government the Framers had given us, 
Ben Franklin reportedly replied, ``A Republic if you can keep it.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are slowly losing grip on our Republic--
the government designed by this Nation's Founding Fathers that has 
provided over 200 years of freedom and prosperity.
  It is time for the people's House to regain its constitutional 
authority as the sole legislative body.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would urge my colleagues to remember the words ``physician heal 
thyself.'' While my friends are complaining about the President of the 
United States, they should kind of look inward and look at the imperial 
Republican majority that has kind of taken over here in this House of 
Representatives.
  We had the chairman of the Oversight Committee literally stop a 
member of the Democratic Party from engaging in legitimate and 
appropriate debate. In fact, he shut off the microphone and ended the 
hearing. I mean, is that what our Founding Fathers had envisioned for 
this Congress? Is that what upholding the Constitution is all about?
  As someone who serves on the Rules Committee and who welcomed the 
statement by Speaker Boehner that we would return to regular order, I 
am still looking for it. We just saw the most closed session in the 
history of this Congress last year. We had the most closed rules in a 
single year, the most closed rules in a single week, the most closed 
rules in a single day. I mean, the Rules Committee I love to serve on 
because of the great history. My former boss Joe Moakley was the 
chairman of the Rules Committee. I have great admiration for my 
colleagues on the Rules Committee, but the Rules Committee is becoming 
the place where democracy goes to die. Serious issues are routinely cut 
out.
  We had a Republican Member yesterday, Mr. Gibson of New York, who had 
a great idea about trying to hold the Executive accountable when it 
comes to the War Powers Act. It is an important issue. That is actually 
a legitimate issue for us to discuss. It was perfectly germane. On a 
party line vote, the Rules Committee voted that down. They said we 
won't have that debate here on the House floor.
  The way this place is supposed to operate is that all of us--all 435 
of us--whether we are Republicans or Democrats, ought to be considered 
important, and we all represent the same number of constituents. I 
understand that the party in control gets to kind of control the 
agenda, but that doesn't

[[Page H2314]]

mean the party not in control gets shut out on a regular basis on very 
important issues. Yet that has become the pattern here. Not only that, 
but we have seen more and more instances where committees of 
jurisdiction are not even relevant anymore--where bills are introduced 
the day before there is a markup, where there are no hearings. 
Sometimes we have bills that just mysteriously appear in the Rules 
Committee.
  My colleagues know that I have great difficulty with their approach 
to dealing with the SNAP program, formerly known as ``food stamps.'' 
They proposed a $40 billion cut on the poorest of the poor to pay for 
subsidies for rich agribusinesses. I thought it was a bad thing to do. 
I am also on the Agriculture Committee. That bill never even went to 
the Agriculture Committee. We never had a hearing on it. We never had a 
markup on it. It mysteriously appeared in the Rules Committee, and then 
it came to the floor.
  This is the way this place is being run. So, when you talk about 
``imperial'' anything, look in the mirror. We need to change the way we 
do business here. This place would operate a lot better if you would 
let the people's House work its will. If you brought the Senate-passed 
immigration reform bill to this floor, it would pass, but it is being 
blocked because a small group within the Republican caucus doesn't want 
to deal with the issue of immigration reform. Important issues are 
routinely being denied consideration on this floor. This is a place 
where trivial issues get debated passionately and where important ones 
not at all, and people are getting fed up with it.
  This politically motivated piece of legislation is politically 
motivated because of Minority Leader Cantor's memo to, I guess, 
Republicans after their retreat. They talked about having an Imperial 
Presidency week to kind of embarrass the President. I guess that is 
what they call serious legislating, but this really is a joke. I urge 
my colleagues to vote all of this stuff down.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, all I can tell you is that I don't take it 
as a joke in our defending and protecting the Constitution, which gives 
us the ability to serve here today. The people gave us the ability to 
be here based upon what the Constitution laid out for us. That is the 
plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. 
Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Alabama's Second 
Congressional District to lend my support to H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the 
Law Act and, of course, to the rule that is being debated here today.
  I appreciate my friend and colleague from South Carolina, Trey Gowdy, 
for bringing forth this very important legislation.
  We are here today to answer one question, Mr. Speaker: Will we stand 
idly by while an imperial President ignores the rule of law and 
unravels the separation of powers so carefully woven into our 
Constitution?
  The answer is ``no.''
  Probably, more than anything else, my constituents ask me: What are 
we doing to address the pattern of executive overreaches and disregard 
for the law by President Obama and his administration?
  Good, God-fearing Americans who work hard, who pay their taxes, and 
who obey the law are understandably frustrated by a President who acts 
as though he is above the law. The abuses are well documented: 
selective enforcement of immigration laws, waiving compliance for 
``welfare to work'' laws and what has become almost weekly attempts to 
delay, waive, or to just not enforce parts of ObamaCare because of the 
political implications. These are just to name a few.

  Mr. Speaker, our constitutional constraints on government may not be 
convenient for the President or for his political or policy goals, but 
they are necessary for preserving the checks and balances that ensure 
this government still derives its authority from the people and not the 
other way around.
  We now seek the intervention of the judicial branch to rein in the 
executive branch and reconstitute our proper separation of powers. I 
believe in our Constitution, and I believe it is worth fighting for. 
That is why I urge my colleagues to support the ENFORCE the Law Act and 
the rule and to join the fight to restore the checks and balances.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is funny. Again, I love that this all of a sudden has become an 
issue for my colleagues.
  There is a Washington Post article from July 24, 2006. Let me read 
the first couple of paragraphs:

       A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the 
     American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of 
     ``signing statements'' by President Bush that assert his 
     right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.
       In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said 
     that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws 
     than all previous Presidents combined.
       The panel members described the development as a serious 
     threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, 
     and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court 
     review of such statements.

  I can go on and on and on. The point is ``silence'' on the other side 
during all of that time. Then they said: Well, now we have got religion 
on this issue, and we want to hold everybody accountable. Yet, when Mr. 
Gibson had his amendment yesterday to actually bring up a legitimate 
focus where, I think, the Executive over the years has kind of abused 
its powers--and that is on the War Powers Act--he brought a germane 
amendment to the floor, and that was ruled out of order--we will deal 
with it another time--the translation of which means in this imperial 
Congress that it will never see the light of day.
  This House is being run in the most imperial way, where anybody who 
has a different view is routinely shut out from debate, with more 
closed rules than any Congress in history. I think it is probably more 
avoiding regular order--never mind the closed rules--than any Congress 
in history. That is one of the reasons some of the stuff we bring to 
the floor here is so contentious. It is because it is written in such a 
flawed way.
  I think it is a legitimate topic of discussion to talk about the 
appropriate powers of the Executive and the appropriate powers of the 
legislature, but to do that, I think, in a serious way means doing it 
in a bipartisan way, and there are ways for both Republicans and 
Democrats to come together. Again, this has never been about a serious 
attempt to deal with that issue. I mean this was one of their political 
talking points at their convention, at their retreat, that my friends 
had. This is not a serious attempt at anything. This is a political 
press release. We taxpayers spend $24 million a week to keep this place 
in session here, and this is how my friends use the taxpayers' money--
to deal with these kinds of things?
  The gentlelady from Alabama talked about her constituents all talking 
about this issue. Boy, I have got to tell you that, where I am from, 
what people talk about is: When are you going to pass a highway bill? 
They want to know when we are going to deal with the issue of jobs. My 
constituents and the people I meet all over the country want to know 
what we are going to do about raising the minimum wage. How are we 
going to deal with a pay equity bill so that women don't get 
discriminated against and get paid less than men do for doing the same 
job? They talk about global warming, which is like the worst thing you 
could talk about here because my friends don't even admit that it 
exists. They want to know what we are going to do to protect our planet 
and what we are going to do to help the long-term unemployed.
  Those are real issues. Those are about helping people. This is 
politics, and I think people have had enough of it. So I would urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say ``no'' to this stuff.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to make a couple of things clear.
  In the Judiciary Committee, they did have two hearings on this. Now, 
they

[[Page H2315]]

took some action to bring forward one of these bills based upon the 
hearings and the testimony that they did have.
  I truly believe in the open process. We want to see that, and I think 
we agree on that. My good friend from Massachusetts even read an 
article about George W. Bush and about that Presidency and that someone 
said that this Congress--or that Congress back then--should actually do 
something to allow it to go to court. I believe that was the statement. 
I am paraphrasing it. That is exactly what this does. I can't help it. 
I wasn't here when George W. Bush was President--I wasn't here 4 years 
ago--but I am here today, and I am here to defend and support this 
Constitution.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a good friend of mine.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this is very clear, the purpose of today's debate. The 
Take Care Clause is to faithfully execute laws that are passed. This is 
about standing statute. In fact, this is the centerpiece of the 
President's whole Presidency. He is choosing what will be enforced and 
what will not be enforced. The Take Care Clause, known as the 
``Faithful Execution Clause,'' was actually derived from Pennsylvania's 
1776 constitution, crafted by Pennsylvania's State executives during 
the Revolutionary War.
  I want you to just let your mind drift back to when people left 
Europe to come to America. They got in rickety, old, wooden boats with 
not very good nav systems, but they came here for a reason. They set 
their course true north. They were coming to get away from a monarchy. 
They were coming to get away from an imperialist. They were coming to 
get away from tyrants. Why did they come here, and what did they craft? 
It is so carefully laid out in our Constitution. So why are we having 
this debate about this being silliness? This is who we are, not as 
Republicans and Democrats, but who we are as Americans. Why would we 
turn our backs on our Constitution?

                              {time}  1300

  I understand the Executive Office has great power. I also understand 
that the Constitution harnesses that. It does not allow it to run 
roughshod over the people.
  Mr. Duncan very clearly talked about the State of the Union, when the 
President says to this body:

       America cannot stand still, and neither will I. So whenever 
     and whatever steps I can take with that legislation, that is 
     what I am going to do.

  That is chilling. People gave him a standing ovation--and not just a 
standing ovation, but from the House of Representatives, where that 
very power is being taken from. That is our responsibility. That is our 
duty.
  You cannot take that pledge and then turn around and say, Well, this 
is just about some kind of political maneuvering. This is not about a 
political maneuvering. That is about the protection of our 
Constitution. These things have been enshrined for us.
  It is critical that we look at this. The Executive cannot make 
exceptions and just enforce the law as he or she wants. That is not who 
we are as a people. We left monarchs and tyrants to come here.
  This is a government by the people, for the people, and of the 
people. If we ever forget that is what our job is as Members of the 
House of Representatives, then what are we doing here?
  I would just ask my colleagues on the other side to please take a 
look at this. This is very chilling. You may like where the President 
is taking us, I may not like where the President is taking us, but 
there is a process that we all must follow. This is statute that is 
being trampled upon by an Executive that has an overreach that we have 
never seen before.
  Can we not please return to those days and why those folks came here. 
What were they seeking? Freedom and liberty. What have we allowed those 
people to do? Turn their back and turn away from it and turn away from 
a Constitution that over a million people have given their lives to 
make sure that we could have this today.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that some sense of responsibility, and 
not politics, comes into this House.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just to make sure the record is correct, what I am 
understanding from staff is that while there were some hearings on the 
subject, one of the bills had no hearings. So, again, under regular 
order I think it would be important that the actual bill have a 
hearing.
  The other thing, my colleague from Florida said that he would like a 
more open process. Let me make a suggestion: then vote for one. Because 
consistently in the Rules Committee, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle routinely vote for closed rules. They routinely vote against 
allowing amendments, including germane amendments, to be made in order, 
including what I think would be an amendment that has bipartisan 
support, the one by Mr. Gibson on the War Powers Act that could have 
brought us together. That is a legitimate subject.
  The reason why this legislation before us is such a waste of time is 
because it does not reflect deliberative process. It does not reflect 
any kind of bipartisan cooperation. It is a political press release. It 
is a waste of taxpayers' money.
  I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I, too, took a pledge 
to uphold and defend the Constitution, and part of that pledge is to 
make sure that I represent all of the people, not just some of the 
people, not just those who give big contributions to political parties, 
but all of the people.
  The fact that we have nearly 2 million people in this country who are 
cut off from unemployment benefits, what does anybody say to them when 
you meet people who come up and say that they are looking for a job and 
they can't find one? Maybe my friends don't talk to those people.
  I will tell you it is heartbreaking that this Congress, the people's 
Congress that is supposed to represent them too, has turned their backs 
on them. What do you say to people who get cut off of their food 
benefits, who see their food benefit getting slashed, who end up at 
food banks trying to make ends meet to put food on the table for their 
families.
  We sit here and debate this, a partisan bill, and we don't do 
anything about that?
  Or, increasing the minimum wage--if you want to help people get off 
of food stamps, increase the minimum wage. Millions of people would 
automatically get off of public assistance. We can't even get a vote on 
that. We are not even allowed to bring that to floor.
  People are asking me, When are you going to pass comprehensive 
immigration reform? The Senate passed it in a bipartisan way. Why can't 
you bring it on the floor of the House? The answer is because the 
imperial Republican majority in this House has declared that no, we are 
not going to even talk about it, and the Rules Committee, again, has 
been used as a place to shut off democracy and to not have these kinds 
of important issues brought to the floor.
  So here we are debating a partisan bill that is purely partisan. You 
couldn't write it more partisan if my friends tried. Here we are 
debating this kind of bill while so many other things need to be 
addressed. This is a waste of time. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. 
It diminishes this institution.
  We are better than this. We should be talking about putting people 
back to work. We should be talking about helping to improve this 
economy at a more rapid pace. We should be talking about making sure 
that no one falls through the cracks; that we extend unemployment 
insurance benefits to people who need it.
  We should be talking about those issues. We should be talking about 
global warming. Instead, we are doing this. Again, written in a very 
partisan way, which I regret very much.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to reject this and reject the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  All I can say, again, is that as it relates to these bills, there was 
discussion in the hearings and testimony taken to the concept and the 
ideas behind these bills.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear about, this is partisan. It doesn't say 
``President Barack Obama.'' This says ``the President.'' It doesn't 
matter if it is Republican or Democrat, Mr. Speaker. It says ``the 
President.'' It has nothing to do

[[Page H2316]]

specifically with President Obama, but it has everything to do with 
protecting the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman says that this has nothing to do with President Obama. 
The committee report only cites President Obama, in terms of this 
issue, and their political document, the memorandum that came from Eric 
Cantor to the House Republicans, talks about the Imperial Presidency, 
and says President Obama has provided new clarity of what constitutes 
an Imperial Presidency. President Obama, President Obama, and on and 
on.
  It just defies logic for anybody to think for one second that this 
isn't about trying to attack this President of the United States, 
because what we have seen time and time again from the time this 
President was elected has been nothing but obstructionism and attack, 
obstructionism and attack, obstructionism and attack. I get it. There 
are differences in philosophies between the two parties.

  What is troubling to me is that in this imperial Republican Congress 
President Obama's ideas don't even get a chance to have their day on 
the floor, where we are routinely shut out.
  In this imperial Republican Congress we cannot bring to the floor a 
bill to increase the minimum wage. We cannot bring to the floor a bill 
to extend unemployment benefits for those over 2 million long-term 
employed. We cannot bring to the floor a jobs bill. We cannot bring to 
the floor the bipartisan Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform 
bill, which would do the right thing on behalf of a number of 
immigrants in this country, but would also, by the way, we are told, 
reduce our deficit.
  We can't even bring those things to the floor for debate. Under this 
imperial Republican leadership, our hands are tried. So we try 
procedural motions. We are trying discharge petitions. We are trying 
whatever we can to try to be heard.
  I think it is important for the American people to know where people 
stand. So if my friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe 
the American people deserve a raise, if they don't believe we should 
increase the minimum wage, vote against it. Go on record. Let the 
American people see where you stand. On immigration reform, if you 
don't want to reform the immigration system, fine. Vote against it when 
it comes to the floor.
  When my friends on the other side of the aisle routinely and 
regularly deny us the opportunity to even consider these things, that 
hurts our democracy. It diminishes this institution.
  If you want to talk about imperialism, what is that?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am urging my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment 
to the rule to bring up H.R. 4209, Mr. John Tierney's bill that 
contains the historic bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a permanent 
fix to the sustainable growth rate of Medicare, which will ensure 
fairness to doctors and strengthen Medicare.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have heard from the medical 
community on this issue. My Republican friends, unfortunately, have 
proposed a ``poison pill'' amendment that would kill this bipartisan 
agreement with an offset attacking the Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. Tierney's bill instead includes a commonsense pay-for that 
finances the bipartisan doc fix by putting limits on our spending on 
wars overseas. We already have these sorts of caps on spending for 
almost everything else in the budget, and it is time we capped our war 
spending as well.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. This amendment simply caps the OCO. We give the 
administration 1 more year of the Overseas Contingency Operations 
spending without any contingencies, but beginning in 2016, OCO is 
subject to budget caps just like everything else.
  Funding the war in Afghanistan is not emergency spending. We have 
been there for over a decade. We all know what the costs entail. The 
OCO is a so-called emergency account to keep the war in Afghanistan 
funded.
  I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but the fact that we have troops 
in Afghanistan is no longer a surprise and is no longer an unexpected 
development.
  In addition, the OCO has become a slush fund for Congress and the 
Pentagon to stick in goodies for procurement and operations and 
maintenance that it couldn't find room for in the Pentagon's half-
trillion dollar base budget.
  Now that Afghanistan President Karzai has made it perfectly clear 
that he doesn't want the United States or its military in Afghanistan, 
we should, at a minimum, cap the OCO and bring our troops home now.
  So if we can find billions and billions of dollars to fund a war that 
nobody wants in a country where the government insults our troops every 
single day, then we can use those moneys to fund real needs right at 
home, like permanently fixing the SGR once and for all.
  We talk about trying to find common ground. I think there is a lot of 
common ground on this issue amongst Democrats and Republicans. I think 
there are a lot of Republicans who are just as sick of this endless war 
and this over-the-top, unaccounted for spending in these wars as 
Democrats are.
  So I think this is a sensible offset, and I would urge my colleagues 
to support our initiative.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous 
question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bills for all the reasons I 
said before. We should be using the taxpayer dollars to do things to 
help people on this House floor, not to advance political agendas.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
agree with much of what my colleague from Massachusetts said, 
particularly as it relates to our involvement in Afghanistan and the 
Karzai regime.
  Let me read you some quotes, Mr. Speaker, and let's see who we 
thought said these quotes:

       The power of what has begun to be termed the Imperial 
     Presidency grows, and the ability of our Democratic 
     institutions, especially the Federal legislative branch to 
     constrain it, seems more uncertain.

  The next quote:

       We are a coequal branch of government, and if our system of 
     checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative 
     that we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or 
     ignoring the bills that are signed into law.

  And:

       We are talking about a systematic extra-constitutional mode 
     of conduct by the White House. The conduct threatens to 
     deprive the American people of one of the basic rights of any 
     democracy, the right to elect Representatives who determine 
     what the law is, subject only to the President's veto. That 
     does not mean having a President sign those laws but then say 
     he is free to carry them out or not as only he sees fit.

  Another quote:

       I believe it is in all of our interests to work together to 
     rein in any excesses of the executive branch, whether it is 
     in Democratic, Republican, or even Libertarian hands.

  Lastly, I will suggest to you that all those quotes I just read were 
from a highly respected Democrat, Mr. Conyers, talking about the George 
W. Bush Presidency.

                              {time}  1315

  What has changed? That is what we are talking about today.
  This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. Even Mr. Conyers said that 
that is a problem, that we are giving up what we are supposed to be 
doing here in the legislative branch, legislating.
  The President has a right to veto, but when he signs it into law, he 
has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws that he signs, he 
signs into law.
  Mr. Speaker, in an interview with The New York Times last July, the 
President was asked whether or not he had the legal constitutional 
authority to delay the employer mandates, and

[[Page H2317]]

the President's response was this, Mr. Speaker, speaking about Members 
of Congress: ``I am not concerned about their opinions. Very few of 
them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, he is right in one regard. Most of us aren't 
constitutional lawyers, and I am certainly glad the President is proud 
of his academic achievements.
  It doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to understand that we have 
separation of powers in this country, and that is what makes us unique. 
It doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to understand that the 
President can't just pick and choose which laws to enforce and which 
ones, don't worry about; we don't have to enforce it. Any eighth-grade 
civics student can tell you that.
  Our Constitution explicitly states, the President shall take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed. It is even in the oath of office. 
It doesn't say if I disagree with them that means I don't have to worry 
about that. It is in the oath of office that he is supposed to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I take that oath to support and defend the Constitution 
very seriously. I did it when I raised my hand at 18 years old when I 
went into the Air Force. I did it when I was 21 years old when I became 
a police officer outside of Chicago. I did it again when I was a deputy 
sheriff. I did it again when I was sheriff, and I did it when I got 
elected to Congress, now, a second time. I take that oath personal.
  I have three sons that serve this country today. They have all raised 
their hand to support and defend this Constitution, not when it is 
convenient, not when it meets what I need out of it. It says you do it.
  That is the law. That is the Constitution, and we kind of forget 
that. We say it is just a document. It is a dusty document.
  That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. It talks about how we conduct 
ourselves as a government of the people and by the people, not because 
of who we are.
  I am concerned, on quite a few instances now, this President clearly 
hasn't faithfully executed those laws. Just recently, the President yet 
again announced a delay in the implementation of ObamaCare. The 
administration says they will continue to allow insurance companies to 
offer plans that don't meet ObamaCare's coverage requirements.
  How many delays does that make, Mr. Speaker?
  I have no idea. I have lost count. I haven't kept track. There have 
been a lot of them because they all hit the front page, most of them 
hit the front page of the papers.
  Just because the President's health care law isn't working doesn't 
mean the President can just change it on the fly. I understand it is 
what he wants. It is the implementation of a law, but don't say you can 
just change it willy-nilly. The President is literally making it up as 
he goes along.
  Delaying the consequences of ObamaCare, however, does not fix them. 
Perhaps our colleagues are facing frustrated constituents that just 
aren't quite ready to defend the law yet. Maybe that is the case.
  Perhaps it is themselves that these delays are really meant for. I 
don't know.
  Nevertheless, I don't object to delaying ObamaCare, just the 
President's desire not to have come to Congress to do it. Congress 
enacted it. Congress has a right, then, to modify it, not the 
President.
  The fact is, a lot of these plans are good fits for consumers. 
Cancellations they face, the higher premiums and deductibles, are a 
real hardship. That doesn't change the fact that the means through 
which the President changed the policy is wrong, and we all know it.
  It is time for this body to come together to prevent our 
constitutional role from disintegrating further. It matters not what 
has occurred in the last 40 years, it matters what occurs today. It 
matters to the people I represent that I faithfully support and defend 
the Constitution.
  It is time this body pushed back against any Presidency that would 
assert itself, whether it was Mr. Conyers speaking of the prior 
Presidents or it is us speaking about this current President.
  I am confident that the underlying legislation, the rule that it 
provides for, will start the process, and I urge my colleagues, if you 
care about protecting our three-branch system of government, support 
this rule and support the underlying legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for 
H.R 4138, The ENFORCE The Law Act of 2014 and the underlying bill.
  H.R. 4138 purports to provide a mechanism for one House of Congress 
to enforce the ``take care'' clause in article II, section 3 of the 
United States Constitution, which requires the President to ``take Care 
that the Laws be faithfully executed.''
  The bill authorizes either chamber of Congress to bring a civil 
action against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute 
existing laws.
  My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to 
force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the 
president from exceeding his constitutional authority,
  But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of 
executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the 
president's powers under the Constitution.
  That is why I offered an amendment to the bill that simply protects 
the ability of the Executive Branch to comply with judicial decisions 
interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws.
  It is hard to believe that I would even need an amendment which 
instructs the Executive Branch that it is okay to--ENFORCE THE LAW.
  If separation-of-powers principles require anything, it is that each 
branch must respect its constitutional role.
  When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a 
federal law, the other branches must abide by the decision.
  The Executive Branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply 
with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by 
Congress pursuant to this bill.
  Basic respect for separation of powers requires adoption of this 
amendment.
  In our constitutional democracy, taking care that the laws are 
executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion.
  And it is a well-settled principle that our Constitution imposes 
restrictions on Congress' legislative authority, so that the faithful 
execution of the Laws may present occasions where the President 
declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law because he must 
enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land.
  Additionally, H.R. 4138, The ENFORCE Act, has problems with standing, 
separation of powers, and allows broad powers of discretion 
incompatible with notions of due process.
  The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit 
seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to 
faithfully execute the law. Any such decision would be reviewable only 
by the Supreme Court.
  These are critical problems. First, Congress is unlikely to be able 
to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, which the Supreme 
Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally 
injured by the challenged conduct.
  In the wide array of circumstances in which the bill would authorize 
a House of Congress to sue the president, that House would not has 
suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's 
standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of ay 
legislator's votes.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An amendment to H. Res. 511 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4209) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
     repeal the Medicare sustainable growth rate and improve 
     Medicare payments for physicians and other professionals, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the

[[Page H2318]]

     House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4209.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 190, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 118]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--190

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Amodei
     Barton
     Cardenas
     Dingell
     Ellison
     Engel
     Gabbard
     Gosar
     Jackson Lee
     Lewis
     Lowey
     Miller, Gary
     Rush

                              {time}  1346

  Mr. RANGEL, Ms. MENG, and Mr. CLEAVER changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H2319]]

                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229, 
noes 192, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 119]

                               AYES--229

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--192

     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Amodei
     Barton
     Dingell
     Engel
     Gosar
     Kuster
     Lewis
     Miller, Gary
     Rush

                              {time}  1353

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 119, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________