[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.''
____________________