Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 41 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2332-H2340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXECUTIVE NEEDS TO FAITHFULLY OBSERVE AND RESPECT CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENTS OF THE LAW ACT OF 2014

The Committee resumed its sitting.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Duncan of South Carolina). It is now in order
to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part A of House Report 113-378.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add, at the end of the bill, the following:
(d) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act limits or otherwise
affects the ability of the executive branch to comply with
judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal
laws.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, frankly, maybe I should offer a good
thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans,
my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a
deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces

[[Page H2333]]

the sanctity of this Nation and how well it is that we have lasted some
400 years operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is
constitutional and what is not.
The ENFORCEMENT Act is not constitutional, but it gives us an
opportunity to raise these issues. That is what freedom is. That is
what the opportunity of democracy is all about. So the Jackson Lee
amendment engages in this discussion to reinforce that there are
constitutional problems with the ENFORCE Act.
My amendment excludes from the scope of the bill any executive action
taken to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the constitutional
Federal laws. The amendment would ensure that one House of Congress
cannot initiate dilatory legal challenges when executive actions were
taken to comply with the judicial decisions.
A couple of weeks ago, I believe in the month of February, the
Speaker of the House came forward regarding a serious issue when they
announced that they were prepared to move forward with discussions on
immigration reform. Then, less than 5 days later, the Speaker took to
the airwaves and indicated that that offer of bipartisanship has been
pulled down because of the trust question of the President of the
United States.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell you what happened in those 5 days. The
President led the country; the President provided for the country; the
President listened to the American people; the President has been the
Commander in Chief; and the President has provided that kind of fiscal
responsibility working on the omnibus, the budget, and I don't know
what happened.
But what I will say to you is I can see no reason for this kind of
legislation to come to the floor of the House and to be able to clearly
poke a spear, if you will, in the eye of article 2 that says, ``The
executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America.'' This President has that power.
My amendment will ensure that whatever passes here allows the
President to be able to handle the business of the American people
through judicial and Federal statutes without interference. I would ask
my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank you for allowing a chance to explain my amendment.
The purpose of H.R. 4138 is 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--but in fact has the
opposite effect.''
That is why my amendment protects the ability of the Executive Branch
to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or
Federal laws.
The Jackson Lee Amendment excludes from the scope of the bill any
executive action taken to comply with judicial decisions interpreting
the Constitution or Federal laws.
The amendment would ensure that one house of Congress could not
initiate dilatory legal challenges when executive actions were taken to
comply with judicial decisions.
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.
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.
But that is exactly what this bill is doing--in seeking to usurp the
powers of the president--particularly President Obama--my colleague
whom I realize was a former prosecutor--has put forth a piece of
legislation which baffles me.
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.
In fact Mr. Chair, if the legislation raises no question of
constitutionality, the laws that we pass in this pose complicated
questions, and executing them can raise a number of issues of
interpretation, application or enforcement that need to be resolved
before a law can be executed.
This bill, 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 have
suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's
standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any
legislator's votes.
Second, the bill violates separation of powers principles by
inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left
to the other branches to decided.
And Mr. Chair, I thought the Supreme Court had put this notion to
rest as far back as Baker v. Carr, a case that hails from 1962. Baker
stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate
political questions--and that it is impossible to decide such questions
without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job.
Third, the bill makes one House of Congress a general enforcement
body able to direct the entire field of administrative action by
bringing cases whenever such House deems a President's action to
constitute a policy of non-enforcement.
This bill attempts to use the notion of separation of powers to
justify an unprecedented effort to ensure that the laws are enforced by
the president--and I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in
some time.
I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment, which
again, protects the ability of the Executive Branch to comply with
judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws.
Mr. Chair, the United States Constitution is sacrosanct--let's
support it!
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, as it would gut
the bill.
Read the text of the amendment. The amendment would explicitly
prohibit the bill from affecting the executive branch's compliance with
judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. But
that is exactly the point of the base bill.
The base bill encourages the courts to decide constitutional issues
relating to the Constitution's separation of powers between the
branches of government. We would of course expect the President to obey
those decisions from the courts, yet this amendment would grant the
President the authority to defy those very court decisions by making
sure that the President did not have to be, quote, affected by them.
This amendment only adds insult to injury. It would take a bill
designed to encourage the Federal courts to engage in the
constitutional issues of the day and amend it to explicitly allow the
President to defy the decisions of those courts.
There is no reason to exempt court decisions from the bill's
coverage. The base bill allows Congress to bring lawsuits if the
President fails to faithfully execute the laws. The President is
obligated to follow Federal court decisions to the same extent he must
follow Federal statutes, treaty obligations, and, of course, the
Constitution itself.
Rather than furthering the bill's goal of enforcing the Take Care
Clause, the amendment would create an enormous loophole in the bill's
coverage, and so I must urge my colleagues to reject this gutting
amendment.

[[Page H2334]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me make this point, and I will yield 15 seconds
to the distinguished gentlelady from California.
But I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his eloquence. Obviously,
he is from the great State of Thomas Jefferson, and I certainly am from
the great law school of Thomas Jefferson, the University of Virginia
School of Law.
But let me just say that what this bill intends to do, the power the
bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether
he has properly discharged his constitutional obligations to take care
that the laws be faithfully executed, exceeds--he knows it exceeds any
constitutional boundaries. He is challenging the President on decisions
that they don't agree with that are political. They don't agree with
deferred adjudication. They don't agree with the DREAM Act youngsters.
They don't agree that we should move forward on immigration reform.
They are challenging him on his right to exert his power.
I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the amendment.
I would note that the late Henry Hyde signed the letter urging for
prosecutorial discretion. That is part of the law recognized by the
Supreme Court in the Arizona case. I do not believe that the late Henry
Hyde would have urged the administration to do something that did not
comport with the Constitution or the law, and I include for the Record
this letter.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, November 4, 1999.
Re Guidelines for Use of Prosecutorial Discretion in Removal
Proceedings
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Hon. Doris M. Meissner,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Reno and Commissioner Meissner:
Congress and the Administration have devoted substantial
attention and resources to the difficult yet essential task
of removing criminal aliens from the United States.
Legislative reforms enacted in 1996, accompanied by increased
funding, enabled the Immigration and Naturalization Service
to remove increasing numbers of criminal aliens, greatly
benefitting public safety in the United States.
However, cases of apparent extreme hardship have caused
concern. Some cases may involve removal proceedings against
legal permanent residents who came to the United States when
they were very young, and many years ago committed a single
crime at the lower end of the ``aggravated felony'' spectrum,
but have been law-abiding ever since, obtained and held jobs
and remained self-sufficient, and started families in the
United States. Although they did not become United States
citizens, immediate family members are citizens.
There has been widespread agreement that some deportations
were unfair and resulted in unjustifiable hardship. If the
facts substantiate the presentations that have been made to
us, we must ask why the INS pursued removal in such cases
when so many other more serious cases existed.
We write to you because many people believe that you have
the discretion to alleviate some of the hardships, and we
wish to solicit your views as to why you have been unwilling
to exercise such authority in some of the cases that have
occurred. In addition, we ask whether your view is that the
1996 amendments somehow eliminated that discretion. The
principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established.
Indeed, INS General and Regional Counsel have taken the
position, apparently well-grounded in case law, that INS has
prosecutorial discretion in the initiation or termination of
removal proceedings (see attached memorandum). Furthermore, a
number of press reports indicate that the INS has already
employed this discretion in some cases.
True hardship cases call for the exercise of such
discretion, and over the past year many Members of Congress
have urged the INS to develop guidelines for the use of its
prosecutorial discretion. Optimally, removal proceedings
should be initiated or terminated only upon specific
instructions from authorized INS officials, issued in
accordance with agency guidelines. However, the INS
apparently has not yet promulgated such guidelines.
The undersigned Members of Congress believe that just as
the Justice Department's United States Attorneys rely on
detailed guidelines governing the exercise of their
prosecutorial discretion, INS District Directors also require
written guidelines, both to legitimate in their eyes the
exercise of discretion and to ensure that their decisions to
initiate or terminate removal proceedings are not made in an
inconsistent manner. We look forward to working with you to
resolve this matter and hope that you will develop and
implenent guidelines for INS prosecutorial discretion in an
expeditious and fair manner.
Sincerely,
Representatives Henry J. Hyde; Barney Frank; Lamar Smith;
Sheila Jackson Lee; Bill McCollum; Martin Frost; Bill
Barrett; Howard L. Berman; Brian P. Bilbray; Corrine
Brown; Charles T. Canady; Barbara Cubin; Nathan Deal;
Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
David Dreier; Bob Filner; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Sam
Johnson; Patrick J. Kennedy; Matthew G. Martinez; James
P. McGovern; Martin T. Meehan; F. James Sensenbrenner,
Jr.; Christopher Shays; Henry A. Waxman; Kay Granger;
Gene Green; Ciro D. Rodriguez.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to
close.

{time} 1545

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, this is a political
fight. I thought we had settled that fight with Baker v. Carr, a case
that hails from 1962. Baker stands for the proposition that courts are
not equipped to adjudicate political questions, and that it is
impossible to decide such questions. Now our friends want to give
Congress the right to expedite their lawsuit over the average citizen
on a political question, first in a three-judge court, and then right
to the Supreme Court of the United States, while the American people
suffer because they want that particular position. It is a political
question because it is the Republicans who want to be able to move
beyond the authority given in the Constitution.
I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlewoman very much because this is an
important amendment. It doesn't gut the bill, and it isn't a loophole.
This is a narrow amendment that only ensures that the President can
comply with court decisions. The separation of powers principle is very
important, and this amendment clarifies and adds to it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for that very astute analysis,
and I want to conclude, if I might, by saying that I respect the
separation of powers, and I understand what my colleague said, and Mr.
Conyers is very right. This amendment does not gut the legislation, but
I understand what my colleagues are saying. What I would argue is that
we all want the same thing--that the authority of the President remains
that, the Congress, and the judiciary, and there is no exceeding. I
believe we can do it in a better way. I ask my colleagues to support
the Jackson Lee amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and just say for the
reasons already cited, this is a very harmful amendment. It would gut
the bill. For that reason, I oppose it and urge my colleagues to oppose
it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cicilline

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part A of House Report 113-378.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

SEC. 3. REPORT.

Not later than the last day of the first fiscal year
quarter that begins after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and quarterly thereafter, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and the Senate, a report on
the

[[Page H2335]]

costs of any civil action brought pursuant to this Act,
including any attorney fees of any attorney that has been
hired to provide legal services in connection with a civil
action brought pursuant to this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, clearly as my colleagues have noted, the
ENFORCE Act is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It would give any
legislative majority a blank check to challenge in court by filing a
lawsuit any decision of the executive branch that it disagrees with.
Instead of considering legislation to create jobs, to fix our broken
immigration system, repair our crumbling infrastructure or raise the
minimum wage, today the majority has brought to this floor a partisan
measure to increase only one thing: congressional litigation. The bill
raises serious constitutional questions, and fails to put in place
responsible safeguards to prevent abuse. This is a dangerous attack
that threatens the careful balance of power developed by our Founding
Fathers.
At a time when the American people have lost so much confidence in
Congress, my Republican colleagues are offering yet another bill that
will do nothing to improve the lives of Americans. Instead this bill
will only add to the American people's scorn and ridicule of Congress.
Just what we need, more contention, more division here in Congress by
encouraging congressional lawsuits.
In addition to its questionable purpose and substantive defects, the
ENFORCE Act also fails to adequately protect taxpayer money, as it
would open the floodgates to litigation for nearly any executive branch
decision that a majority in either chamber disagrees with, and it would
do so without a transparent accounting of taxpayer money spent.
That is why I am offering this amendment today which simply requires
quarterly reporting of the costs associated with the litigation under
this act. Specifically, it would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to issue quarterly reports to the House and Senate
Judiciary Committees on the cost of civil actions brought pursuant to
this act, including any attorney fees.
Since many of my colleagues have previously and routinely expressed
significant concern about ensuring taxpayer dollars are used
appropriately and carefully, one would expect the ENFORCE Act to have
clear oversight and transparency provisions in place. However, it does
not.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would
provide a transparent, quarterly accounting of the costs of pursuing
legal action under this act.
As many of my colleagues know, litigation can be extremely expensive.
So let's ensure Members of Congress and the public are aware of exactly
how much taxpayer resources are being spent on pursuing legal action
under this act. While disbursement reporting requirements already exist
for Federal expenditures, recent experience underscores their
inadequacy to provide timely, transparent disclosure of precisely how
much has been spent on litigation.
For example, over the last few years, the House of Representatives,
at the direction of the majority and over strong objections by Leader
Pelosi and Whip Hoyer, hired outside counsel to defend the Defense of
Marriage Act in court. What began as a contract for up to $500,000 in
legal services to defend DOMA has grown through a series of contract
extensions to be up to $3 million, and it is hard to determine at what
point and at what cost the majority's pursuits will end.
Today, nearly 9 months since the United States Supreme Court struck
down section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional, we still don't have an
adequate accounting of how much the House majority has spent on
defending this discriminatory law, or whether it continues to spend
taxpayer funding on this matter.
As minority members of the House Administration Committee reported
during this legal challenge in 2012:

No one seems to know where the funds are coming from. There
has been no appropriation for this expense. There has been no
mention of the funding source in the contract extensions.
There is no record of a payment being made in the statement
of disbursements.

Clearly, the existing reporting requirements are insufficient to
inform Members of Congress and the general public of its litigation
disbursements. While Members may disagree on the merits of DOMA, as
well as the legislation before us today, we should all recognize that
neither side, nor the public interest, is served by obscuring the
disclosure of litigation expenses.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, a simple
reporting requirement that will safeguard and provide transparency to
ensure that spending under this very misguided legislation is made
clear.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition
to the amendment even though I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will support the adoption of this amendment. This
amendment basically codifies, at least as far as the House of
Representatives is concerned, requirements that already exist regarding
reporting the costs of congressional litigation. When the House engages
in litigation, the costs of that litigation are already reported to the
House Appropriations Committee and the Committee on House
Administration. This amendment merely expands these existing reporting
requirements to include the Government Accountability Office.
Had the gentleman from Rhode Island prefiled this amendment during
Judiciary Committee consideration of the bill, we may have been able to
consider it during markup. However, without notice of the amendment, we
were not able to determine at markup whether the amendment implicated
any attorney-client privilege concerns. We are now satisfied, given
existing reporting requirements, that this amendment does not present a
privilege problem.
For these reasons, I support the adoption of this amendment, and urge
my colleagues to do so.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report
113-378 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Conyers of Michigan.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Nadler of New York.
Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Conyers

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 227, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page H2336]]

[Roll No. 120]

AYES--188

Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
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
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
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
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
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
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--227

Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
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
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)
Miller, Gary
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
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)

NOT VOTING--15

Amodei
Bera (CA)
DeLauro
Dingell
Edwards
Frankel (FL)
Gosar
Matsui
Meng
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Rooney
Schakowsky
Velazquez

{time} 1621

Messrs. BENTIVOLIO, CAMPBELL, RENACCI, and YOHO changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. McNERNEY, MAFFEI, and HINOJOSA changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Nadler

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fleischmann). The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 225, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 121]

AYES--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
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
DelBene
Denham
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
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)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
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
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--225

[[Page H2337]]

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
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
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
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
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--15

Amodei
DeLauro
Dingell
Edwards
Frankel (FL)
Gosar
Johnson, E. B.
Matsui
Meng
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Rooney
Schakowsky
Velazquez

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1629

Mr. COFFMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 122]

AYES--185

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
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
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
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
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
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--231

Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
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
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
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
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
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)

NOT VOTING--14

Amodei
DeLauro
Dingell
Edwards
Frankel (FL)
Gosar
Matsui
Meng
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Rooney
Schakowsky
Velazquez

{time} 1635

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fleischmann, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 511, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.

[[Page H2338]]

The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Ruiz moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4138 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

SEC. 3. PROTECTING STATES' RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act limits or otherwise affects any action
taken by the President, the head of a department or agency of
the United States, or any other officer or employee of the
United States, in order to prevent an unconstitutional
intrusion into States' rights.

SEC. 4. RESTORING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR AMERICA'S JOB
SEEKERS.

This Act shall not take effect until the most recent
percentage of the insured unemployed (those for whom
unemployment taxes were paid during prior employment) who are
receiving Federal or State unemployment insurance (UI)
benefits when they are actively seeking work is at least
equal to the percentage receiving such benefits for the last
quarter of 2013, as determined by the Department of Labor's
quarterly UI data summary measurement of the Unemployment
Insurance recipiency rate for all UI programs.

Mr. GOWDY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which
will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the
bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
Right now, House leadership is forcing a vote on a bill that they
know will go nowhere. Instead of working to find pragmatic solutions to
our most pressing problems, they have chosen to put politics above the
needs of the American people.
They have chosen to put politics above jobs, the economy, health
care, comprehensive immigration reform and, again, they are playing
politics with millions of hardworking families who have lost their job
through no fault of their own and are currently looking for jobs.
Currently, over 2 million people have lost unemployment insurance
because of these political games. Every week, 72,000 people, on
average, are losing their unemployment benefits nationwide while they
are looking for jobs. In my home State of California, almost 350,000
people are living on the brink of financial disaster because of these
games. This is exactly the kind of political gamesmanship that the
American people are sick and tired of.
House leadership continues to refuse to restore these vital economic
lifelines that help people support their families and pay their bills
while they look for a new job.
Long-term unemployment remains an enormous challenge for millions of
Americans and our overall economy, which is exactly why we should put
the American people first and renew this important program. We need a
focus on creating new jobs and help American families temporarily
weather the storm.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and rise in
opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a moment as
colleagues--not as Republicans or Democrats, not as members of the
majority or the minority, but colleagues who are blessed to serve in
the United States House of Representatives, the people's House, with
all the tradition, with all the history, with all the laws that have
been passed, with all the lives that have been impacted. I want us to
talk as colleagues. Because our foundational document gave us, as the
House, unique powers and responsibilities. We run every 2 years because
they intended for us to be closest to the people.

{time} 1645

The President was given different duties and powers. The President
was given the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
So my question, Mr. Speaker, is what does that mean to you, that the
laws be faithfully executed?
We know the President can veto a bill for any reason or no reason. We
know the President can refuse to defend the constitutionality of a
statute, even one that he signs into law.
We know the President can issue pardons for violations of the very
laws that we pass, and we know the President has prosecutorial
discretion, as evidenced and used through his U.S. attorneys.
Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of power. What are we to do when that
amount of power is not enough?
What are we to do when this President, or any President, decides to
selectively enforce a portion of a law and ignore other portions of
that law?
What do we do, Mr. Speaker, regardless of motivation, when a
President nullifies our vote by failing to faithfully execute the law?
How do we explain waivers and exemptions and delays in a bill passed
by Congress and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court?
How do we explain away a refusal to enforce mandatory minimums that
were passed by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court?
Why pursue, Mr. Speaker, immigration reform if Presidents can turn
off the very provisions that we pass?
You know, in the oaths that brand new citizens take, it contains six
different references to the law. If it is good enough for us to ask
brand new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much
to ask that the President do the same?
If a President can change some laws, can he change all laws? Can he
change election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any
laws, under your theory, that he actually has to enforce?
What is our recourse, Mr. Speaker?
What is our remedy?
Some would argue the Framers gave us the power of the purse and the
power of impeachment, but Mr. Speaker, those are punishments, those are
not remedies.
What is the remedy if we want the Executive to enforce our work?
This bill simply gives us standing when our votes are nullified. This
bill allows us to petition the judicial branch for an order requiring
the executive branch to faithfully execute the law.
Mr. Speaker, we are not held in high public esteem right now. Maybe
Members of Congress would be respected more if we respected ourselves
enough to require that when we pass something, it be treated as law.
Maybe we would be more respected if we had a firmly rooted
expectation that when we pass something as law, it be treated as law.
Maybe we would be more respected if we put down party labels and a
desire to keep or retain or acquire the gavel and picked up the
history, the tradition, and the honor of this, the people's House.
Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives does not exist to pass
suggestions. We do not exist to pass ideas. We make law.
While you are free to stand and clap when any President comes into
this hallowed Chamber and promises to do it, with or without you, I
will never stand and clap when any President, no matter whether he is
your party or mine, promises to make us a constitutional anomaly and an
afterthought. We make law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair

[[Page H2339]]

will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 228, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 123]

AYES--187

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
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
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
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
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
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
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--228

Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
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)
Miller, Gary
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
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)

NOT VOTING--15

Amodei
DeLauro
Dingell
Edwards
Ellison
Frankel (FL)
Gosar
Matsui
Meng
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Rooney
Schakowsky
Velazquez

{time} 1656

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 181, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 124]

AYES--233

Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
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
Cuellar
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
Gallego
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)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
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
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--181

Barber
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
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
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)

[[Page H2340]]

Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
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
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--16

Amodei
DeLauro
Dingell
Edwards
Frankel (FL)
Gosar
Loebsack
Matsui
Meng
Miller, George
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Rooney
Schakowsky
Velazquez

{time} 1703

Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________