[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 123 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7206-H7213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5230, THE SECURE THE SOUTHWEST
BORDER ACT OF 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5272,
PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO DEFERRED ACTION FOR ALIENS; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 710 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res 710
Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5230) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 696:
(a) the amendments printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted;
(b) all points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived; and
(c) 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
additional hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 5230, and on the legislative
day of August 1, 2014, the House shall consider in the House
the bill (H.R. 5272) to prohibit certain actions with respect
to deferred action for aliens not lawfully present in the
United States, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution 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; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 3. Section 2 of House Resolution 700 is amended to
read as follows: ``Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time
on the legislative day of August 1, 2014, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure addressing
missile defense of Israel.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), my friend, the ranking member from the Rules Committee,
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. SESSIONS. 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 Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. The rule provides for expedited consideration of H.R.
5230 and H.R. 5272.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we are facing an unprecedented
crisis on America's southern border. Nearly 60,000 unaccompanied alien
children have entered the United States illegally this fiscal year,
most of whom have come through the Texas-Mexico border, and today, our
country faces a threat to our sovereignty and to our rule of law.
The time to act is now. It would be irresponsible for this body to go
home for a month without doing our part to help work and solve this
problem. I am glad that Members of the House recognize their duty to
finish the job. I believe the House has put specific, concrete
proposals to act in the best interest of the United States.
Let's take a look at what this crisis on our border is doing. First,
the President's catch-and-release program is a big part of the problem.
Under this program, nearly 90 percent of unaccompanied alien children
have been placed with their families in the United States, many of whom
are here illegally themselves.
Second, there is the President's DACA program. DACA is a major reason
for the influx of illegal immigrants to the United States. The Director
on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently testified to the
Judiciary Committee that 700,000 undocumented immigrants have taken
advantage of DACA.
Third, there is the 2008 trafficking law, which has allowed so many
to effectively skip out on the judicial process and live in our country
illegally. Catch and release under the President's proposal is wrong
and bad for our country, and only encourages many, many more to
continue the trek here.
{time} 1745
Combined, these policies, plus signals from the administration,
encouraged more illegal immigration and have led to the border crisis
that we face today. To stop this crisis, our border must be secured and
the tide of illegal immigration should be stemmed. I believe that this
rule provides for legislation to accomplish that goal.
H.R. 5230 would provide $659 million for border security, the
enforcement of existing laws, illegal immigration prevention, and
humanitarian assistance. Additionally, $70 million would be provided
for National Guard border efforts. This proposal is paid for, which
means that it does not result in any new or additional Federal spending
this fiscal year.
However, the House will not simply throw money at the problem. This
package also makes specific, concrete policy changes to address the
underlying problems that are fueling this crisis. Specifically, it
prevents the administration from spending taxpayer dollars to
adjudicate any new applications under DACA or any other similar policy.
The package also amends the 2008 trafficking law so that all
unaccompanied alien children are treated the same as, under the law
today, Mexicans and Canadians, and this is for the purpose of removals.
It also provides additional temporary judges to help guarantee that
these children get their day in court within 14 days from their initial
screening. It also strengthens laws against criminals and those with
serious drug-related convictions and those who have them from applying
for asylum. It allows for customs and border protection activities on
Federal land. Similarly, it authorizes the deployment of the National
Guard to our southern border.
Finally, it prohibits the housing of unauthorized immigrants on
military bases if housing them would displace members of the Armed
Forces or any Active Duty or it interferes with military activity.
These steps come after a series of conversations with members of the
majority. We have an obligation to get this bill done. As a Texan, I
have pushed and pushed and pushed for us to make sure that we had a
bill that could be supported by our Members. It is Texas and those
living on the border that are seeing tremendous conditions that are
placing our States and local people at a disadvantage.
Thus, I want to thank the Members for continuing to work together on
a bill to get 218 votes. I applaud those who spent the time, including
today, dedicating themselves to putting the package together. I thank
the staff. And as always, I expect and want this body to support this
good piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for yielding,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You would think after 4 years that the majority would know how to run
the House, but this week makes us wonder. All we have accomplished this
week is to sue the President and deregulate pesticides into the
environment. And in a real embarrassment, canceling a vote because Tea
Party Members refused to support a border bill that was tailormade for
them. Actually, I understand it was in their interest to pass it
yesterday.
Now, my colleague, of whom I am inordinately fond, said that the time
to act is now. But the time really to act was yesterday when the Senate
was in town, because there is no way now what we are doing today could
ever become legislation because the Senate would have to pass
something, and then it would go to the President who said already he
would veto it. So we stay an extra day here to make a point.
[[Page H7207]]
Instead of going home to our constituents, we are under siege in a
choke hold by some Members of the House. This much is true: it costs
the taxpayers $24 million a week to run the House of Representatives,
and I am afraid the American people aren't getting their money's worth.
President Truman, it is worth noting, campaigned for President using
a quote ``do-nothing Congress,'' which had passed nearly 1,000 bills.
And under Mr. Speaker, this Congress has passed just around 120. Mr.
Truman was mad because they had not done a health care bill.
Fortunately, we got that done 4 years ago.
But this recalcitrant Congress is why President Obama had to act on
his own. Nothing is working here, but he was responsible for keeping
the country moving. I think we need to describe for the Record and for
the public exactly what has been done today.
This morning, the majority adopted a martial law rule until September
5, which is most unusual. Martial law usually lasts 1, 2, maybe 3 days
at the outside. But we have 5 weeks, which means the Speaker can call
us back at any time. We would hope that he would not do that without
telling us what we are going to do. But today, we do not even know what
is in this bill. We don't understand this legislation because the 40
pages of it we have not had time to look at. So here we are. We do
think it is pretty toxic.
But not only was the bill drafted by Republicans only, in a basement
room, there are absolutely no Democrat fingerprints or ideas or
amendments or thoughts or suggestions or hopes or anything else in this
bill. There have been no hearings, no markups, no amendments, nothing
of which we are entitled to as Members of the House and sent here by
750,000 Americans.
This bill, we know, does give $35 million to reimburse the National
Guard for activities related to ``border security and the current
influx of illegal immigrants.'' Now it turns out that only Texas has
spent any money on that, and one wonders if that piqued Senator Cruz's
interest in this bill and what we are doing over here because it looks
like that is where the money will be going.
The bill tragically cuts all funding for the DREAM Act, the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals program. We were told there were
something like 700,000 children who were involved in that, who came
forward on a promise by this government that they would have an
opportunity to go to school and they would not be deported. Now the
country has their names, their addresses, and they would be easy to
deport because this bill puts an end to the DREAM Act.
I related today in the Rules Committee a story about four
undocumented young men in high school in the United States that decided
to enter into a contest to build an underwater robot, the trouble that
they had simply getting the equipment to do it and the teachers who
helped them do it. And they really felt that they had been outmatched
and outgunned when they were going to compete as high school students
against engineering students at MIT, a premier engineering school in
the United States. What happened, those four young men won. They beat
MIT. Now, they were part of the DREAM Act. We hope they will not be
deported because, more than anything I can think of, the United States
needs that kind of thinkers and innovators in what they had to do.
So the Cato Institute agrees. They wrote on July 29, 3 days ago, that
DACA, the DREAM Act, was not a primary cause of the surge, and I insert
this report from CATO, entitled, ``DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in
Unaccompanied Children,'' into the Record. I will also submit some
statistical findings from Professor Tim Wong, from the University of
California, San Diego, into the Record, entitled, ``DACA Did Not Cause
the Influx of Unaccompanied Minors'' into the Record.
[From the CATO Institute, July 29, 2014]
DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children
(By Alex Nowrasteh)
In June, 2012 the Obama Administration announced that it
had authored a memo deferring the deportation of unauthorized
immigrant childhood arrivals in the United States, a program
known as deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA). The
memo directed then Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security to practice prosecutorial discretion toward a small
number of unauthorized immigrants who fulfilled a specific
set of characteristics. In essence, some unauthorized
immigrants who had come to the United States as children were
able to legally stay and work--at least temporarily.
Did DACA Cause the UAC Surge?
Some politicians contend that DACA is primarily responsible
for the surge in unaccompanied child (UAC) migrants across
the border in recent years. A recent House Appropriations
Committee one-pager stated that, ``The dire situation on our
Southern border has been exacerbated by the President's
current immigration policies.'' Proponents of this theory
argue that DACA sent a message to Central Americans that if
they came as children then the U.S. government would legalize
them, thus giving a large incentive for them to come in the
first place. Few facts of the unaccompanied children (UAC)
surge are consistent with the theory that DACA caused the
surge.
First, the surge in UAC began long before the June 15, 2012
announcement of DACA. It is true that DACA had been discussed
in late May 2012 but the surge was underway by that time.
From October 2011 through March 2012, there was a 93 percent
increase in UAC apprehensions over the same period in Fiscal
Year 2011. Texas Governor Rick Perry warned President Obama
about the rapid increase in UAC at the border in early May
2012--more than a full month before DACA was announced. In
early June 2012, Mexico was detaining twice as many Central
American children as in 2011. The surge in unaccompanied
children (UAC) began before DACA was announced.
Second, the children coming now are not legally able to
apply for DACA. A recipient of DACA has to have resided in
the United States continuously from June 15, 2007 to June 15,
2012, a requirement that excludes the unaccompanied children
coming now.
Third, if DACA was such an incentive for UAC to come from
Central America, why are so few Nicaraguan children coming?
They would benefit in the same way as unaccompanied children
from El Salvdaor, Honduras, and Guatemala. The lack of
Nicaraguans points to other causes of the surge.
The timing, legal exclusion of the UAC from DACA, and lack
of Nicaraguans indicate that DACA was not a primary cause of
the surge. Of the 404 UAC interviewed by the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees since 2011, only 9 mentioned
that U.S. laws influenced their decision to come to the
United States. Other American laws could have influenced the
unaccompanied children to come but DACA is not the main
culprit.
Details on DACA
The DACA beneficiaries, at the time of the memo, would have
to fulfill all of these requirements to have their
deportations deferred: under the age of 31; arrived to the
United States before reaching their 16th birthday; entered
the United States without inspection or overstayed a visa
prior to June 15, 2012; continuously resided in the United
States from June 15, 2007 to the time of the memo; physically
present in the United States on June 15, 2012, as well as at
the time of requesting deferred action from United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); been in school
at the time of application, or have already graduated or
obtained a certificate of completion from high school, or
have obtained a general education development (GED)
certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the
U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Armed Forces; not been convicted
of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other
misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national
security or public safety.
Beneficiaries of DACA were also allowed to apply for
employment authorization according to the Code of Federal
Regulations. There is a debate amongst legal scholars over
whether the administration's grant of deferred action was
legal. Those who argue that DACA was illegal contend that the
President overstepped his constitutional authority to defer
the deportation of some unauthorized immigrants. Those who
argue that DACA was legal point to the general power of the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to defer
enforcement action. They argue that the Supreme Court has
ruled that decisions to initiate or terminate enforcement
proceedings fall within the authority of the Executive--an
enforcement power used since the early 1970s. Here is more of
their argument. This disagreement has not been settled.
By the end of September, 2013, 580,000 requests for DACA
were accepted by the U.S. government and 514,800, or 89
percent, were approved. Seventy-six percent of the requests
came from Mexicans. Twenty-nine percent of the requests were
filed from California, 16 percent from Texas, and 6 percent
from Illinois.
Read the Full Article: DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in
Unaccompanied Children
____
DACA Did Not Cause the Influx of Unaccompanied Minors
Statistical analysis from a political science professor,
Tom Wong, from the University of California, San Diego shows
that violence is causing the surge of unaccompanied children
crossing the border.
Central American countries that are experiencing high
levels of violence (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador) have
seen thousands of children flee, other countries with lower
[[Page H7208]]
levels of violence (Nicaragua, Belize) are not facing same
outflow. This takes into consideration poverty levels as
well, given that Nicaragua is the poorest country in the
Central American region.
Professor Wong analyzed data from the United Nations Office
of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the CBP apprehension rate of
unaccompanied children and found a direct correlation between
the homicide rate in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala and
the entry of UACs.
The United States is not the only country in the region
experiencing an increase in protection claims from people
from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
According to UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency,
other countries in the region have experienced a sharp
increase in the number of asylum applications filed by
Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans since 2008. From 2008
to 2013, the number of such applications filed in Mexico,
Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize increased by 712%.
The initial increase in unaccompanied minor entries
occurred well before the implementation of the DACA program
in June 2012.
If DACA was the cause for the increase in unaccompanied
minors, we would see more entries from countries around the
world--instead the children are only coming from three
countries: Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. All of these
countries have high rates of violence.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. What is really happening here is the most extreme,
anti-immigrant voices in the Republican Party using the crisis as a
political cover to repeal a commonsense policy like the DREAM Act, and
the Speaker has caved once again to those voices. Representative Steve
King described the underlying legislation as something that he could
have ordered off the menu.
Furthermore, the rules are of course closed, setting the record anew
for the most closed rules in any Congress. This bill does stop short of
catapulting those children into Mexico and then leaving them to walk to
their home countries, but it certainly doesn't do very much since the
discussion in the House of Representatives for several years now has
been what to do about immigration. It really is a sorry path that we
have reached the condition we are in right now, a one-House bill, a
Senate that is gone, and a President who won't sign it.
If we learned anything this week, we learned from Speaker Boehner's
comments on his blog that the President should do more, not less,
contrary to the reason why they sued him, and we do hope that the
President will do that and bring a more humane solution to this, as
almost all religions in the United States have asked us to do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to just say one of the things I learned this week was that the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) presented not only her
thoughts and ideas at our conference when we met about how we can make
our borders stronger, but she was present the entire time at the Rules
Committee, had a chance to forthrightly participate. We had hours and
hours of discussion about not only the legislation and what we were
doing, but we actually shared ideas among Members on a bipartisan basis
today, and I felt like it was a pretty good exchange.
I am delighted, at this time, to yield 15 minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, young children are being sent off alone or put in the
hands of criminal cartels to cross vast, inhospitable spaces in the
hopes of eventually reaching our border. This is a humanitarian crisis.
Today we seek to address the plight of these children in a responsible
fashion.
There has been much discussion in the House this week about
constitutional role. The President has acknowledged his constitutional
role in immigration policy. In 2011, speaking to a meeting of La Raza,
he said:
I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books . . . Now,
I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the
laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my
own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration
reform. But that's not how our system works. That is not how
our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is
written.
If the President's actions had remained consistent with these words,
we would not be facing the crisis we are today. Unfortunately, though,
the President did take it upon himself to unilaterally rewrite
immigration law, and he did so in a way that aggravated the situation.
And he knew the potential consequences. In 2010, the President said:
There are those in the immigrants' rights community who
have argued passionately that we should simply provide those
who are here illegally with legal status, or at least ignore
the law on the books and put an end to deportation until we
have better laws . . . but I believe such an indiscriminate
approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to
those thinking about coming here illegally that there would
be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead
to a surge in more illegal immigration.
Despite his clear foresight on this issue, the President still
unilaterally suspended deportation to select illegal aliens. His
predicted surge quickly became a reality. Now young border crossers are
setting off on harrowing, costly journeys under the belief that, upon
arrival, they will receive a ``permiso,'' permission to stay in our
great country.
The motivation for illegally crossing the border is understandable. I
join my colleagues who have recognized the uniquely generous and
welcoming nature of this great country. As a mother and grandmother, I
am moved by the plight of these young children. As a granddaughter of
immigrants, I am grateful that this country has welcomed generations of
tired and poor and given them the chance to breathe free. And as a
lawmaker, I recognize that the foundation of American generosity and
freedom is the rule of law.
Today, through a constitutionally prescribed process, we have the
opportunity to pass a bill that will give the President the tools to
address this crisis.
Today, we can provide resources to secure the border and ensure that
those who have already undertaken this journey can be speedily reunited
with their families.
Today, we can send a clear, compassionate message that undertaking
this border crossing journey is a mistake.
Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the
underlying legislation so that we can begin to solve this problem.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and an expert on
immigration.
{time} 1800
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, some have been asking whether this bill
repeals DACA and puts the DREAMers back in deportation, and the answer
is yes. Page 1, lines 5 through 17 point out that no funds can be used
for a new application.
The DACA applications were a granted deferred action for 2 years.
They must make a new application--and there is no guarantee that
application will be approved--at the end of 2 years. That is beginning
now. So this will require that the DREAMers be removed from deferred
action and become subject to deportation.
Further, the bill is meant to treat all children the way we treat
Mexican children, but it does more than that. Right now, the Border
Patrol is required to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a child
has the capacity--whether they are old enough--to independently
withdraw an application. That is stricken in this bill.
The law says now that a Mexican child who raises no persecution or
trafficking concerns may be permitted to withdraw an application and
voluntarily return home if the child is able to make the decision. This
bill changes the law to say that a child may be permitted to withdraw
an application, but, in the event, the child shall be returned. It
doesn't matter whether the child has the ability to make a decision. No
matter what, that kid is going home. So that is new.
Current law says that even Mexican children can request to see an
immigration judge, but this bill says that is not the case. It makes
the CBP person performing the screening the judge, juror, and, in some
cases, the executioner.
It is worth pointing out that this is not just about kids from
Honduras or Mexico. We will be returning the Thai child sex slave back
to her traffickers; the Christian child from Syria who has
[[Page H7209]]
found asylum here in the United States, that child immediately
returned; the Chinese teen fleeing forced abortion from China, that
child immediately returned.
This is an outrageously unconscionable bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 10 minutes to the
gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton), the dean of the Texas
delegation.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions. I hope we will yield back some of that
time.
First, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the leadership you have
exhibited, not just in the Rules Committee, but on this issue in
general. You have been a longtime advocate of substantive immigration
reform in a conservative way. You have been active this week in the
Conference and in the Texas delegation as we attempt to move this
legislation. And, of course, you have been very active this afternoon
in the Rules Committee.
I want to also compliment the leadership of the majority as we have
tried to craft a compassionate conservative path forward. I happen to
be an advocate of comprehensive immigration reform. I have a draft bill
that I have been waiting until the right time to introduce, and,
hopefully, get bipartisan support. I am not one of these ``just say
no'' Republicans.
Having said that, we have a crisis on our southern border because of
some actions the President has taken in the past and some inactions
that he is not taking now. We have got this terrible situation where
thousands and thousands of young children--some unaccompanied, by
themselves, others with adults--who have been flooding the southern
border, allegedly some of them paying thousands of dollars to
individuals who are allegedly related to the drug cartels. It is an
unsustainable situation, Mr. Speaker. It can't go on.
The bill that is going to be before the body later this evening
targets funding to add additional judges to review these children on a
case-by-case basis. It reverses current law so that children from
noncontiguous countries are treated the same as the children from
Canada and Mexico who perhaps attempt to come into the country without
proper documentation. I don't think it is an inhumane thing to do, Mr.
Speaker. I think it is actually the right thing to do.
The bill before us is going to have funds to reimburse the States
that have decided to deploy their National Guardsmen to the border. One
of those States is my State of Texas. This bill would target funding to
reimburse the State of Texas for the cost of deploying the National
Guard. I think that is a good thing.
The bill before us is going to be completely offset, taking money
that has already been appropriated but not expended. The offsets are
not fake, they are not: in the 10th year we will theoretically save
some money that would have otherwise been spent. These offsets are for
funds that have been appropriated and have been obligated but not used.
Some of those funds are in the foreign aid accounts of the countries
that are sending us some of their citizens, and I think that is
appropriate.
We can have a debate at the appropriate time on a more comprehensive
package. That is obviously something that at some point I hope this
body addresses. I am going to be an active, positive participant in
that, Mr. Speaker.
But for today, to solve the current situation on the border, this is
a targeted package. It will be better than current law if it is
enacted. It will improve the situation, I think, within the next 2
months. If it were to be enacted in its totality, you would basically
not have the problem of the unaccompanied minor children or minors with
adults that are flooding our borders. It is a conservative approach. I
will tell my friends on the minority side, I happen to be proud of
that. I believe that the body is going to pass this. I am going to vote
for both bills, the appropriation supplemental and then the DACA bill
that Congresswoman Blackburn has expressed leadership on and done such
a good job on, and of which I am a cosponsor.
I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for
giving me some time. I strongly support the rule, and I will vote for
the underlying bills.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Jeffries), my friend, and a member of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
New York for yielding.
``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to
breathe free.'' Those words appear on the Statue of Liberty that stands
tall in New York Harbor.
Today, we are here in this Chamber doing violence to a model that has
served this country well. We have a humanitarian crisis in this
country: tens of thousands of unaccompanied children have fled violence
in Central America and migrated to our southern border.
Our response has not been consistent with the notion that America is
a country of individuals from all over the world, and a compassionate
one.
Lady Liberty is crying right now because of the callous response of
House Republicans. Some of the children who have come here may not have
a valid legal basis to remain, but some will. If a child has a credible
fear of persecution; if a child was abused, abandoned, or neglected by
a parent; if a child was victimized by a highly violent criminal act
and suffered emotional or physical damage, under current law they have
a valid legal basis to remain. House Republicans are threatening to
take that away, inconsistent with our values.
That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the underlying
legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Tyler, Texas, Judge Gohmert, a former State district
judge, now Member of Congress.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sessions.
This was a different experience the last few days. I remember the
fiscal cliff problem when we were told: Here is your remedy, take it
and like it. And they didn't have enough votes so it ended up getting
pulled, and people were sent home.
But this time was different. We had people who said: Do you know
what? Wait a minute, why don't we stay here and work something out?
Kind of a refreshing change.
There were numerous Members last night that sat down in a room and
worked for quite some time--for hours actually--and came to a
conclusion. We had a verbal agreement, and there was a misunderstanding
on one provision. Anyway, there were so many great changes, great
compromises, people from different, diverse positions took part.
But let me just say, the importance of getting something done now
before we get even one day further into August is this. I have spent
many days and many nights on the border. When you look at the pitiful,
beautiful little faces of people that have come 1,000 or more miles
because there was a shiny object being dangled here in the United
States, saying: Come on, you may get amnesty, come on, come on now; and
adults paid gang members, paid drug cartels, to bring these people
through--some got pulled off into sexual trafficking we are told, many
were raped, if they were young women, along the way, some given birth
control pills so, gee, if they are raped they are not getting
pregnant--and all because the law has been violated in an
unconstitutional action by the President, who said: I don't like the
law that was passed by the House and by the Senate and then the prior
President signed into law, so I am passing a new law through my lips.
And it created this allure.
I wish the Senate had stuck around to work with us, as many of us
stayed last night to work. We could be so far down the road.
I am greatly encouraged by many of the things that are here, by the
great compromises.
I want to thank Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Patrick McHenry,
Chairman Bob Goodlatte, the Judiciary staff, but especially Chairman
Sessions. Thanks for your accorded assistance today.
We could get to a finished product even with the Senate if it wasn't
Harry Reid's way or the highway.
Who suffers? Come some night with me and sit out at the border 1, 2,
3 in
[[Page H7210]]
the morning, dodge tarantulas scorpions, rattlesnakes, and you may get
to see a beautiful face that has gone through hell instead of being
accorded the decency of a better way to immigrate into America.
We can do a better job, and we haven't done our job.
I am going to be a ``no'' because the provision was not pulled out
that gives the Attorney General the power to appoint the 40 judges that
are going to deal with the issues on the border. I have been assured we
are going to work on that in the future to fix it better. I just can't
give a guy in contempt the ability to appoint the 40 judges to deal
with this issue. But I am so grateful for the process that we are now
starting to use.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, there is one really good idea in this bill,
and that is the $40 million that is going to be used to help repatriate
kids with their families. This is what ideally should happen. Children
want to be with their parents in their own country. I thank Kay Granger
for her leadership on this.
Regrettably, the rest of the bill is a mess. Just think about it: $70
million to the National Guard. Why are we seriously thinking that we
have to have combat-ready troops at the border to greet 9- and 10- and
11-year-old kids, who, if they made the journey successfully, are
famished, exhausted, and terrified?
{time} 1815
Also, $405 million to the Department of Homeland Security--they have
got a big budget, and there is not any evidence that this will make a
dime's worth of difference.
What this really does is raise the question: Where did this bill come
from? Yesterday, we were all on our way home. Some Members were at the
airport. There was no bill yesterday, but then people figured out if
the House didn't even act on a bill, we wouldn't be able to blame the
do-nothing Senate--but, Mr. Speaker, wait.
The do-nothing Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform on June
27, 2013. The do-nothing Senate passed that bill in a bipartisan
manner, 68-32. The get-the-job-done House hasn't even taken that bill
up, even though it has been here for over 13 months.
This bill has a House designation on it, but bills usually get
considered by committees. We had no committee hearing, no consultation
with any Democrats, no consultation with the President--basically, no
consultation with other Republican Members of the House.
We should kill this bill. We should put our best folks together, like
Granger, Barton, Gutieerrez, and Lofgren, and do the right thing.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 seconds for a
clarification of his remarks, if he would take me up on that time.
I would like to advise the gentleman that I do not believe it is a
correct statement to say combat-ready troops. The National Guard that
is in Texas is not all combat ready. If I could get the gentleman to
correct that, I yield him 15 seconds.
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. I know we are all proud of our
Guard. Our Guard in Vermont lost more lives per capita in Afghanistan
and Iraq, and many of our Guard members, as you know, played that role.
So I do think of our Guardsmen and -women across the country as
prepared to do whatever they are asked to do, including combat.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to let
the Record note that there is no specification for these men and women
of the National Guard to be combat ready. In fact, I do not believe
that that would be a true statement.
That is not a part of what we have specified in this plan, nor do I
believe that it would be a requirement. So I have asked the gentleman,
and he chose to answer the way he did, but I would like to state on the
Record that there are no requirements, there is no precondition for
that. In fact, I do not believe that that is a correct statement.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Jolly), one of our newest Members.
Mr. JOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of the newest Members, and I have to tell you
it is amusing to find the paradox on the other side of the aisle that,
yesterday, we were being criticized for not considering a bill. Today,
we are being criticized for considering a bill.
I sat in my office, just like many others today, and watched the
President of the United States attempt to admonish the House for
working. I want to make something very clear to the American people
tonight. The President's plan for the crisis on the border was rejected
not just by this body, but by the Senate.
There is not a majority in the Senate or in the House willing to
consider and approve the President's plan for the crisis on the border.
That plan is dead on arrival, with a majority in the Senate controlled
by his own party and a majority in this House, and so the Senate
brought up its bill, and it was rejected.
The Senate, controlled by the President's party, left town. This
House, this body, this Congress, this caucus, is working.
I am new to this body, and I find it fascinating that the media and
the pundits and the consultants can take a set of facts and suggest
that, because we are working together, somehow we are dysfunctional.
That is an absurdity. We are working. What is dysfunctional is the
other side of this Capitol. What is dysfunctional is the other side of
Pennsylvania Avenue. This body is working.
We are sitting here complaining on both sides of the aisle--some in
my own caucus--about what is not in this bill, but the fact is what is
in this bill is the right solution. This is a good bill, and I would
say to the folks on my side of the aisle, I know a lot of folks have
concerns about this.
For conservatives, this is the bill we have been asking for, for
years. This is a responsible, commonsense approach that says if you
come here illegally, you will be returned into the responsible and
caring hands of your government, and frankly, let's put in the hands of
everybody a packet that says how to immigrate here legally.
We are a loving and caring Nation, and we are better for that, but we
are also a Nation of laws. This bill says enforce the law. It is
accountability. That is all it is.
Where the President has proposed nearly $4 billion, this body has
proposed less than $700 million, fully offset by cuts to other Federal
programs. This is a conservative bill. It pays for itself. It is about
enforcement. It is about accountability.
Lastly, I will say this as a new Member of this body. I admit my
naivete. I am a Pollyanna. I actually believe this body can work. I
believe what is good and right about this body. I believe we can work.
Let me tell you why we ended up here today and we didn't get a bill
done yesterday is because we have Rs and Ds next to our names. If we
drop the Rs and Ds, we had enough votes last night to pass this bill.
We know it on both sides of the aisle.
This is a commonsense bill that addresses the priorities of the
American people, and if we were here yesterday not as Republicans and
Democrats, but as Members of Congress that know what is right for the
future of this country, we could have passed this bill yesterday.
So instead of complaining yesterday that we didn't pass a bill and
complaining today that we are here working on a Friday night to pass a
bill, we can keep it honest, drop the partisanship, and pass what the
American people expect, which is responsibility and accountability and
commonsense solutions. That is why we are here tonight.
I think we need to pass this bill. I think every Member of Congress
should pass this bill. This is a good bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, the influx of unaccompanied children across
the southern border is a serious humanitarian situation that requires
immediate action. We desperately need Members of Congress to work
together in a bipartisan way to develop an effective and humane course
of action to address this problem, and I am disappointed that we are
playing politics
[[Page H7211]]
with this crisis instead of developing solutions.
The rule we are considering today would allow us to consider two
bills. The supplemental appropriations bill is an irresponsible funding
measure that fails to address the true needs of this crisis while also
making irresponsible cuts of over $400 million to FEMA's disaster
relief fund, impacting the Federal response to disasters.
The other bill needlessly punishes innocent children, known as
DREAMers, and would do nothing to address the humanitarian situation
caused by violence in Central America. This deportation-only and
enforcement-only approach to changing our Nation's immigration law is
misguided and will do absolutely nothing to prevent our broken system
from spinning further into dysfunction.
In my district, there are businesses, farmers, faith leaders, law
enforcement leaders, and families who have been asking Congress for
years to find solutions to our broken immigration system.
I helped introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill, H.R. 15,
to help these constituents who deserve a functional immigration system
that they can rely on; instead, House Republicans have decided to make
today's divisive bill a priority. They want to make sure that
absolutely nothing is done to improve overall our immigration system.
After more than a year of refusing to act on comprehensive
legislation, this is unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``no.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the
gentlewoman from New York, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, someplace I read in the Bible, ``Suffer little children,
and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of
heaven''--or it could have read the beloved community or the beloved
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, at this moment, at this hour, we have a moral
obligation, a mission, and a mandate to do the right thing, the humane
thing. Today, hundreds and thousands of our children--innocent little
children--need our help. They need our support. They are running away
from violence, from rape, from hunger. They are searching for a better
life.
The time has arrived, Mr. Speaker. We can wait no longer. We have
reached a tipping point, and now, we have a choice, a choice to do what
is right, what is just, what is fair. Where are our hearts? Where are
our souls? We cannot simply turn our backs on these little children and
do nothing.
In the final analysis, we are one people, one family, one House. It
doesn't matter whether you are Black, White, Asian American, Native
American, or Latino. There is no such thing as an illegal human being.
History will not be kind to us if we fail to do what is right, what
is just. We must pass bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform, and
we must pass it now.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, who are these young people across America
that these Republicans would deny a dream, whose lives they are so
eager to disrupt tonight?
Maria Rocha is one of them. She came here as a 3-year-old. I have
rallied with this young, articulate woman in San Antonio for reform on
several occasions. The first time Maria even knew she was an immigrant
was when she was unable to apply for college financial assistance, so
she worked three jobs. And because of the President's DACA executive
order, she was able to graduate from UTSA. Now, she is teaching
kindergarten.
Another is Sheridan Aguirre. He was brought here as a 1-year-old. He
told me:
I was encouraged to go to college, but my legal status made
it difficult for me to plan. Two years ago, I graduated as
valedictorian of my high school and entered UT, where I have
a 3.77 grade point average. Because of the President's
executive order, I work, I own a car, I pay my rent, I can
travel, I am sustainable, and I can live without fear. I need
DACA so that I can go to graduate school and fulfill my
career goals. Repealing DACA would be a huge step backwards
for our country's history.
Republicans would deny the right to learn, the right to work--and
they would deny the dream. They would deny the hope for these young
people and thousands of others across this country, who pledge
allegiance to America, and have so much to contribute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. You may call this amnesty. I call it a hope for our
country. You can call it conservative. I call it wasteful. It wastes
talent that this Nation needs.
We need to reject this mean-spirited legislation that would deny
rights to these young ,people who are already contributing to our
country and can give it so much more. We can't afford this wasteful
bill. I urge its rejection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would notify the gentlewoman from New
York that I have no further speakers, and I have been advised that
perhaps she has no further speakers.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, that is true. We have no further
speakers, and I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, in the more than a year since the Senate passed
bipartisan immigration reform, the House leadership has refused to
allow a vote on this essential legislation, even though we know it has
the votes to pass.
{time} 1830
Indeed, over the last 13 months, the majority has not taken one
step--not one--to fix our broken immigration system. If we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up
H.R. 15, our immigration reform bill, already passed by the Senate.
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
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,''
defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I also appreciate the gentlewoman, her team, and all of our staffs
who have worked overtime, including our Appropriations staff and our
staff from Energy and Commerce who helped us with this, as well as the
Judiciary staff.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I have a fundamental disagreement with the
President on the question of the border, and that is why we are here
today.
You have heard Republican speakers talking about how we believe that
the rule of law is important. We believe that America is a great and
awesome country and that we are very compassionate, but we take in
millions of people each year through a legal process. America is a land
of immigrants, but the rule of law is important also. We have problems
with our borders. We have had problems with our borders for years, but
in particular, after 9/11, the threats that are against this country
have placed enormous pressure not only on our law enforcement but on
air, land, sea, rail. We feel that the Federal Government should do a
better job of not encouraging people to come to this country, bypassing
the laws and laying down enforcement and making it easier for our
country to be invaded.
That is what is happening right now.
Some 70,000 people have come to our border, and Republicans are
standing up and are talking about this in a proper way. We believe that
the people who have come here should be allowed to go back home. We
should help them, and we should facilitate that. We believe that the
rule of law--the processes that we have got to follow to do that--must
be followed.
Yesterday, there was an amendment before the Rules Committee asking
for almost $180 million to help pay for these children who, as the
guests of the Democratic Party and the President, will stay in this
country. We are going
[[Page H7212]]
to have to end up paying about--$180 million was the request, for 60
days for our local school districts.
There are enormous questions that abound about what will happen, who
will pay, how this is supposed to happen when, in fact, America at this
time has 25 million people unemployed and underemployed. It is a
tremendous deficit that we face. Our social systems and networks are
burdened already, and we have many people whom, ourselves, we cannot
help--but what do we do? We take on more people.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that we listen to the American people
and that we listen to what we are trying to do here, and that is to
face up to what we were sent here to do, which is to make tough choices
and tough decisions. I believe what we are doing is correct. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution and ``yes'' on the
underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 710 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.15)
to provide for comprehensive immigration reform 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 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 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 15.
____
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. SESSIONS. 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 183, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 476]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
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
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
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
Gosar
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
Jolly
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
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
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--183
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
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, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
[[Page H7213]]
Esty
Farr
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
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)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
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
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Blumenauer
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Davis (CA)
DesJarlais
Doggett
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Gene
Hanabusa
Kennedy
McDermott
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Ruiz
Rush
Saanchez, Linda T.
Schock
Speier
Waxman
{time} 1858
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Ms. MOORE changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GOSAR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 476, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 191, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 477]
YEAS--218
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
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)
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
Jolly
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
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
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
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
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--191
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
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, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia
Gosar
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
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
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Blumenauer
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Chaffetz
Davis (CA)
DesJarlais
Fattah
Garamendi
Gohmert
Grayson
Green, Gene
Hanabusa
Kennedy
McDermott
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Ruiz
Rush
Saanchez, Linda T.
Schock
Speier
Waxman
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1907
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.
personal explanation
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 476, had I been present,
I would have voted ``nay.''
On rollcall vote 477, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________