[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.''

                          ____________________