[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 123 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7228-H7236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO DEFERRED ACTION FOR ALIENS
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 710, I call
up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the
amendment printed in part B of House Report 113-571 is adopted, and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5272
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD
ARRIVALS; RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT
AUTHORIZATION FOR ALIENS NOT IN LAWFUL STATUS.
No agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government may
use Federal funding or resources after July 30, 2014--
(1) to consider or adjudicate any new or previously denied
application of any alien requesting consideration of deferred
action for childhood arrivals, as authorized by Executive
memorandum dated June 15, 2012 and effective on August 15,
2012 (or by any other
[[Page H7229]]
succeeding Executive memorandum or policy authorizing a
similar program);
(2) to newly authorize deferred action for any class of
aliens not lawfully present in the United States; or
(3) to authorize any alien to work in the United States if
such alien--
(A) was not lawfully admitted into the United States in
compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101 et seq.); and
(B) is not in lawful status in the United States on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5272.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5272 prohibits Federal funding or resources from
being used to adjudicate any application for the President's Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program; and it prohibits the
President from issuing employment authorization documents to unlawful
immigrants in the United States.
This bill differs from the bill the House was set to consider
yesterday in that it prohibits funds from being used for adjudication.
The prior version of this bill was a simple prohibition on the
President's actions.
{time} 2045
According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Leon
Rodriguez, the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
program has already allowed over 714,000 unlawful immigrants, who
claimed to have arrived as minors, to remain in the United States and
seek employment. DACA is a major reason for the unprecedented influx of
minors and family units along our southern borders.
This deferred action program was announced by the President and the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.
It is a usurpation of the plenary authority over immigration law that
article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution
confers on the legislative branch.
And the President knows that it is a usurpation of congressional
authority. In fact, in March of 2011, he stated: ``With respect to the
notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order,
that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that
Congress has passed. The executive branch's job is to enforce and
implement those laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress
that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration
system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore these
congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as
President.''
Despite this admission, just over a year later, the President
implemented the DACA program. And today it stands as a beacon for any
unlawful immigrant to simply cross into the United States illegally
because word has gotten out that they will be given permission to stay.
I heard this again and again from unlawful immigrants in Border Patrol
custody when I visited the Rio Grande Valley earlier this month.
So let's be clear: the President's administrative policies abandoning
immigration enforcement and his promises about future administrative
legalizations continue to encourage unlawful immigrant parents to
smuggle their children into the United States. These policies and
promises put money directly into the pockets of human smuggling and
drug cartels and put children at risk of perilous, illicit journeys to
the United States. And they undermine the fundamental constitutional
principles that Congress creates the laws and the President is bound to
enforce them.
H.R. 5272 sends the vitally important message that minors tempted to
come here in the future will no longer be rewarded by a President who
chooses to use his pen and cell phone to legislate. They will have
absolutely no opportunity to receive DACA benefits.
I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) for
introducing the bill and urge my colleagues to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I strongly oppose H.R. 5272. This,
in all honesty and candor, is one of the most mean-spirited and anti-
immigrant pieces of legislation I have seen in all of my years in the
Congress.
Now, the main reason, of course, is that it would unfairly harm
current and future DREAM Act kids. The majority have been clear about
their intent with this bill: No DREAMers.
This legislation is designed to prevent young people who have lived
here most of their lives and are members of our communities from
benefiting from deferred action. It would foreclose the administration
from focusing resources on identifying and removing individuals such as
criminals and gang members from our communities. And even worse, the
legislation would mean that the hundreds of thousands of young people
who have already benefited from deferred action, who are contributing
to our economy, participating in our communities, and obtaining an
education could be deported in less than 2 years. And that is why the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the AFL-CIO, and the
American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, have already registered their
strong opposition to the bill.
I am confident that there are many more who would oppose this
legislation because it seeks to roll back protections supported by
civil rights organizations, religious organizations, college and
university presidents, labor unions, and national educational
organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to both the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy), the majority leader, for purposes of a colloquy. And I will
begin by yielding to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
There is a section within the bill, which we just passed, that
provides that the Attorney General--who is currently under contempt of
Congress--will appoint the 40 new immigration judges established in the
bill. A number of us have a problem with that. And I know that concerns
you, Chairman Goodlatte.
I believe that you, as Judiciary chairman, have agreed to work on a
solution to deal with that issue going forward and to attempt to craft
a solution that would be acceptable to a majority of the committee. Is
that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. GOODLATTE. That is correct.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. And I can assure you that I will work
with Chairman Goodlatte in an effort to remedy that problem.
Mr. GOHMERT. I thank you both so much for your commitment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Gutieerrez).
Mr. GUTIEERREZ. How did we get here? In the dark of night,
Republicans are voting to deport DREAMers, take away the DACA program,
and make every undocumented immigrant deportable.
In November of 2012, the Republicans were shellshocked, and they
spoke of turning over a new leaf with young voters, with Asian voters,
with women, and Latinos.
A year ago, I was working with Congressman Sam Johnson and Judge
Carter of Texas. I did town hall meetings and public appearances with
Judge Carter and with Congressman Valadao. I worked with Mike Coffman
of Denver and stood up with Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger in my own
State of Illinois.
But now Steve King, Michele Bachmann, and Ted Cruz are literally
writing the immigration script for the Republican Party, a script
filled with ugly and mean policies that demonize
[[Page H7230]]
children and marginalize immigrants and destroy families.
In January, you were saying that all of the DREAMers should get green
cards and citizenship. We always understood you wanted to deport their
parents.
But now, late on a Friday night, you are going after the DREAMers,
who have known no other country but this one, who risked their
identities and their families to come forward and sign up with the
Department of Homeland Security and pass FBI background checks so they
could get right with the law.
The United States said, come forward and get right with the law. And
now Republicans are saying they should go back in the shadows, back to
a life of fear, where opportunities are few, and their futures are
uncertain.
The voters had a referendum on the program back in 2012, and the
winner was President Obama, the DREAMers, and the American people. But
now you want to take all of that away. Thank God the Senate is gone.
The President has called this ``veto bait,'' and this will never become
law.
Is there no one in your conference who can stand up and talk sensibly
when others in your party want to demonize children at the border and
deport the DREAMers who live in our neighborhoods across America? You
are so frozen in fear of your own voters, so frozen in fear of your own
colleagues, and the Nation needs you to be courageous.
Only cowards scapegoat children. And only those who are ashamed of
themselves do it in the night, on a Friday. You are apparently not
strong enough to stand up and craft real solution to America's
problems.
But here is the truth revealed about the Republican Party in the last
few weeks, and why all of the talk this year about immigration reform
was just talk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. GUTIEERREZ. In the end, the Republican position on immigration
can be summed up as ``deport 'em all.'' When push comes to shove, your
party is standing by the simplistic desire to deport 'em all.
Most of you know that the approach of deport 'em all is nonsense, and
you know it is suicide as a political strategy. But you continue to
say, deport 'em all. Shame on those who will not stand up for the
children at the border, and shame on all those who will not stand in
the neighborhoods of our communities for the children who live with us.
Say ``no'' to this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that
this bill does not deport anyone. This bill simply freezes a program
that violates the United States Constitution.
So now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR. I thank the chairman for his excellent work on this
important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, tonight, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed,
with my support, a strong border security bill. And I rise in support
of this second reform bill that would, if enacted, immediately and
effectively address the humanitarian and national security crisis that
has developed along the southern border of the United States.
This crisis, which will result in an estimated 90,000 unaccompanied
children entering the United States illegally through the end of this
fiscal year, representing a 1,381 percent increase since 2009, was
entirely caused by the Obama administration's failure to secure the
border, its unwillingness to enforce existing laws, and its disastrous
2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which invited this
surge in illegal immigration.
The action taken by the House tonight is a serious, bold, and
thoughtful legislative response to President Obama's failure to secure
the border and ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
But there is a second and very important reason besides a policy
reason why every Member of this House should support this legislation,
and that is to vindicate the separation of powers.
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1983 that dealt with an
immigration issue, INS v. Chadha. And in that case, the Supreme Court
talked about the procedure that the Constitution outlines to change the
law, how legislation is enacted in accordance with constitutional
command. And the court held that there was a single, finely wrought,
and exhaustively considered procedure for enacting legislation. And
unilateral executive memoranda from the White House is not the way to
change the law.
So if you are interested in vindicating the separation of powers, if
you believe that the way to change the law--even if you believe in the
DREAM Act, even if you believe in the President's policy of deferred
action--the way that we do that is through constitutional procedure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. BARR. So there is not just a policy issue at stake here, not just
a humanitarian and national security issue at stake--the Constitution
is at stake.
So I appreciate the House leadership for heeding the call that I and
many of my colleagues made to stay in session and finish the work of
the American people before the start of the August district work
period.
I strongly urge the Senate and President Obama to do their jobs, stop
trying to score political points, listen to the American people, pass
this bill, and join the House in solving this very important problem.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. How much time remains on either side, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 25\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 22\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, its my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the brand-new majority whip of
the United States Congress.
Mr. SCALISE. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, for
bringing this bill to the floor and for his leadership on Mrs.
Blackburn's legislation.
Mr. Speaker, if you go back and look at DACA in 2012, when it was
issued as an executive order, it was an example of President Obama's
executive overreach.
Some want to make this a partisan issue, yet, Mr. Speaker, more than
a dozen times, the United States Supreme Court has issued 9-0 rulings
that President Obama has overreached his executive authority. That is
not a 5-4 decision. That is 9-0. Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized more
than a dozen times this President has overreached his executive
authority.
{time} 2100
Mr. Speaker, why is this DACA ruling so dangerous? This has been the
magnet that has led to the flood of people coming across our border.
This crisis at the border is partially responsible to the DACA ruling.
We have got to stop having this kind of message go out that has led not
only to a flood of people coming across our border, but has led to and
can be responsible for the human trafficking that is going on. There
are so many devastating things that this has done. We have got to stop
this overreach.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a distinguished member of the judiciary
committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I hope the Speaker says that word from Texas very
loud because I listened earlier today of all of the relief in the
appropriations bill given to Texans down at the border, $594 million.
Let me tell you that there are people in Texas who are ready to serve
and help the unaccompanied children. There are people in Texas who
recognize that we are the good Samaritans. Don't label us with wanting
$594 million, and don't label us with standing against the DACA
children, the DREAMers, who have come to this country and been here for
5 years.
Mr. Speaker, these children ran into the arms of the Border Patrol.
There is no criminal or legal crisis at the border, but the DACA bill
that is here on
[[Page H7231]]
the floor of the House is a disgrace to the words of the Star-Spangled
Banner. We are the home of the free and the brave. We are free enough
to be able to welcome those in need.
This body knows that DACA has nothing to do with the unaccompanied
children, and it is a disgrace that we would undermine the hardworking
students like Juan Jesus in my office this summer, that we would
undermine it with a disgraceful bill--a disgraceful bill. It is
disgraceful. Pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5272, a bill brought
to the floor at the eleventh hour by the House Republican leadership to
placate its extreme right-wing Tea Party faction and one of the most
hypocritical, irresponsible, and mean-spirited legislative proposals
brought to the House floor this year.
H.R. 5272 seeks to prohibit the Administration from exercising its
administrative discretion to focus resources on identifying and
apprehending those aliens who are present in country illegally who pose
the most serious danger to our national security and the safety of our
citizens.
This cynical bill is hypocritical because the vast majority of its
proponents have been claiming for years now that the reason they refuse
to compromise on budget issues, support for sequestration, and voted to
shut down the government is because of their belief in the importance
of setting spending priorities.
Yet, H.R. 5272 would deny ICE the ability to use its limited
resources in the most efficient manner to achieve its highest
priorities which is to apprehend, detain, and remove aliens who pose a
danger to national security or a risk to public safety.
This bill is irresponsible because it seeks to prevent trained,
experienced, and professional agents and prosecutors from exercising
their discretion and acting on the basis of what everyone knows to be
true: that there is a vast difference between a terrorist bent on
harming America and a DREAM Act kid studying hard in school so he or
she can graduate, join the Armed Services and willingly risk his or her
life to defend the country, or go to work to support his or her family.
This inefficient use of resources wastes taxpayer dollars and does
nothing to keep America safe.
This bill is mean-spirited because it would have ICE target its
limited resources on innocent, law abiding, young people who were
brought to this country as children and would have them deported to a
foreign land even though America is the country they may know as home
and the only one to which they may have ever pledged allegiance.
Mr. Speaker, I traveled many times to Iraq and Afghanistan and always
the highlight of my visit was meeting the young men and women who were
willingly risking their lives to defend the country they love more than
life.
More than 5,000 of the soldiers who fought for us in Afghanistan and
Iraq were not yet American citizens but DREAMers who dreamed that one
day they might become citizens of the nation they gladly risked their
lives to defend.
Instead of honoring their service, this heartless bill before us
crushes their dream by forcing ICE agents and prosecutors to pretend
that there is no difference between one of these veterans who came to
this country as an undocumented immigrant and an alien engaged in or
suspected of espionage or terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5272 also wastes the money of hard-working
taxpayers and does nothing to make America safer, and eliminates a fair
and just policy legal under the President's executive authority which
allows for relief for young children who have been in America for a
certain number of years, follow certain requirements and may be
deferred from deportation to serve in the U.S. military, go to school
and contribute to America.
And, just as bad, it is inconsistent with American values of justice
and fair play.
We must address our broken immigration system through comprehensive
reform rather than extinguish Ms. Liberty's lamp of freedom or close
her Golden Door.
We are better than that and I urge all Members to join me in
rejecting this terrible legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
Virginia, Chairman Goodlatte, for yielding. There are a lot of people
in this Congress that I appreciate a great deal tonight, but I have
listened to the anger and the fury over on the other side, and I have
never seen the Sergeant at Arms have to come and clear the floor like
we have seen here tonight.
I am wondering what is this about? I would take this back to the
State of the Union Address when I watched the President of the United
States here on the rostrum speak, and he said, essentially, the summary
of what he has delivered to America a number of times: Congress, I am
going to tell you what to do, and if you don't do it, I am going to use
either my cell phone or my ink pen, and I am going to do it. Here it
goes again, Mr. Speaker.
What I saw was this, our Founding Fathers set up this balance in our
Constitution between the three branches of government, articles I, II,
and III, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branch of
government.
They drew as fine a line as they could between the three, but they
always knew that there would be a gray area, and they anticipated that
each branch of government would jealously protect the constitutional
authority that is vested within it within the Constitution, the supreme
law of the land.
When the President said, I am going to usurp your legislative
authority, I am going to take over article I, and I am going to
legislate if you don't do what I tell you, what happened? The people
that are applauding now applauded then, and they said, Mr. President,
take the power that is in the Constitution, take it from me, take
article I, too, take your pen, take your cell phone. You run this
country as if you were a king, rather than only the President of the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is about here. This is about
the DACA language that the President has introduced 2-plus years ago,
and I said then when we had Hill hearings before the Judiciary
Committee and Janet Napolitano--I said that we will take you to court
on this, this will be litigated.
It will be litigated because the President does not have legislative
authority. He is only the President of the United States. If the
President wants to somehow grant amnesty to one person, he has some
prosecutorial discretion to do that, but they argued in the Morton
Memos, and they argued in the DACA memos--seven times in the Morton
Memos--on an individual basis only, on an individual basis only,
prosecutorial discretion on an individual basis only.
They put it in there seven times because they knew they were wrong,
and they knew it was going to be litigated. You don't do 700,000 people
on an individual basis only. You don't suspend the law. If the
President wants the law changed, he knows to come to Congress, ask us--
and ask us, and when you take an oath to uphold the Constitution, you
had better believe that it means what it says.
Why would you just throw your authority over the side and say, Mr.
President, take this from us? That is not what you pledged to your
constituents. That is not the oath that you take.
So what this says is that the DACA language says this: Mr. President,
stop violating the Constitution from this point forward. As the
chairman said, it does not deport anybody. It just restores
constitutional article I authority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, this just restores the constitutional authority of the
United States Congress, and it says: President Obama, don't continue to
violate this Constitution. President Obama, when you waved your ink pen
at us a week and a half ago and you said you were going to legalize 5
to 6 million people, it is unconstitutional.
He knows it. He has many times given the lecture that he knows it. He
gave his word, and he needs to keep it. I want to remind him, it won't
go cheap if you try this, Mr. President. I urge the adoption of this
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members of the House are reminded to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Congressman Conyers.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I rise
today to strongly oppose H.R. 5272, an extreme and highly partisan bill
that
[[Page H7232]]
would prevent the continuation or expansion of President Obama's
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA.
Simply put, this misguided bill limits President Obama's
prosecutorial discretion and seeks to dismantle the DACA program. I am
very concerned that the majority has brought this anti-Hispanic amended
bill to the floor in order to prevent President Obama from building
upon the successes of the DACA program and to appease the most extreme
wing of the Republican Conference.
The underlying bill punishes hardworking DREAMers and immigrants who
are eager to contribute to America's prosperity and have waited long
enough for comprehensive immigration reform.
Since its inception in 2012, the DACA program has protected DREAMers
who meet certain requirements from deportation, allowing hundreds of
thousands of young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the
United States as children to remain and work in the United States.
In my view, closing the door on undocumented youth is un-American. We
in the Congress of the United States have a moral responsibility to
protect the welfare and rights of vulnerable children and youth,
including children and youth who are undocumented or are fleeing from
violence and despair in their countries of origin.
Mr. Speaker, I close by urging my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to vote in strong opposition to H.R. 5272, extreme and highly
partisan legislation that does nothing to fix our Nation's broken
immigration system.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), a member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, as I sit here and I listen to the other
side talk about this issue, I wonder if they even understand what is
happening at the border.
In 2011, there were only 6,500 children coming to the border. In
2012, the President acted through DACA, and we started seeing an
increase of these children coming to the border. Today, in 2014, we
will have 90,000 children rushing to the border, and next year, it is
estimated that we will have 142,000 children coming to the border.
Almost 2 months ago, Gilberto Ramos, a 15-year-old boy from
Guatemala, was found lying in brush, dead from the heat. Many of these
children that are coming to the border don't make it across the river.
There are reports of discoveries of small, lifeless bodies washed up
along the riverbanks. Many of these children are abused, they are
victimized, and they are raped.
We must understand that the President is responsible because of his
failure to fully comply with the law. We have heard a lot from the
other side that the President acted because we did not act. Well, that
is not true.
The reality is that the President and his party had majorities in
both Houses of Congress for 2 years, and you failed to act, so don't
point your finger at us. In November of 2012--in November of 2012--we
passed in this House a STEM Jobs Act, which was the beginning of a
step-by-step approach to actually deal with the immigration process.
What did you do? You didn't vote for it, and the Senate refused to take
it up.
In September of 2011, we passed here in the House the Fairness for
High-Skilled Immigrants Act, and the Senate again refused to act, which
would have been the beginning of a step-by-step approach for us to deal
with the immigration process. You have refused to do small things.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman is reminded to direct his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. LABRADOR. Stop the hypocrisy. If you truly care about these kids,
stop encouraging them to come to the United States illegally. They are
crossing the border. Most of them are being harmed, many of them are
being abused, and a few of them are dying.
It is time for us to stop this nonsense and to have the President of
the United States actually follow the law and work with the Congress,
so we can actually do immigration reform.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield
1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Goodlatte and Mrs. Blackburn
who is responsible for this wonderful bill this evening, which I
wholeheartedly support. This is why: last weekend, I think the Nation
was stunned when our President said that he would unilaterally use his
power--raw power--to effectively grant amnesty to 5 to 6 million
foreign nationals here in the United States illegally.
He said that he would do that with his power, and what happened this
week is that this body came together and we decided to answer the
President's unconstitutional call.
So with this DACA bill, effectively, we will put forward the
strongest possible legislative response that this body could put
forward. We say in this bill that the President has no power, no
authority administratively to grant permits which would effectively
grant amnesty to 5 to 6 million foreign nationals illegally in the
United States.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we will put a handcuff on one of the
President's hands.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Now, in the United States Senate, the majority leader,
Harry Reid, has left town. He has left town. Not only did he fail to
complete an immigration bill, but he knows full well that President
Obama may illegally grant amnesty to 5 to 6 million foreign nationals
illegally in the United States without doing anything.
What Harry Reid has the opportunity to do is to come back and join
us. We will be here any time, any day, anywhere, anyhow. We will join
him here in August, September, whenever, and he needs to put the other
handcuff on this lawless President's hands, so we constrain this
President from granting amnesty.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the American people want us to do. We do
that tonight with this bill. We invite Harry Reid to bring the Senate
back and put the handcuff on the President's other hand, so that we can
have sovereignty again on our southern border.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
{time} 2115
Parliamentary inquiry
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is: Is it not a fact that we
are here because the Republicans opposed this legislation in the Senate
and there were not sufficient votes to move the bill and that is why we
are here?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who comes from the
State of Texas, and like many in this House, I have been down on the
Texas-Mexico border. I was there last weekend. You have to be there to
know what is going on. I went up and down the Rio Grande River with law
enforcement officers from the State of Texas. We see the people on the
Mexican side--and I think the Mexican Government is complicit--just
waiting for us to pass, and then they start coming across.
And the other side talks about it just being one group of people--
children. Well, that is just not true, because the people who are being
apprehended are not just children. A lot of them are teenagers. A lot
of them are older. The chief of Border Patrol of the McAllen sector
said there are 144 nations that came across the border this year
represented. Just a week ago before I got there, there were three
Ukrainians.
Why, Mr. Speaker? Why is everybody coming to America through south
Texas? Because they believe wherever they start out, whether it is kids
in
[[Page H7233]]
Honduras looking for a better life, or terrorists, or Ukrainians, or
someone else, they believe that this President, this administration,
said: You get to America, we are going to let you stay.
We have all kinds of different legal reasons. Some of it is called
DACA, and there are other reasons. But the bottom line is you are going
to get to stay in America, and Americans will take care of your needs.
That is what they believe. And the reason they believe that is because
the rule of law is not being enforced in America.
Third World countries protect their borders better than the United
States.
And who is benefiting from all of this? Well, it is not the kids. As
pointed out, many of them are dying or getting hurt. It is not America.
It is not legal immigrants. Who is benefiting? It is the drug cartels,
the criminal gangs, the MS-13 gang. They are making money off the fact
that the rule of law in this country is not being enforced.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. POE of Texas. The rule of law is not enforced when it comes to
the sovereignty and security of the Nation. And that is all we are
asking. Let's have some rules and follow them so people all over the
world who want to come to America, let them know there is a right way
to come. And the wrong way is they shouldn't believe that you get here,
you are going to get to stay because the administration is not going to
enforce the law. That is why we have the chaos. That is why we have the
50,000 to 60,000 people crossing in south Texas.
So all we are trying to do with this little piece of legislation is
get back to let's enforce the rule of law. Let's not grant amnesty and
let's not treat people from different countries differently. Let's
treat them all the same way. That is why I support this legislation,
because it will send the message that even in America the rule of law
will be enforced.
And that is just the way it is.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I know you said that is just the way it is, and I
agree, but I just want to make an added point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman if
he will yield to me.
Mr. POE of Texas. I continue to yield to the chairman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. So 50,000 coming across the border, that is 50,000
unaccompanied minors coming to the border, and they are a small
percentage of the total number of people. Eighty-five percent of the
people coming to the border right now--and all categories are up.
Children are up most, but all categories are up, and 85 percent are not
unaccompanied minors.
So the gentleman makes a very valid point about the crisis at our
border and the cause of that crisis. The President caused it. The
President can solve it. The President should act now, and we need to
send a strong message that America is not open to people who violate
our laws.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry as to the bill
that is on the floor, is this not the bill dealing with deferred action
for juveniles or young people who have been in this country for 5
years, graduated from high school, going to college or working, and in
actuality is not dealing with the unaccompanied children? But more
importantly, is it not true that this bill is destined for a veto, will
not be passed in the Senate, and in essence, we are here passing a bill
that has no future?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are ready to close on this side.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I also only have one speaker remaining
and am prepared to close.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my
time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member
of the Judiciary Committee, to close.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, some Members have asked whether this bill
terminates deferred action for DREAMers with DACA. This question was
put to Chairman Goodlatte at the Rules Committee today, and he
answered, as I saw on TV, that the text speaks for itself. He is right.
The text does speak for itself. And on lines 5 through 7 on page 1, the
text clearly terminates DACA by prohibiting DREAMers from applying to
renew their deferred action, which they must do after a 2-year time
period.
It also prevents future deferred action to ensure that we continue to
deport the parents of the DREAMers and parents of U.S. citizen
children, sending those children, by the way, into foster care, or
prevent DREAMers who have not yet filed for deferred action from doing
so.
So basically, this bill will have the effect of removing DACA from
the DREAMers and making them deportable.
Now, there has been a lot of discussion about the role that DACA has
had, and I will put into the Record a report from the Cato Institute,
titled, ``DACA Did Not Cause the Surge in Unaccompanied Children.'' If
you do statistic analysis, you can see that it is impossible that DACA
has been the cause of these children coming from the three war-torn
countries, as the report reports.
[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
[[Page H7234]]
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
Ms. LOFGREN. Now, we know that this bill would eliminate DACA for
DREAMers and make them deportable, but few in this body may know that
the bill also returns to our bitter 2-year fight about reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act. It took this House 2 years to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act at the beginning of this
Congress, and when we did it, we did it over the strong opposition of
the majority of House Republicans.
Today's bill undermines the basic premise of that act, that victims
of domestic violence should be empowered to leave their abusers. It
does that by denying the ability of battered immigrant spouses who have
left their abusers and successfully self-petitioned for a VAWA visa the
ability to work for the months it may take for a visa number to become
available. This one change will prevent countless battered immigrant
spouses from ever leaving their abusers and will drive others right
back into the hands of their abusers.
Now, we have heard a lot of discussion about the law, but I think it
is important to recall that the ability to make prosecutorial decisions
is well-grounded in the law. In fact, in 1999, I recall well the letter
sent by then-Chairman Henry Hyde, signed by 28 bipartisan Members of
Congress, to the Clinton administration asking for the use of
prosecutorial discretion. And most recently, the Supreme Court in the
Arizona case recognized the broad authority of the administration to
make decisions about whom to prosecute. The Arizona case reaffirmed the
legality of the deferred action program.
So all this discussion to the contrary is really nothing more than
legal nonsense.
What does this bill do?
It deports the DREAMers. It reinvigorates the Republican war on women
by forcing women with VAWA visas back to their abusers. This is bad
policy. It is an outrageous bill. It is being done in the worst
possible process, and I wish so much that the Republicans had reached
out, taken the offer of our leaders to sit down and work together to
come up with a solution that really works for our country instead of
deporting the DREAMers who are so much the hope and future of our great
American Nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that
DACA is more than just abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It also
creates benefits that are not provided for under the law.
At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
I rise in support of my amendment to prevent the extension of the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that was indeed
unlawfully put in place by an executive memo on August 15, 2012. What
this amendment does is to return us to the original language of H.R.
5160. Plus, it strengthens that original language by looking beyond
July 30. What it will do is to tie the President's hands as to future
executive actions that he might take to expand amnesty for illegal
entrants into this country. It would freeze DACA.
Now, I want to read the bill because it is not a lengthy bill.
Beginning on line 1, section 1, Limitation on deferred action for
childhood arrivals; restrictions on employment authorization for aliens
not in lawful status.
No agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government may use
Federal funding or resources after July 30, 2014:
One, to consider or adjudicate any new or previously denied
application of any alien requesting consideration of Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals, as authorized by the executive memo dated June
15, 2012, and effective on August 15, 2012, or by any other succeeding
executive memorandum or policy authorizing a similar program.
Number two, to newly authorize deferred action for any class of
aliens not lawfully present in the United States.
Number three, to authorize any alien to work in the U.S. if such
alien, A, was not lawfully admitted into the U.S. in compliance with
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); and, B, is
not in lawful status in the U.S. on the date of the enactment of this
act.
That is it. That is it. That is what is in this piece of legislation.
What it does, in effect, is to give Central American children a false
hope. It says that they are going to be able to obtain amnesty, as
those before them have done in this program. And the reason we are so
concerned about this and the reason my colleagues have come and have
talked about their concern, what is happening is you have the
traffickers, you have the smugglers, you have the coyotes who are
preying on these innocent people. And they believe if these children
can make it here, they will get amnesty. It is a false hope. Certainly
we know and we care about these families. We know these countries want
to get their children back and reunite them with their families in
their home countries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is that the administration
would like to expand DACA. Indeed, we have heard that the President has
instructed Secretary Johnson and General Holder to come up with a list
of executive actions to address immigration.
{time} 2130
The increase and the statistics that Mr. Labrador gave us on the
percentages of increase cannot be denied.
We see what is happening on this border. Mr. Poe talked about what he
has seen happening with those families. And true to form, just as
Governor Perry warned us in 2012 that this was going to happen, indeed,
it is. We are seeing this unprecedented increase going back to 2009,
looking at where we are with today, with the children, with the teens,
with the adults that are streaming across this border and are
disrupting life along the southern border for American families.
I want to make one other point. Chairman Goodlatte mentioned this
earlier. We have talked a little bit about the Constitution tonight,
and, indeed, we all know that when you look at the Constitution,
article I, section 8, clause 4, that is where those enumerated powers
are given to Congress. They are given to Congress ``to establish an
uniform rule of naturalization.''
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5272
In this legislation, Republicans are turning their backs on children,
toddlers, and infants who are trying to escape violence and abuse. The
reality is that there is a humanitarian crisis on our doorstep.
Militarizing these borders and expelling children are not long-term
solutions. If you read in the news about a country taking these
actions, you would assume it was a third-world dictatorship--not the
U.S. Instead, we should be rising to the occasion--not cowering from
it.
[[Page H7235]]
Republicans say that they are just closing a loophole. But, they are
really slamming the door shut. Subjecting 5 year-olds to sham legal
hearings without counsel is un-American. What's next for the
Republicans, sending these kids to Guantanamo Bay?
The reality is that this is a cowardly approach. Time and time again
Republicans say ``Deport them!'' But we know that this does not work--
and we do know this is not right.
We like to call ourselves ``the land of brave.'' But the real ``brave
ones'' are those children who travel thousands of miles to reach a
better place. We must reject this unjust and dehumanizing Republican
bill.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject
this mean-spirited bill that will slam the door in the faces of young
DREAM Act students who know America as their only home, their only
country.
Rarely have I seen fear and hatred turned into an actual piece of
legislation and debated on the floor of the People's House.
This GOP bill proposes to deport DREAM Act students like Jose
Godinez-Samperio from Tampa, Florida, who was only 9 when his parents
brought him to the United States.
He has done everything right. Jose graduated as Valedictorian from
Armwood High School in Hillsborough County.
Jose graduated from the State of Florida's Honors College, New
College, and then graduated from law school with honors from Florida
State University College of Law.
He passed the bar exam, and this year the Republican-dominated
Florida Legislature said Jose should receive his license to practice
law. They passed a law to do so. In fact, Republicans and Democrats
gave him a standing ovation.
There are hundreds of thousands of students like Jose across America
tonight who have been living in limbo, waiting for Congress to pass
comprehensive immigration reform. They were given a lifeline by the
President through the DREAM Act and America has invested in them.
Now, the Republican Congress is moving us farther away from
immigration reform, farther away from justice, farther away from smart
policy to utilize the talents of young men and women who love America,
and farther away from the values America holds dear.
Vote ``no'' on this malicious piece of legislation.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't just an assault on
Dreamers who grew up in our communities and except on paper, are
Americans in every way.
It's not just an attack on their parents who raised them and taught
them their values and love of this great country.
What it is, is an affront to everyone who believes in the American
Dream and our American values. It is an affront to those who uphold and
subscribe to the basic notion that America is a fair, compassionate,
and welcoming nation.
It is unconscionable that this bill will condemn Dreamers and their
parents to second-class status.
It is unconscionable that this bill will cruelly foreclose any
possibility that Dreamers and their parents could adjust their status,
regardless of how hard they work or how much they contribute to their
communities and our country.
If deported, their loss will be America's loss as we will lose the
benefits of their talents and their ability to strengthen our economy
and enrich our nation.
If we end DACA, our country could lose young people like Paola, a
medical student from Los Angeles, to cure the sick. We would lose
Andree, a brilliant young woman who is also from LA, who is studying at
Harvard and dreams of one day curing cancer.
President Clinton once observed that ``we cannot build our own future
without helping others to build theirs.''
That sentiment--the basic awareness that we're all in this together--
is at the center of the American Dream, a Dream which is threatened by
the bill before us.
Let's stand up for Dreamers, for their families and for our nation's
future by defeating this mean-spirited and destructive legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
this 15-minute vote on the passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on agreeing to the motion to concur in the Senate
amendments to House Joint Resolution 76.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 192, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 479]
AYES--216
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Dent
DeSantis
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
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)
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
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
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
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--192
Amodei
Barber
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
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (NV)
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
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
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)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
[[Page H7236]]
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Lipinski
NOT VOTING--23
Blumenauer
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Davis (CA)
DesJarlais
Fattah
Garamendi
Gibbs
Grayson
Green, Gene
Hanabusa
Kennedy
McDermott
Miller, Gary
Nunes
Nunnelee
Ruiz
Rush
Saanchez, Linda T.
Schock
Speier
Whitfield
{time} 2155
Mr. PETERS of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 479 (On Passage of H.R.
5272), had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________