[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 171 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8367-H8378]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4038, AMERICAN SECURITY AGAINST
FOREIGN ENEMIES ACT OF 2015
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 531 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 531
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4038) to
require that supplemental certifications and background
investigations be completed prior to the admission of certain
aliens as refugees, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on House Resolution 531 currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my statements
talking about the technicalities of the rule, who is managing the
general debate time, and a recap of the testimony and amendments we
received in the Committee on Rules hearing. These are important items
to discuss before this body. But today is different. The debates that
we will have on this rule and the underlying legislation will be and
should be different.
I will be honest. This bill has nothing to do today with job
creation. It has nothing to do with reducing regulatory burden or
empowering educators to focus on the needs of students rather than the
wish list of unions. Those are important issues that we will address in
coming weeks. But today is different.
{time} 0945
Today, we face the growing evil in the world and resolve to fight
against it, no matter the price. The power of ISIS to kill and destroy
has stunned the world and called us to question who we are as
individuals, as people of faith, and as a Nation.
It doesn't matter how many press conferences this administration
holds, they will not distract from their abdication of responsibility
to the security of the United States and the security of its citizens.
The pro-rape, pro-torture, pro-mutilation strategy of Islamic State
does not shrink in the face of meaningless words by our Commander in
Chief. We are here today because this administration has failed. In the
face of unspeakable violence and terror, the White House blinked. And
our world is paying the price.
My colleagues across the aisle no doubt plan to deliver moral
lectures, as this administration is so fond of, dismissing those who
suggest that the Islamic State will use any means possible to bring
America to her knees. Before they do, let me remind them the price this
country has paid for freedom.
Soil around the world is soaked with the blood of our sons and our
daughters who gave it all so that we may be free--as Lincoln said,
``that last full measure of devotion''--and so those who seek refuge
can find safety and security in our country.
Despite what the administration wants you to believe, refugees don't
seek safe haven because of our welfare benefits. It is because we don't
negotiate with terrorists. It is because we recognize our first and
greatest responsibility is the life and liberty of those who call
America home.
We are a Nation of immigrants. We are a Nation of laws. And we are a
Nation with a fundamental responsibility to preserve the rights of our
citizens. And those rights include life.
The United States has one of the most generous legal immigration
programs in the world, welcoming the hurting and abandoned, the
persecuted and destitute. And we will continue to. But we will not
welcome terrorists. We will not sacrifice moral courage on the altar of
quotas.
This country and the world will be judged by future generations on
our response as a Nation and as individuals to the Islamic State and
those they have raped, tortured, driven from their homes, and murdered.
And I believe we will also be judged on our commitment to the safety of
the millions of men, women, and children already living within our
borders.
The underlying legislation, H.R. 4038, isn't about who we welcome
into our country. It is about keeping out those who pose a threat to
our national security.
Last night, the Rules Committee received testimony from the Judiciary
and Homeland Security Committee chairmen and minority representatives,
as well as receiving amendment testimony from a number of Members on
both sides of the aisle, for over 4 hours.
Now, more than ever, those who seek shelter in the United States
deserve the assurance that our government is doing everything within
its power to protect them from the very evil they fled.
But where is the administration? Perhaps if the Commander in Chief
would stop holding press conferences to lecture Republicans and start
leading the world in the fight against terrorists, we wouldn't have
thousands upon thousands tortured, displaced, and killed.
The White House said ISIS was contained less than 24 hours before 100
people became the latest victims of terrorism on the streets of Paris.
And, oh, by the way, before releasing five from Guantanamo that
morning. It seems the President was too busy practicing his Turkish for
the G-20 Summit remarks to notice the world is crumbling and the
Islamic State is growing stronger.
In fact, when the President spoke at the G-20 Summit press
conference, here is what he mentioned before addressing the terrorist
attacks in Paris: the beauty of Turkey; the hospitality of the Turkish
people; his practice of the Turkish language; the need to grow the
global economy; the need to create jobs; rising inequality in the
world; cyber theft; and oh, yes, global climate talks.
There is no question that we have a political commentator when what
our Nation and the world needs is a Commander in Chief.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. First, Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the gentleman of
Georgia for not wanting to talk about the rule because, today, we are
about to debate the 46th closed rule of this Congress, making this the
most closed session of Congress in history. Speaker Ryan promised an
open and deliberative process when he took the gavel. He has already
reneged on that promise.
Representatives Bennie Thompson and Zoe Lofgren offered an
alternative to today's bill that deserves debate on the House floor,
but the Republicans on this Rules Committee prohibited debate under
this completely closed process.
The bill that we are about to debate wasn't even introduced until
10:14 p.m. Tuesday night. There have been no hearings--none at all--no
markups, and no opportunities for bipartisan input. And, quite frankly,
there was not a lot of opportunity for rank-and-file Republicans to
have any input on this. Even more stunning, the Judiciary Committee is
holding a hearing today--right now--on the very subject we are going to
vote on in an hour.
[[Page H8368]]
Mr. Speaker, we all understand why people are anxious and concerned.
We all watched with horror as the brutal attacks in Paris played out on
our TV screens. And our thoughts and our prayers continue to be with
the people of Paris, whose courage inspires all of us.
Keeping Americans safe is our top priority. And in the wake of the
Paris attacks, that mission has never been more important. But in the
days since those terrible attacks, there has been a deeply troubling
debate about whether the United States should accept Syrian refugees.
In the past week, we have heard far too many of our leaders stirring up
fear and far too few talking about the facts.
Mr. Speaker, Americans want an honest and serious debate about how we
keep our country safe, but this bill, the so-called American Security
Against Foreign Enemies Act, or the American SAFE Act, falls far short.
Instead of debating a bill that might actually strengthen and enhance
our refugee resettlement screening process, we are debating a bill that
appeals to the worst in us and hurts the very people who are fleeing
the violence and chaos ISIS has wrought.
The authors of this bill boast that ``this legislation would put in
place the most robust national security vetting process in history for
any refugee population.'' But the simple truth is that the United
States already has in place the most rigorous screening process for
refugee resettlement in the world.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, America's refugee screening process already
involves seven different Federal departments and agencies, including
the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the National
Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, the
Department of Defense, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Beyond that, every refugee from Syria is also subjected to an
additional layer of security and scrutiny. This process is so detailed
that it takes, on average, about 2 years for each refugee to be fully
screened and allowed to enter the United States, under the sponsorship
of a local service agency, and be settled here. Two years.
Now, I would think that every Member of this House would feel
reassured knowing that such a process is already in place to protect
our citizens and our communities. We have already resettled over 1,800
Syrian refugees over the past 4 years in 130 communities across
America. In the past year, Massachusetts has resettled 62 Syrian
refugees, including 24 in my hometown of Worcester. Of the 2,174 Syrian
refugees that we have resettled in the United States since 9/11, not a
single one has been arrested or deported on terrorism-related grounds.
Not one.
I recognize that there are ways that we can strengthen that process
further. The Congress could consult and work with the administration,
including Homeland Security, the State Department, the national
intelligence agencies, and the FBI, to identify and discuss areas where
enhancements can be made. But that is not what the authors of this bill
did. And it is clear that it wasn't their intention either.
What H.R. 4038 would actually ``achieve'' is the creation of a so-
called process that would shut down all refugee resettlement from Syria
and Iraq. It is not meant to make things better. It is meant to make it
completely unworkable.
Nothing in this bill actually improves the FBI's or any other
intelligence agency's ability to conduct a more effective screening
process. If you want to do that, give them more money for more
personnel and consult with them directly about how to strengthen the
existing screening process. This bill hasn't done that.
Right now, of the more than 1,800 Syrian refugees resettled in the
United States since 2012, half are children, a quarter are adults over
the age of 60, and none have been involved in anything remotely tied to
terrorism or violent activity.
Mr. Speaker, America is at a critical crossroads. It is moments like
this that define who we are as a Nation. This bill, along with the
deeply troubling rhetoric that surrounds it, would only perpetuate the
politics of fear and intolerance. Americans are better than that. And
now, more than ever, we must stay true to our values.
Our enemies want to divide us. We must remain strong and united in
the face of this evil. We must not abandon the clear-eyed compassion
that has made America the shining city on the hill for more than two
centuries, giving hope to so many generations before us in search of a
better life for themselves and for their children.
In July, I traveled to Gaziantep, Turkey, near the Syrian border,
with a congressional delegation led by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia.
While there, we heard directly from government leaders, local NGOs, and
charities on the front lines helping the countless Syrian refugees who
have lost their homes and many of their friends and family. They are
desperate to escape the violence and are part of the world's worst
refugee crisis since World War II. We cannot shrink from this moment
when strong American leadership is needed.
One of the most important reminders of the legacy we must live up to
is the Statue of Liberty. For more than 100 years, it has stood as a
promise for better life for the ``huddled masses yearning to breathe
free.'' We cannot turn our backs on the values at the heart of our
identity as Americans. To do this would cede a victory to the
terrorists. Yet the fear, anger, prejudice, and isolationism that are
driving the current debate on Syrian refugees remind me of some of the
darkest and ugliest chapters of modern American history.
Many Americans--some in this Chamber--still remember the moment in
our Nation's history when we turned away ships filled with Jewish
refugees desperate to escape Nazi Germany and imprisoned our fellow
citizens of Japanese heritage in internment camps. Do we really want to
return to these kinds of destructive and hateful policies? Is that
really who we are today?
I am so proud of America's leadership in providing $4.5 billion in
aid to Syrian refugees in the region--more than any other country. I am
also proud that the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement places a
priority on accepting widows with children and highly vulnerable
individuals, especially the elderly and the infirm.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4038 would shut down our resettlement program
altogether. That is what it wants to do, and that is what it intends to
do.
The refugees eligible for resettlement in the United States are not
the refugees in Europe. The refugees coming into the United States
through our resettlement program have been living in refugee camps for
months--often years--under unimaginably harsh conditions.
A woman and her 3-year-old little girl whose home in Syria was
reduced to rubble by barrel bombs and whose husband has been killed
will be denied the opportunity to go through the rigorous screening
process to find a new home in America.
An elderly woman who has lost everything and is barely alive now in a
refugee camp will be denied a home in America, even if she has some
distant relatives already in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, where is our humanity? None of the Syrian refugees who
have already made it through our screening process and have been
resettled in the United States fit the description of the terrorists I
have heard described over and over again last night in the Rules
Committee. Those ugly distortions of the people we are resettling only
emphasize how out of touch with reality this debate has gotten.
Mr. Speaker, if we really want to help make America more safe and
more secure in the wake of the Paris attacks, then we should put more
money in the omnibus appropriations bill for the FBI, DHS, and for our
local law enforcement agencies so that they can continue focusing on
criminal and homegrown as well as possible foreign individuals and
networks that might engage in violence against our citizens.
And, while we are at it, we should also increase the funding for the
State Department, HHS, the UNHCR, and the NGOs that provide
humanitarian aid abroad and resettlement support to refugee families
here in America. But let us stop wasting our time with a bill that is
going nowhere and fails to offer the serious approach we need to keep
America safe and address this crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H8369]]
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I was sort of amazed--it took almost probably 7 or 8 minutes--but we
came to the real heart of the problem: just throw money at it. If you
don't fix a problem, just throw money at it. When you are showing no
leadership, I guess I would throw a diversionary tactic out there and
do that as well.
What I am having trouble understanding is also what has been said by
many speakers this morning, Mr. Speaker, and that is that true refugees
are not the problem. They can still apply. Nothing in this bill keeps
that rigorous process from them applying and going through that
process. We are simply adding a certification step.
Now, undoubtedly, that is a little cumbersome for our Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security because he has this problem: he
says it is cumbersome for him to certify each Syrian refugee
personally.
There are issues here. Is it just hugely cumbersome and not the most
effective use of the Secretary's time? I am sorry; you are the
Secretary of Homeland Security in this country. Your job is to keep us
protected. However that may play out, get the resources and do what you
are supposed to be doing.
It is not like the example of keeping a young mother with kids from
going through the process. There is nothing in this bill that does
that. That is a distraction.
{time} 1000
I will talk about the rule. The rule is straightforward. Vote for the
rule in just a few minutes. Vote with the side of those protecting
America. Make sure that we are protected. That is a simple choice this
morning.
That is what this rule does. It gets us to a bill that allows us to
put an extra level of security and an extra level of certification so
this administration cannot just continue to do what they are doing.
I was stunned just a few moments ago when I heard from my friend that
this appeals to the worst in the U.S.
This appeals to the worst in the U.S.? Protecting America and trying
to find ways to do that appeals to the worst of us?
That, to me, is derogatory to every man and woman who serves in our
military, who goes and fights for freedom not only here but abroad. You
are telling me to add a level of protection to those who live within
our borders is appealing to the base of who we are?
That is not true. Deflect how you want to. Talk about this bill. Vote
``no'' if you want to. Go on the side of saying, you know, we have got
it pretty good right now. Those that have come haven't done anything.
I would rather see a proactive approach. I would rather see something
that is very reflective of the world's times. When we do that, then we
are fulfilling our role. That is the best of America, not the worst.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. This bill,
H.R. 4038, was rushed to the floor with no hearings, no opportunities
for amendments, none of the things that Speaker Ryan promised us about
an open process, a bottom-up process.
Now, I agree that preventing dangerous actors from entering the
United States is paramount, and I also agree that we must be strong in
our resolve to confront and defeat terrorism wherever it comes from.
But I submitted an amendment to this bill which would have excluded
women and children from the extra and potentially onerous process this
bill would enact for refugee vetting.
Refugees from this region already undergo a far more rigorous
screening process than anybody else seeking admission to this country.
The process takes, on average, between 18 and 24 months--and longer, in
many cases--before a refugee sets foot on U.S. soil. Surely this
process is sufficient for women and children, widows and orphans of
terrorism who are particularly vulnerable during conflicts while
fleeing, who come from refugee camps.
It means that this bill is particularly punitive for them if it means
they have additional wait time. Imposing that kind of additional wait
time while going through unnecessary bureaucratic steps to vet those
low-risk individuals makes no sense.
Speaker Ryan, I oppose this rule because you are not living up to
your promise. We ought to have debate. We ought to have hearings, and
you ought to allow amendments like this one that would make an
exception for widows and orphans.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would just say, if the gentleman agrees that we need to enforce and
have strong protections to make sure that we are not attacked, then my
recommendation would be vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on
the bill. It is a pretty simple choice here. Or you can go back and
explain to most of the people in your district who agree that we need
to protect our country--it is something across our country, from coast
to coast, that says this is something that is worth doing, and I think
we need to look at that.
I do want to hit this hard in just a moment. There are times--and
especially when you come to a decision like this--when we understand
how we got here and that it was put together by six chairmen who, over
the weekend and this past week after the tragic result of last Friday
night in Paris, have put together this first step in legislation to
deal with this, and there will be other steps coming. But to
characterize this as something that basically has not been considered--
there are committees, the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, the
Homeland Security Committee, and others, who have been looking at this
issue for a long time.
This is something that has come together, and it gives us an
immediate first step, and it makes a very clear choice.
Do you want to add a layer of protection to protect the American
people or not? If you don't want to, vote ``no.'' If you don't want to
do that, vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill.
Talk about the process. Whine about whatever you want. But this is a
clear choice. The bill is protection or not.
The other issue that we need to really just assess here is, when we
look at what we are doing, the question is about leadership, and the
question is about how are we going to protect those. It doesn't shut it
down.
Also, it was just mentioned just a little bit ago that there was a
hearing right now. The implication was that the hearing had something
to do with this bill. Let's just be very clear. The hearing is about
the Syrian refugee issue as a whole, not this bill. We are not taking
away from that. This is an issue and a hearing that had been planned.
It is happening. Those are other discussions that will be coming
forward.
So let's at least make sure that we are giving the right implications
on what is going on on the Hill right now.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
clarifying that point, which now means that there are zero hearings on
this bill and no markup. It doesn't make me feel very good about this
process.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have lived in Paterson, New Jersey, all
my life, which has a large Syrian American population. In fact, when I
came back from the service, I joined the American Legion. It was the
John Raad Post, which was a Syrian American military organization.
These are hardworking people here.
The advantage of what we are doing, and over the past 4 years since
the beginning of the Syrian war, the civil war, is that we are
connecting refugees with Syrian American families.
There are no harder working people in this country than Syrian
Americans. Know the history of it. They didn't come here last week.
So here is the chart. This is what you need to go through to get a
refugee into the United States of America. I hope you looked at the
chart. I hope you have examined every step, the 14 steps. Let's not get
into one side wants to secure America more than the other side.
I served in the Armed Forces. I was on the beginning of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security. I don't
[[Page H8370]]
like anybody telling me: You guys tried to do that in 2005, and you
lost in 2006. Stay away from it.
No one party is privy to protecting this country. We all want that.
But we are not going to sacrifice what we, as Americans, are. We are
not going to do this.
When women and children who have nothing on their back--nothing--and
2 or 3 years, they could finally come to the gate of the greatest
country in the world--yeah, you may smile over there, but I am very
serious about what I am saying. This is a very serious moment in our
history.
I want to protect America. I want to be strong. I don't agree with
all the President's Syrian policies, but I think that we are doing harm
to ourselves and sending the wrong message.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia). The time of
the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to address his
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the Speaker of the House,
and here is why I want to salute him. He defused the religious
connotations when this was first brought up. He did that yesterday, and
I salute him.
Imagine, to have one line for Christian Syrians and another line for
Muslim Syrians. What are we reduced to here? What message does that
send to the rest of the world? You tell me. It is shameful.
So I thank him for that.
I don't impugn anybody on the other side. I don't question their
motives. I don't think that this is a good idea.
The commitment we have to public safety can be upheld even as we
provide refuge to some of the world's most vulnerable people. When you
sleep tonight, think about the world's most vulnerable people, and we
can still keep America safe.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman's words. I agree with him. No party claims
a right of both as one protects, one doesn't. But I will say this: Both
of us have the same commitment to raising our hand and saying we do
protect. Both parties have that in common.
And as someone who has served, myself, and been in a war zone in Iraq
and understands what this is about, I appreciate the gentleman's
feelings. My problem is this: Go to your district. As was said just a
few moments ago, they felt better about no hearings. My question is, go
to your district and ask your district this question, Mr. Speaker:
Would you rather have a hearing, or would you rather do something to
protect them?
Would you rather have hearings or go and do something to protect, and
then come back, as we have done hearings, and work moving forward?
This is a process that should be together. I am really, frankly,
amazed that we are not together on this because, at this point, it does
nothing--I repeat, does nothing--to shut the process down. It simply
adds a layer of protection.
It doesn't shut it down. It doesn't defame our humanitarian effort
around world in which we lead the way in both money and resources, and
it still allows that mother with those kids to apply and go through the
process.
We are simply saying, let's pause a moment and make sure that it is
not just the mother with the kids, that there is not somebody else
abusing the system, there is not somebody else hiding through the
system that wants to come into this country and do us harm.
Let's frame this in very simple terms. It is a very simple bill. It
is only four pages. When we understand that, we can continue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am stunned to just listen to the gentleman from Georgia basically
tell us that you can have either a bill or you can have regular order,
but you can't have both.
This is the greatest deliberative body on the planet. We are supposed
to discuss issues. We are supposed to debate issues. Committees are
supposed to do their work and report that, then, to the Rules Committee
to come to the floor. But to suggest that you have a choice here, you
can't have both, is ridiculous.
The Speaker of the House promised regular order. He has reneged on
that promise. It is outrageous, especially on a bill like this, that we
cannot have amendments; that even the committees of jurisdiction can't
even do their job. It is an outrage. It is shameful. How can you defend
that kind of process?
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the gentleman
from Massachusetts because I think it is important for my colleagues to
understand that, when you talk about process, you talk about responding
in the right way to crisis.
Let me be very clear. The inquiry that my friends on the other side
of the aisle are making is correct, to find out how we can ensure the
safety and security of the American people.
I sit on the Homeland Security Committee and, like my friend from New
Jersey, from the very beginning, the tragedy of 9/11.
I am the ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security,
and Investigations Subcommittee. There is no way that I would stand
here and jeopardize the security of the American people.
Let me also say, I represent the Catholic diocese, Catholic
Charities, Lutheran Services, Interfaith Ministries in my district, and
I would ask my colleague on the other side of the aisle to query them
about whether or not they support this legislation.
There are people who understand the burdensomeness and the wrongness
of the direction in which we are going.
Is it appropriate to inquire and have a report to Congress to ensure
that there are strictures in dealing with those coming to this country
from Syria or anywhere else? Yes, it is. But is it ridiculous to ensure
or to insist that this 5-year-old little girl must be individually
certified by the FBI, the DNI, Counterterrorism, and the CIA, and a
long litany of others? That is what we are saying.
First of all, there were 23,000 who were recommended by the United
Nations, Syrians, to come into the United States. The Department of
Homeland Security selected only 7,000 to interview. In that 7,000, only
2,000 have gone through the process through an 18- to 20-month period.
We are saying to the American people, if you want to get rid of ISIS,
take the fight to ISIS. That is what we are doing with our allies, to
destroy and eliminate ISIS. But to be able to say to our allies around
the world that we are putting a stop sign on our refugees from Syria
that look like mothers and fathers and old people is absolutely absurd.
The inquiry is correct; the process is wrong. Let us not distort this
to the American people and tell them an untruth, that one side of the
aisle is against the security and the other side is not.
Take the fight to the caliphate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman 15 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is an improper approach. You cannot certify a
5-year-old girl from Syria. She will never get in.
The process is extensive, it is definite, it is secure, and we are
securing the American people. Let's work together, as my friend on the
other side of the aisle has said, and do it right.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Also, I just want to say that it shouldn't have been shocking. There
was nothing in part of what I said, that you have to have regular order
or a bill. I am simply saying, here is the process it went through that
we have had here.
That is a false dichotomy, Mr. Speaker. It is not true. I never said
you couldn't have regular order and have a bill. You have both. In this
case, you have a bill.
{time} 1015
The bill says in very plain and simple terms--4 pages--here is what
it does, and that is where we go at it. To continue to say that it does
other stuff that it doesn't do is simply wrong. We are just simply
saying: We are giving another layer of protection. Take that layer of
protection. Let's continue to have our hearings, let's continue to
[[Page H8371]]
have our debate, and we will be bringing others because we are already
taking the fight--and that is another issue that we need to have. It is
time to call the radical Islamic terrorists what they are, thugs in
this world, rapists, torturers, and murderers. They have no regard for
religion and no regard for themselves. They are simply plain thugs.
If we want to talk about what we are fighting, then let's put it in
those terms. Let's put it in those terms. I prefer that we have an
extra measure of protection keeping those folks out while we take the
fight to them because I believe, as the Air Force that I serve and the
military we have, the fight is coming to them, and the thugs will not
win. We are just going to put an extra measure of protection here to
make sure they don't come in here while maintaining the integrity of
our program.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, those of us on our side have no problem with taking the
fight to the thugs. What we have a problem with is taking the fight to
orphans, widows, young children, and senior citizens who are fleeing
war and terror. To turn our backs on those individuals, to basically
shut this process down--and that is what this would do. By the way, the
authors of the bill admitted that last night in the Rules Committee.
This is not going to stop the refugee resettlement process in its
place. But to do that goes against the very best traditions and values
of this country.
We are better than that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding and for his leadership on these critical
issues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule, H. Res. 531,
and also to the bill, H.R. 4038, the American Security Against Foreign
Enemies Act of 2015. Foreign enemies--refugees.
We all watched with horror as unconscionable violence unfolded in
Paris over the weekend, but also in Egypt, in Lebanon, and in Nigeria.
So let me just first say that my thoughts and prayers go out to all of
those who have been affected by all of these tragedies.
But it would be a grave mistake to use these attacks as a pretense to
close our doors to the families that are fleeing ISIL in their own
countries. The overwhelming majority, of course, are women and
children. Just as the unfortunate attacks of 911 required us to step up
and lead, we are at that moment again where Members of Congress need to
lead.
This counterproductive bill would immediately shut down the
resettlement of refugees from countries such as Syria and Iraq while
significantly slowing down--yes, shutting down--our resettlement
process in the future.
But, of course, as Members of Congress, our first goal is keeping our
country safe. We all are committed to that, and we do that each and
every day. But preventing these people suffering the violence of war--
the violence of war--sends the wrong signal first to our allies; to our
own country. And really, this is not consistent with our national
security goals. Simply put, closing our doors to these refugees would
really be a betrayal of our Nation's most fundamental values.
Mr. Speaker, the United States already has the lengthiest and most
robust screening procedures in the world. Any refugees seeking to come
to the United States go through a screening process that takes 18 to 24
months before they can even set foot on United States soil.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an
additional 1 minute.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, our screening process has already involved
multiple Federal intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies,
including the Department of Homeland Security, the National
Counterterrorism Center, and the FBI. These agencies subject those
seeking refuge in the United States to safeguards, such as biometric
and biographic checks. Syrian refugees are already subject to
additional forms of security screening.
Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting--it has been said before, and I will
say it again--that of the 2,174 Syrian refugees admitted to the United
States since September 11, 2001, not a single one has been arrested or
deported on terrorism-related grounds. I am proud that Oakland--in my
congressional district--has resettled more Syrian refugees than any
other East Bay area city in California. Rather than working to shut out
those seeking refugee in our country, we should instead be working
toward ensuring a regionally led, comprehensive, economic, political,
and diplomatic solution to the conflicts that have led to the worst
refugee crisis since World War II.
Mr. Speaker, this would stop the flow of refugees and give them a
chance to live in their own country free of war and violence. I urge my
colleagues to reject this rule and this unnecessary bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I find it a great privilege to
stand here and really not believe that a bill that protects the
interests of Americans I find never is unnecessary. In fact, I find it
needed at this point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Palazzo).
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia
for engaging in this debate. I know it sometimes seems to be a lonely
job, especially when you are right, you are correct, and you are
putting the best interests of the American people ahead of partisan
politics. So I applaud you, and I applaud all my colleagues who are
going to support this underlying rule and move on to support the final
bill.
I heard a comment while I was following the debate, and someone said
that Speaker Ryan has reneged on his promises.
Mr. Speaker, if anybody has reneged on their promises, I believe it
is the President of the United States of America. As Commander in
Chief, he has the ultimate responsibility to lead our troops. But also
his number one constitutional responsibility is the common defense of
this Nation against all enemies, both domestic and foreign. But he has
made America weaker. He has made our military weaker. The international
community, our friends, no longer trust us, and our enemies no longer
fear us. So if anybody has reneged on their responsibilities, it is the
President of the United States.
Just now, Mr. Speaker, we started to basically really try to cut off
the flow of money to ISIS and to the Islamic radicals. For over 2
years, we have been telling them to go after the oil revenues. That is
where they are making their money. They are making it because they are
smuggling oil out of the country and selling it on the black market,
and they are making billions of dollars a year. Just now, we decide,
well, we are going to go after the oil tankers that carry the oil so
they can make the money, so they can buy weapons, and then they can
basically export terrorism all around the world.
Twenty-five years ago, I remember pretty much this month I was
activated for the Persian Gulf War. One thing I do remember is we
bombed the hell out of our enemies before we sent our men and women in
uniform with boots on the ground in there. And pretty much, as we all
know, within a week, the Iraq war was over with.
So, Mr. Speaker, it baffles the mind why we are waiting for the last
moment to actually cut off the revenues that are funding this global
jihad and this radical Islam. But, like my colleague from Georgia and
those who are going to support this rule and support the bill, we
understand our constitutional responsibilities.
Our number one responsibility is the common defense of this Nation at
home and abroad. That means taking care of people in our congressional
districts, taking care of people in our State, and taking care of the
American people. So you are either with us or against us on this.
I just want to urge my colleagues to support the underlying rule,
support the bill, and let's start taking care of Americans, and the
rest will take care of itself.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question.
[[Page H8372]]
If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would simply allow
us to debate and vote on a reasonable alternative in addition to the
Republican bill that we are considering today. This record-breaking
closed rule shuts down both Republicans and Democrats, makes it
impossible for them to be able to participate in the legislative
process, and prevents us from considering reasonable, commonsense
alternatives. If we are truly interested in actually enhancing the
security of the United States and protecting the American people, maybe
we ought to come together and behave like adults and work together to
come up with a solution that actually works.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that was
signed by 81 NGOs that work in the field of humanitarian relief and
refugee resettlement in support of the refugee resettlement program and
the Syrian refugee resettlement program.
November 17, 2015.
Dear Senator/Representative: As refugee and immigration law
experts, humanitarian aid organizations, faith, labor and
civil and human rights groups, we write to express our
support for the U.S. refugee resettlement program. The world
is witnessing the largest refugee crisis since World War II.
More than 4 million Syrians have fled from their home country
fleeing conflict and violence, and 6.5 million are displaced
internally.
At a time when the world needs humanitarian leadership,
some are now calling for the suspension of the U.S. refugee
resettlement program or the imposition of restrictions on
funding for Syrians and other groups of refugees. We oppose
these proposals and believe they would jeopardize the United
States' moral leadership in the world.
Syrian refugees are fleeing exactly the kind of terror that
unfolded on the streets of Paris. They have suffered violence
just like this for almost five years. Most have lost loved
ones to persecution and violence, in addition to having had
their country, their community, and everything they own
brutally taken from them.
Refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group of people who
come to the United States. Security screenings are rigorous
and involve the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the
Department of Defense and multiple intelligence agencies.
Department of Homeland Security officials interview each
refugee to determine whether they meet the refugee definition
and whether they are admissible to the United States.
Refugees undergo a series of biometric and investigatory
background checks, including collection and analysis of
personal data, fingerprints, photographs, and other
background information, all of which is checked against
government databases. The entire process typically takes more
than two years and often much more before the refugee would
arrive in the U.S. In addition the Administration is already
taking steps, with its existing authority, to increase the
capacity of its security and screening procedures for
refugees. There is no need for Congress to impose additional
restrictions or security measures.
The United States decides which refugees to resettle.
Because so few refugees in the world are resettled, the U.S.
often chooses the most vulnerable, including refugees who
cannot remain safely where they are and families with
children who cannot receive the medical care they need to
survive.
To turn our back on refugees would be to betray our
nation's core values. It would send a demoralizing and
dangerous message to the world that the United States makes
judgments about people based on the country they come from
and their religion. This feeds into extremist propaganda and
makes us all less safe. We call upon Congress to demonstrate
leadership by speaking out against the scapegoating of any
group during this time of crisis and to ensure that our
nation's humanitarian efforts are robust.
The United States is a welcoming country with a diverse
society and our resettlement program must continue to reflect
this.
We can welcome refugees while ensuring our own security.
Refugees have enriched communities across our country and
have been part of the American fabric for generations.
Historically our nation has responded to every major war or
conflict and has resettled refugees from Africa, South East
Asia, Eastern Europe as well as the Middle-East. Closing the
door to refugees would be disastrous for not only the
refugees themselves, but their family members in the United
States who are waiting for them to arrive, and our reputation
in the world.
Sincerely,
The Advocates for Human Rights, Alliance for Citizenship,
American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Lawyers
Association, American Jewish Committee (AJC), American
Refugee Committee, America's Voice Education Fund, Anti-
Defamation League, Asian American Legal Defense and Education
Fund (AALDEF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC, Asian
Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, Association of
Jewish Family and Children's Agencies.
CARE USA, Center for Applied Linguistics, Center for Gender
& Refugee Studies, Center for New Community, Center for
Victims of Torture, Centro de los Derechos de Inmigrante,
Inc., Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Refugee &
Immigration Ministries, Church World Service, Columban Center
for Advocacy and Outreach, Concern Worldwide (US) Inc.,
Conference of Major Superiors of Men, Council on American-
Islamic Relations.
The Episcopal Church, Ethiopian Community Development
Council, Inc., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Farmworker Justice, Franciscan Action Network, Friends
Committee on National Legislation, Habonim Dror North
America, HIAS, Human Rights First, InterAction, International
Catholic Migration Commission, International Refugee
Assistance Project, International Rescue Committee.
Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States, National
Advocacy Office, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Jewish Council
for Public Affairs, Jewish Labor Committee, Kids in Need of
Defense (KIND), Leadership Conference of Women Religious,
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Mercy-USA for Aid
and Development, Mi Familia Vota, Muslim Public Affairs
Council, NAFSA: Association of International Educators,
National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA).
National Council of Jewish Women, National Immigrant
Justice Center (NIJC), National Immigration Forum, National
Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, NETWORK, A
National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, OCA--Asian Pacific
American Advocates, OneAmerica, ORAM--Organization for
Refuge, Asylum & Migration, Oxfam America, Peace Action West,
Presbyterian Church USA, Refugees International.
Save the Children, South Asian Americans Leading Together
(SAALT), Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC),
STAND: The Student-Led Movement to End Mass Atrocities,
SustainUS: U.S. Youth for Justice, Syrian American Medical
Society (SAMS), Syria Relief Development, Tahirih Justice
Center, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights.
Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist
Association, United to End Genocide, United Farm Workers,
United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops, UURISE--Unitarian
Universalist Refugee and Immigrant Services and Education,
Inc., Win Without War, Women's Refugee Commission, Workmen's
Circle, World Relief.
Mr. McGOVERN. I also include in the Record a statement by the
Catholic Bishops that say that the U.S. should welcome Syrian refugees
into the United States.
[From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Nov. 17, 2015]
Bishops' Migration Chair: U.S. Should Welcome Syrian Refugees, Work for
Peace
Baltimore.--Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, Chairman of the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Committee on
Migration, issued a statement on Syrian refugees during the
Bishops' annual General Assembly in Baltimore Nov. 17.
Full text of the statement follows:
Statement on Syrian Refugees and the Attacks in Paris
On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops'
Committee on Migration, I offer my deepest condolences to the
families of the victims of the November 13 attacks in Paris,
France and to the French people. I add my voice to all those
condemning these attacks and my support to all who are
working to ensure such attacks do not occur again--both in
France and around the world.
I am disturbed, however, by calls from both federal and
state officials for an end to the resettlement of Syrian
refugees in the United States. These refugees are fleeing
terror themselves--violence like we have witnessed in Paris.
They are extremely vulnerable families, women, and children
who are fleeing for their lives. We cannot and should not
blame them for the actions of a terrorist organization.
Moreover, refugees to this country must pass security
checks and multiple interviews before entering the United
States--more than any arrival to the United States. It can
take up to two years for a refugee to pass through the whole
vetting process. We can look at strengthening the already
stringent screening program, but we should continue to
welcome those in desperate need.
Instead of using this tragedy to scapegoat all refugees, I
call upon our public officials to work together to end the
Syrian conflict peacefully so the close to 4 million Syrian
refugees can return to their country and rebuild their homes.
Until that goal is achieved, we must work with the world
community to provide safe haven to vulnerable and deserving
refugees who are simply attempting to survive. As a great
nation, the United States must show leadership during this
crisis and bring nations together to protect those in danger
and bring an end to the conflicts in the Middle East.
[[Page H8373]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include en bloc in the Record a whole
bunch of other materials.
[From Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Nov. 17, 2015]
Reform Movement Rejects Calls for New Limits on Syrian Refugees
Washington, D.C.--In response to calls for new limits on
Syrian refugees in the wake of the recent attacks in Paris,
Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, Director of the Religious Action
Center of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement:
The recent attacks in Paris have horrified and pained us
deeply, as they have all people of goodwill around the world.
Our hearts ache for all those directly impacted by these acts
of terror. We pray for healing of those who were injured and
comfort for the families of all who were lost.
These attacks echo the kind of terrible violence that the
Syrian people have lived with for the past several years,
buffeted between the brutality of President Assad and the
barbarism of ISIS. As such, now is the time to ensure the
U.S. refugee system remains open to those fleeing Syria and
who wish to contribute to and strengthen our nation. Calls to
impose new limits on Syrian refugees, to impose a religious
test on refugees, or to close our doors altogether ignore the
reality that the lengthy and rigorous vetting of refugee
applications helps ensure our national security while
upholding our historic role as a place of refuge.
We cannot allow the violence wrought by ISIS and its allies
to overshadow our values as Americans and as Reform Jews. As
Jewish tradition teaches, ``and each shall sit under their
vine and fig tree, and none shall make them afraid'' (Micah
4:4). We can ensure our security and fulfill our highest
aspirations as a nation rooted in compassion and commitment
to religious liberty. We call on members of Congress to
oppose any effort to limit the acceptance of Syrian refugees,
just as we urge public officials and figures across the U.S.
to reject divisive and inflammatory statements that do not
reflect our history as a nation founded by descendants of
those who fled persecution in search of freedom.
In these trying times, we cannot lose sight of our values
and what we stand for. To repair the brokenness in our world,
we must stand united with those who reject violence and
divisiveness and instead support those who uphold healing,
safety and security for all.
____
Ranking Members Schiff, Thompson and Lofgren Joint Statement on Syrian
Refugee Bill on House Floor Tomorrow
[For Immediate Release--Wednesday, November 18, 2015]
Washington, DC.--Today, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Ranking
Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Member
of the Committee on Homeland Security, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren
(D-CA), Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, released the
following statement:
``For many Americans, the horrendous loss of life and
scenes of chaos of the Paris terrorist attacks harkened back
to our own experience in the wake of September 11th. Our top
priority is and will always remain the safety of the American
people. And it is in these times that the core values of our
nation are tested. Welcoming refugees who are fleeing
persecution and war is the humane--and American--thing to do.
However, some in Congress intend to use this tragedy to shut
down the U.S. refugee program, turning our backs on victims
fleeing the horrors of ISIS and the Assad regime.
``We must constantly re-evaluate and refine our refugee
screening to find ways to strengthen the existing system and
ensure that we are maintaining the most rigorous vetting
system in the world. Refugees, and refugees from this region
specifically, already undergo a far more rigorous screening
process than anyone else seeking admission to this country,
including background checks, national security vetting,
biometric identifiers, and interviews. The process takes on
average between 18 to 24 months, and longer in many cases,
before a refugee steps foot on U.S. soil. The House
Republican legislation would immediately shut down all
refugee resettlement from Syria and Iraq--possibly for many
years--and severely handicap future refugee resettlement
around the world.
``Our commitment to refugees and the security of the
American people are not mutually exclusive. We believe that
turning our backs on those escaping persecution, many of them
religious minorities and victims of terrorism, runs counter
to the proud and generous heritage of the United States--a
country of immigrants--that has always helped those in need
in the most trying times.''
____
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 4038--American SAFE Act of 2015
(Rep. McCaul, R-TX, and Rep. Hudson, R-NC)
The Administration's highest priority is to ensure the
safety and security of the American people. That is why
refugees of all nationalities, including Syrians and Iraqis,
considered for admission to the United States undergo the
most rigorous and thorough security screening of anyone
admitted into the United States. This legislation would
introduce unnecessary and impractical requirements that would
unacceptably hamper our efforts to assist some of the most
vulnerable people in the world, many of whom are victims of
terrorism, and would undermine our partners in the Middle
East and Europe in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis. The
Administration therefore strongly opposes H.R. 4038.
The current screening process involves multiple Federal
intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies,
including the National Counterterrorism Center, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the Departments of Homeland
Security (DHS), State, and Defense, all aimed at ensuring
that those admitted do not pose a threat to our country.
These safeguards include biometric (fingerprint) and
biographic checks, medical screenings, and a lengthy
interview by specially trained DHS officers who scrutinize
the applicant's explanation of individual circumstances to
assess whether the applicant meets statutory requirements to
qualify as a refugee and that he or she does not present
security concerns to the United States. Mindful of the
particular conditions of the Syria crisis, Syrian refugees--
who have had their lives uprooted by conflict and continue to
live amid conditions so harsh that many set out on dangerous,
often deadly, journeys seeking new places of refuge--go
through additional forms of security screening, including a
thorough pre-interview analysis of each individual's refugee
application. Additionally, DHS interviewers receive
extensive, Syria-specific training before meeting with
refugee applicants. Of the 2,174 Syrian refugees admitted to
the United States since September 11, 2001, not a single one
has been arrested or deported on terrorism-related grounds.
The certification requirement at the core of H.R. 4038 is
untenable and would provide no meaningful additional security
for the American people, instead serving only to create
significant delays and obstacles in the fulfillment of a
vital program that satisfies both humanitarian and national
security objectives. No refugee is approved for travel to the
United States under the current system until the full array
of required security vetting measures have been completed.
Thus, the substantive result sought through this draft
legislation is already embedded into the program. The
Administration recognizes the importance of a strong,
evolving security screening in our refugee admissions program
and devotes considerable resources to continually improving
the Nation's robust security screening protocols. The
measures called for in this bill would divert resources from
these efforts.
Given the lives at stake and the critical importance to our
partners in the Middle East and Europe of American leadership
in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis, if the President
were presented with H.R. 4038, he would veto the bill.
____
[From U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants]
Security Screening of Refugees Admitted to the United States: A
Detailed, Rigorous Process
Resettlement is considered a durable solution for refugees
who cannot return to their countries of origin or integrate
into the current country that is hosting them. Resettlement
to a country like the U.S. presents a life-saving alternative
for a very small number of refugees around the world (less
than one half of one percent). Refugees seeking resettlement
in the United States must pass through a number of steps
aimed at ensuring that they will not pose a security risk to
the United States.
STEP 1
Refugee Status: In most cases the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) determines that the individual qualifies as
a refugee under international law. A refugee is someone who
has fled from his or her home country and cannot return
because he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution
based on religion, race, nationality, political opinion or
membership in a particular social group.
STEP 2
Referral to the United States: A refugee that meets one of
the criteria for resettlement in the United States is
referred to the U.S. government by UNHCR, a U.S. Embassy, or
a trained Non-Governmental Organization.
STEP 3
Resettlement Support Center: A Resettlement Support Center
(RSC), contracted by the U.S. Department of State, compiles
the refugee's personal data and background information for
the security clearance process and to present to the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for an in-person
interview.
STEP 4
Security Clearance Process: With information collected by
the RSC, a number of security checks are conducted. The State
Department runs the names of all refugees referred to the
United States for resettlement through a standard CLASS
(Consular Lookout and Support System) name check. In
addition, enhanced interagency security checks were phased in
beginning in 2008 and applied to all refugee applicants by
2010.
STEP 5
Security Clearance Process: Certain refugees undergo an
additional security review called a Security Advisory Opinion
(SAO).
[[Page H8374]]
These cases require a positive SAO clearance from a number of
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies in order to
continue the resettlement process. When required, this step
runs concurrently with Step 4.
STEP 6
Security Clearance Process: Refugees who meet the minimum
age requirement have their fingerprints and photograph taken
by a trained U.S. government employee, usually on the same
day as their DHS interview. The fingerprints are then checked
against various U.S. government databases and information on
any matches is reviewed by DHS.
STEP 7
In-person Interview: All refugee applicants are interviewed
by an officer from DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS). A trained officer will travel to the
country of asylum* to conduct a detailed, face-to-face
interview with each refugee applicant being considered for
resettlement. Based on the information in the refugee's case
file and on the interview, the DHS officer will determine if
the individual qualifies as a refugee and is admissible under
U.S. law.
STEP 8
DHS Approval: If the USCIS officer finds that the
individual qualifies as a refugee and meets other U.S.
admission criteria, the officer will conditionally approve
the refugee's application for resettlement and submit it to
the U.S. Department of State for final processing.
Conditional approvals become final once the results of all
security checks (Steps 4, 5, and 6) have been received and
cleared.
STEP 9
Medical Screening: All refugee applicants approved for
resettlement in the U.S. are required to undergo medical
screening conducted by the International Organization for
Migration or a physician designated by the U.S. Embassy.
STEP 10
Matching Refugees with a Sponsor Agency: Every refugee is
assigned to a Voluntary Agency in the U.S., such as the U.S.
Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI). USCRI will
place refugees with a local partner agency or office that
will assist refugees upon their arrival in the U.S.
STEP 11
Cultural Orientation: In addition, refugees approved for
resettlement are offered cultural orientation while waiting
for final processing, to prepare them for their journey to
and initial resettlement in the United States.
STEP 12
Security Clearance Process: Prior to departure to the U.S.,
a second interagency check is conducted for most refugees to
check for any new information. Refugees must clear this check
in order to depart to the U.S.
STEP 13
Admission to the United States: Upon arrival at one of five
U.S. airports designated as ports of entry for refugee
admissions, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer
will review the refugee documentation and conduct additional
security checks to ensure that the arriving refugee is the
same person who was screened and approved for admission to
the United States.
*Note that under limited circumstances, refugee applicants
may be interviewed in their home country rather than in a
country of asylum.
____
[From Human Rights First, Nov. 2015]
Refugee Resettlement--Security Screening Information
Refugees to the United States are more stringently screened
and vetted than any other group allowed to enter the country.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees first registers
refugees, interviews them, takes biometric data and
background information. These refugees overwhelmingly women
and children have been Ewing in Jordan, Turkey or other
frontline refugee-hosting countries for years, struggling to
survive. UNHCR has data from its regular interactions with
these refugees over the years. Resettlement helps support the
stability of nations that are key U.S. allies, as they are
straining under the pressure of hosting so many refugees.
Only those who pass the U.N. assessment are referred to the
United States for resettlement. At least 18,000 have already
been through the U.S. process and are awaiting U.S.
government consideration and review.
The U.S. government then conducts its own extremely
rigorous screening process, including health checks, repeated
biometric checks, several layers of biographical and
background screening, and in-person interviews by specially-
trained officers. Multiple agencies are involved, including
the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department,
the Department of Homeland Security, the National
Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Defense and U.S.
intelligence agencies. DNS has added an additional country-
specific layer of review for Syrian refugee applications,
which includes extra screening for national security risks.
Secretary Jeh Johnson outlined this process in
Congressional testimony in October 2015: ``With regard to the
current refugee crisis, the U.S. is committed to providing
refuge to some of the world's most vulnerable people, while
carefully screening refugees for security concerns before
admitting them to the United States. The reality is that,
with improvements to the process we have made over time,
refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks.
DHS works in concert with the Department of State, the
Department of Defense, the National Counterterrorism Center,
and the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center for the screening
and vetting of refugees. The U.S. Government conducts both
biographic and biometric checks on refugee applications,
including security vetting that takes place at multiple
junctures in the application process, and even just before
arrival to account for changes in intelligence. All refugees
admitted to the United States, including those from Syria,
will be subject to this stringent security screening. Acting
on my direction, USCIS has developed additional protocols to
aid in the identification of security concerns with regard to
the Syrian population, and the entire Department, along with
the interagency, is committed to continual improvement of
overall security vetting, as new techniques or sources of
information are identified.''
More specifically, the U.S. refugee vetting process for
Syrian refugees includes the following elements as outlined
by Department of Homeland Security officials.
Department of Homeland Security Interviews: Refugees are
interviewed by DHS-USCIS officers to determine whether or not
they can be approved for resettlement to the United States.
These interviews are conducted while refugees are still
abroad.
Consular Lookout and Watch List Check: Biographic checks
are conducted against the State Department's Consular Lookout
and Support System (CLASS)--which includes watch list
information.
Security Advisory Opinions from Intelligence and Other
Agencies: DHS seeks Security Advisory Opinions (SAOs) from
law enforcement and intelligence communities for cases that
meet certain criteria.
National Counterterrorism Center Checks with Intelligence
Agency Support: Interagency checks, known as ``IAC's,'' are
conducted with the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)
for all refugee applicants within a designated age range,
regardless of nationality. In addition, expanded intelligence
community support was added to the IAC process in July 2010,
and recurrent vetting was added in 2015 so that any
intervening derogatory information that is identified after
the initial check has cleared but before the applicant has
traveled to the United States will be provided to DHS.
DHS and FBI BlometrIc Checks: Fingerprints are screened
against the vast biometric holdings of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's Next Generation Identification system, and
are screened and enrolled in DHS's Automated Biometric
Identification System (IDENT). Through IDENT, the applicant's
fingerprints are screened not only against watch fist
information, but also for previous immigration encounters in
the United States and overseas--including cases in which the
applicant previously applied for a visa at a U.S. embassy.
Department of Defense Biometric Screening: Biometric
screening is also conducted through the Department of Defense
(DOD) Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS). ABIS
contains a variety of records, including fingerprint records
captured in Iraq. ABIS screening has been expanded to refugee
applicants of all nationalities who fall within the
prescribed age ranges.
Enhanced Review for Syrian Cases: In addition to the many
biometric and biographic checks conducted, DHS-USCIS has
instituted additional review of Syrian refugee applications.
Before being scheduled for interview by a DHS-USCIS officer
(while the refugee is still abroad), Syrian cases are
reviewed at DHS-USCIS headquarters. All cases that meet
certain criteria are referred to the DHS-USCIS Fraud
Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) for
additional review and research. FDNS conducts open-source and
classified research on referred cases and synthesizes an
assessment for use by the interviewing officer. This
information provides case-specific context relating to
country conditions and regional activity, and is used by the
interviewing officer to inform lines of inquiry related to
the applicant's eligibility and credibility. DHS-USCIS
reports that FDNS engages with law enforcement and
intelligence community members for assistance with identity
verification and acquisition of additional information.
Additional Screening Checks on Entry: When they travel to
the United States, refugees are subject to screening
conducted by DHSU.S. Customs and Border Protection's National
Targeting Center-Passenger and the Transportation Security
Administration's Secure Flight program prior to their
admission to the United States, as is the case with all
individuals traveling to the United States regardless of
immigration program.
Additional Resources
The Wall Street Journal in a video outlines the steps a
refugee must go through to reach the United States.
The New Yorlc Times in an interactive map shows where
Syrian refugees currently reside.
David Miliband: ``There are many ways to come to the United
States. Comparatively the refugee resettlement program is the
most difficult short of swimming the Atlantic.''
Fran Townsend: ``There are no easy answers in Syria, but
it's time to stop acting as if the problems there are too
hard or too complicated. While we cannot right the wrong of
the current poky failure, it is still possible to act now to
both alleviate the consequent suffering and mitigate the
potential future.''
[[Page H8375]]
Governor Nikki Haley: ``These are people who have protected
our troops, these are people who have been persecuted for
being Christian . . . these are people who we took in because
they were unsafe where they were.''
Finally, states cannot unilaterally block resettlement.
Governors do not have the legal authority to determine who
lives in their states. When refugees are legally admitted to
the United States they have the right to move freely
throughout the country.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I do want to say one thing. It strikes me,
as we are having this debate here, that I can't help but take note of
their response in France toward the Syrian refugees. Yesterday, French
President Francois Hollande promised to honor his commitment to take in
tens of thousands of refugees, welcoming 30,000 refugees over the next
2 years. That is 6,000 more than he committed to in September. He also
announced $53.3 million to develop housing for refugees. We have all
invoked the terrible tragedy that happened in France. Let's follow
France's example and be a secure shelter for those most in need.
As I listen to the debate here, one of the troubling things to me is
that there doesn't ever seem to be a tragedy that my friends on the
other side of the aisle don't want to exploit for political gain, and I
think today is no exception. A horrendous terrorist attack happened in
Paris, an attack that has shocked the entire world. This is being used
as an excuse to pass what I consider an ugly bill because this would
shut down a refugee resettlement for Syrians and Iraqis.
This bill is aimed at fueling fear rather than protecting the
American people. We have an exhaustive screening process for refugees
already in place. It takes years for a refugee from Syria to be able to
be admitted to the United States--years. Can we improve the system?
Absolutely. But the opportunity to do that requires us to consult with
one another and to put the results ahead of political gain. But that is
not what happened. We had a bill before the Rules Committee that never
went through committee, that never was marked up, the content of which
was not shared with the Democrats, and a lot of Republicans were locked
out of the process. Here we are with a political document more than
something that is going to do anything to help these people fleeing
violence or help enhance our security. Now, that might be a nice sound
bite in your next campaign, but it is an awful thing to do to a group
of people fleeing war and terror.
Who are these people? They are, as the President stated, widows and
orphans mostly. They are old people trying to be reunited with distant
family members in the United States. They are people who are fleeing
for their lives and who are fleeing the worst terror imaginable. That
used to mean something in this Chamber. We used to care about these
things in a bipartisan way. Apparently, no more.
This Congress is losing its humanity. Here is the deal: we are
behaving in a way that I think reinforces what the terrorists are
trying to communicate to the rest of the world, which is that somehow
we don't care about people from certain parts of the world or we don't
care about people who happen to be Muslim. We have had a lot of people
on the other side of the aisle who have talked about we ought to have a
religious test here and very little condemnation in response to that
from my friends on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, my Republican friends
said that all we are doing is responding to public opinion. Our job is
to be more than just a political weathervane. We have an obligation to
make sure that we state the facts--the real facts. We have an
obligation to tell the truth. We have an obligation to help put issues
in perspective. And, in short, we have an obligation to lead on issues
like this and not be so jittery to pursue policies that we all know are
wrong.
So we are here with a bill that my friends say is so important that
there could be no hearings and no markup on, a bill that is so
important that there could be no consultation on, a bill that is so
important that nobody can offer an amendment on, and we have a bill
that is coming before us in an absolutely closed process.
Let me just close by expressing my deep frustration with this place
and how it is being run. For some time now, I have watched as my
Republican friends have regularly turned their backs on the most
vulnerable populations. There is no more vulnerable population--no more
vulnerable group of people on this planet--than refugees fleeing god-
awful war and terror. Yet, today, they are being thrown under the bus
for political gain. They are being demonized. They are being
characterized as terrorists. Young children, 3-year-old girls, widowed
mothers, and grandmothers are being demonized as terrorists.
{time} 1030
And for what? The American people, I think, expect more from us. What
we are doing here today is not about protecting the American people. It
is not about helping people fleeing war and violence. This is
political. That makes what is happening here today not only
disappointing but, I would say, disgusting.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I share many times the frustration my friend from Massachusetts has
about this place. When I look at what is going on today, my
frustration, frankly, on the floor here has probably grown, considering
that we talk about everything else except what the bill actually does.
We throw up every picture of everything.
I am not sure at what point today--and I can go back through my
remarks. I am not sure where I ever disparaged a refugee, ever said
that the inhumanity and suffering that is going on because of a bunch
of thugs called the Islamic State, that these folks do not need to have
a place to go or humanitarian help, which America has led on from the
beginning. It is easy to say that.
As the gentleman is fond of saying, Mr. Speaker, it makes political
points. Well, the same is true for him and true for our folks across
the aisle. It makes political points for them. The problem is it is not
in the bill. The problem is it is adding an extra layer.
There has been discussion here today about the political whims. Look,
I believe that what is happening right now is a test of two things:
thermometers and thermostats.
This administration is a pretty good thermometer. They will look out
and tell you what they believe the temperature is, and they react to
the world opinion.
I believe today the Republican majority is acting as a thermostat and
moving the temperature and moving the awareness. Because I do not
believe that an event could be ignored if it is not being used. It is
saying there is a warning sign. It is like a warning sign on your
vehicle. You can ignore it, and when it breaks down, you wonder what
happened; or you can say, here is a warning sign, here is what is going
on in the world.
All we are asking for is certification from our highest officials in
security to say these folks have another level of check so that we can
ensure our homeland is protected.
One attack on American soil is too many. The Islamic State has been
clear in their desire to bring America to her knees. The underlying
legislation won't change that. But as the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee stated last night, it will put this administration on notice
that Congress will not be silent.
We will take up the national security mantle that this White House
has so carelessly disregarded. In the weeks ahead, you can expect this
body to bring forward additional legislation reforming both our refugee
and visa waiver programs.
There is no loophole or vulnerability that ISIS won't seek to use to
kill and destroy, and there is no loophole or vulnerability the House
Republicans aren't committed and determined to fix, and I desperately
ask my friends across the aisle to join us.
Our Nation is a beacon of freedom and hope, and no force of evil will
ever change that. No terrorist will ever cause Republicans in this body
to shy away from our duty to our citizens or our duty to the world, and
for that I believe both sides need to come together.
The President stated ISIS is the JV. I believe the families and loved
ones of the recent attacks on an airplane in Paris would not say that,
in fact, would say otherwise.
[[Page H8376]]
The administration's refusal to look the Islamic State in the eye and
declare with a resounding voice that they will be defeated is
devastating, but it isn't the end. Where this White House has failed,
Congress will succeed. We will work tirelessly to restore the faith and
trust of the American people. We will replace political posturing with
policy priorities dealing with our national security, as opposed to
those of a more liberal strategy that we have heard today.
Look, I know my friends across the aisle share the same heart. We
grieve the lives lost. We grieve for those who are caught up in war and
caught up in the devastating attacks by a group of people who,
frankly--ISIS--have no soul. They are blank. Because if you are
agreeable to do the atrocities that they are doing, you just have no
part in a civilized world. You have no part in being acknowledged
except for the animals that you are.
I recognize they are in an impossible position of choosing either the
safety of their constituents or the political strategy of the
President--I understand that--across the aisle.
My hope is that today--today--will be different, that we don't take
the easy ``no'' vote, that we will have the moral courage to make the
decision that says ``no'' to terrorism and ``yes'' to the American
people, a vote that will ensure that our country remains a safe haven
for those the rest of the world has abandoned.
Again, let me repeat this again, because it has been said. I guess if
we say it enough, we believe it to be true.
This does not stop the program. It simply says that, until we can
certify, we are going to make sure that there is an extra level of
protection for the people. It does not shut the program down.
A vote in support of this rule and for H.R. 4038 is what we need. And
after we bow our heads in thanks next week, filled with gratitude for
those who have gone before, we will return with renewed commitment to
further reforms.
Evil will not win. ISIS will not win. With the steadfast spirit and
courage of conviction of those who came before, those who gave their
lives, we will not let the torch of freedom go out on our watch, and we
will continue to fight for those in our country, for their safety, our
sons and daughters, as we continue this fight.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to
the rule governing debate on this bill and the underlying bill H.R.
4038, the ``American Security Against Enemies Act of 2015'' (America
SAFE Act).
This bill represents a rush to judgement.
It has been rushed to the floor without the regular order
deliberative process promised by the House Leadership.
H.R. 4038 was introduced on Tuesday, November 17, 2015, in violation
of House Rules, without consideration or review by the House oversight
committees.
Today, November 19, 2015 it is on the floor for debate and votes.
This bill does not further the national security interest of our
country--in fact it harms those interests.
The United States does have an urgent need to deal with the
humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in the wake of ISIS/ISIL
aggression in Syria and Iraq.
There are 60 million displaced persons because of the war.
The Syrian/Iraqi conflict has claimed over 240,000 lives.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is written as if no process exists for vetting
Iraqi or Syrian refugees.
In fact a very rigorous process is in place that has been honed over
the past several years by intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
They have established and perfected an intense form of screening for
Syrians called the ``Syrian Enhanced Review.''
The American SAFE Act requires a FBI background check for every
refugee from Iraq and Syria who applies for asylum in the United
States, when a much better process is in place that requires the
intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense to vet applicants.
This bill provides that no refugee from Iraq or Syria can be granted
asylum in the United States unless the Director of the FBI, the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Director of
National Intelligence each make an independent determination and concur
unanimously that the applicant for asylum poses no threat to the
national security of the United States.
The FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency--they have an
international presence, but their focus is domestic.
The agencies with an international focus such as the State
Department, DoD, and intelligence agencies under the leadership of DHS
are the experts.
The House process for the consideration and deliberation of
legislation is intended to prevent bad bills from coming to the floor
for a vote.
This bill was drafted in haste--in application it would require a 5
year old child who is Syrian to have to get the FBI, DHS, DoD, and DNI
to agree that she poses no threat to the United States or its people.
This bill is doing damage to our nation's foreign policy interest by
sending a signal to our allies, who are doing much more than the United
States is doing to relieve the suffering of Syrian refugees, while also
facing the threat of terrorism every day.
Mr. Speaker, let me commend Homeland Security Committee Chairman
McCaul, the lead sponsor of the bill before us, with whom I have worked
closely and reached agreement on many matters critical to the security
of our homeland.
Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson
and Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration Ranking Member
Lofgren are dedicated public servants whose actions are always
motivated by their commitment to keep our nation safe and secure.
This bill is purported by supporters as not stopping the refugee
process for Iraq and Syria.
The bill in its language does stop the process--some like to call it
a pause, but is a dead stop in the processing of applications from
Iraqi and Syrian refugees.
They have not read the bill or they do not understand the
consequences of the language that requires certification by the FBI,
DHS, DoD, and DNI that a refugee poses no threat'' in the legislation
if they believe that this bill would not end the refugee process for
Iraqi and Syrian applicants.
The bill calls for 100% certification by the FBI, DHS, DoD, and DNI
that no refugee is a threat.
No professional security or law enforcement professional will give
anyone a 100% guarantee about anything.
They will not provide a 100% guarantee because they believe that
something or someone is a threat--they will not provide a guarantee
because it is grossly unprofessional to do so and we should never ask
them to do this.
On its face H.R. 4038 would end any hope of asylum in the United
States for any refugee from Iraq or Syria.
The U.S. screening process in place is focused upon applications from
women with children, orphans, the seriously ill and the elderly.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4038 is not necessary at this time because our
nation already has in place the world's most rigorous screening process
for refugees seeking asylum.
Mr. Speaker, there are other alternatives to the draconian approach
of H.R. 4038, takes such as the bill introduced by Ranking Members
Thompson and Lofgren.
The President is another solution for those who seek reassurance that
every precaution is being taken--he is in a position to certify to the
Congress and the American people that the process is prudent and
careful in its actions regarding refugees seeking entrance into the
United States.
It is helpful to recount briefly the critical elements of that
screening process.
Every applicant for asylum must:
1. register with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;
2. provide background information, including what caused him or her
to flee their home country (a ready means of comparing information
provided by more than one million refugees to further verify the
validity of the information provided);
3. meet one of five legal qualifications: threat of violence based on
race, religion or faith or national origin; political beliefs; or
membership in a targeted social group.
4. undergo a rigorous background check during which investigators
fact-check the refugee's biography to ensure consistency with published
or documented reports of events such as bombings or other violence;
5. be subjected to biometric tests conducted by the Department of
Defense, in conjunction with other federal agencies (the U.S. military
has an extensive biometric data base on Iraqis from its time in Iraq);
and
6. sit for intensive in-person interviews, which may take months or
years before they are conducted.
If, during the screening process, a person from Syria gives responses
that raise red flags he or she is selected for more intense examination
by U.S. intelligence agencies.
The process for those refugees from the conflict area who have
entered the United States began with the High Commissioner for Refugees
who referred 22,000 applicants to the United States for consideration.
The United States through its process only allowed 7,000 for further
consideration for admittance and in its final decision permitted
[[Page H8377]]
2,000 individuals to be cleared for entrance into the country.
The demographic breakdown of those Syrians who have been approved for
refugee status to come to the United States is as follows: children,
50%; persons over the age of 60, 25%; combat age males, 2%.
H.R. 4038 has come to the floor too fast for such a serious decision
and without considering the arduous process that is in place to screen
all refugees, not just those from Iraq and Syria.
The last thing a terrorist would want is to be a refugee--living in
the harsh environment of a refugee camp for two years.
Refugees are the victims of terrorists--ISIS/ISIL does not love
them--they want to murder every last one of them, because they will not
bow to them.
This rule for this bill troubles me because it has been constructed
on tools that allow Congress to act during times of crisis or
emergencies.
Mr. Speaker a 2-year process does not pose any emergency by any
definition that can be devised.
I cannot support this bill, but I an committed to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find common ground.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 531 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 2. 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.
4079) to require that supplemental certifications and
identity verifications be completed prior to the admission of
refugees. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4079.
____
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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 182, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 638]
YEAS--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--182
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
[[Page H8378]]
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
DeFazio
Ellison
Gowdy
Hinojosa
Ruppersberger
Takai
Watson Coleman
Williams
{time} 1103
Ms. BROWNLEY of California changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 183, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 639]
AYES--242
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Cohen
DeFazio
Ellison
Hinojosa
Ruppersberger
Takai
Watson Coleman
Williams
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1111
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.
____________________